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 April 01, 2017, 10:47:05 AM

Title: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 01, 2017, 10:47:05 AM
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.”

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



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


1810
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 02, 2017, 09:10:32 PM
William Clegg QC has a long history of defending difficult clients, some of whom were presumably bad characters with plenty of previous, and even men accused of war crimes. The remarks on your long list might well have been used by him before, and would have been appropriate to defend, e.g., a Balkan guerrilla who had been present at the massacre of women and children. But to put these same remarks to a jury confronted with the placid Vincent Tabak, who had never been inside a police station before, never had a parking ticket, and was normally cheerful and in robust good health, is a curiosity, to put it mildly.

That is only the beginning of the strange Mr Clegg's defence.

The Prosecutor had a strong case for claiming that Joanna Yeates was murdered (rather than killed accidentally) - even though the evidence that it was Vincent Tabak (rather than another person) who killed her was much weaker - and was not actually tested in court:

(1) Strangling someone accidentally is improbable, unless the victim has a health issue, or the strangler and/or the victim is seriously under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs

(2) Joanna's body sustained 43 injuries, at least some of them incurred prior to death

(3) Her boyfriend testified to "strange movements" indicating a sustained struggle in the flat.

Mr. Clegg certainly knew about points 1 and 2 beforehand, though it is possible that point 3 was not known to the defence until they heard it in court. Nevertheless, his team made no attempt whatsoever to mitigate the damaging influence of these items of evidence on the jury.

(1) Joanna was known to have health issues, as she suffered from really bad headaches, and had been off work the day before she was at the Bristol Ram pub. Mr. Clegg should have ensured that the court heard evidence of her health. He should have cross-examined the pathologist to establish the actual alcohol content of Joanna's blood, as the percentage that the jury heard was hearsay.

(2) Mr. Clegg should have challenged the location at which witnesses in court alleged the body was found, so as to show that at least some of the bruises and grazes were attributable, not to the attack by her assailant, but by the circumstances that handicapped recovery of the body and required fire engines and a crane.

(3) Counsel should have cross-examined Greg Reardon to challenge his claim that he had tidied up the flat so that there were no "strange movements" for Joanna's parents to fall over when they arrived.

Having unaccountably decided to allow his client to admit having entered Joanna's flat at all, letting Vincent Tabak deny categorically that there was any struggle was a giveaway. Since she couldn't tell her side of the story, they didn't HAVE to pretend that Joanna was sparkling one minute, and screaming the next. There was absolutely no need to introduce flirting and kissing, as this could only lead to disaster. It is not my job to speculate, but he could have claimed instead to have inadvertently provoked a tipsy, temperamental Joanna into a rage, for example by declaring that Chris Bates was bound to win the final of "The Apprentice", or that he hated cats, or that she had the sound on her TV turned up so loud that it interfered with the classical music he had been listening to.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 03, 2017, 10:10:59 AM
Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
 


‘If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent
Tabak had gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not be in the dock
today.
She turned on the oven to bake.
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend

She has said she was bored and she was looking for company.
It was the Christmas period and many people were at parties.
In the next flat was Vincent Tabak.
They never really knew each other, save for a nod.
Vincent Tabak was also alone- and bored.
He decided to go to Asda – not for anything special but to fill in time.
He left his flat; was walking towards his car and went past her kitchen window.
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.
Vincent was walking towards his car when he passed Joanna’s kitchen window. She saw
him, there was a nod of acknowledgement and she beckoned him to come in. She had
opened the door and invited him in.
 He took off his coat.
 He hung it on her coat rack.
She offered him a drink and he declined as he was driving.
 She said her boyfriend was away and she was alone and he said that his girlfriend was
away and he was alone.
 Vincent Tabak misread her friendliness toward him and made a move towards her as if he
was about to kiss him on her lips.
He put one hand in the middle of her back as if he was about to kiss her, and she screamed
fiercely.
 He put his hand over her mouth and said sorry and when he moved his hand away she
screamed again.
 He put his hand to her mouth and throat and she went limp. She was dead.
He had never touched her before other than to shake hands as he went into her flat.
That moment was all it took and she was dead.
 Nothing was timed.
He thinks that maybe he was in the flat for 10 minutes before she screamed.
The incident when he put her hand on his throat was far less than a minute.
Defence expert Dr Carey will give evidence on Friday 21 December 2010 on this matter.
Prosecution pathologist expert witness, Dr Delaney, said on 18 October that it may well
have been 10 seconds.
Those arriving at the party at Number 53 said they heard screams.
 It is for the jury to decide whether a scream from inside Flat 1 could be heard from
outside 53 Canynge Road.
The jury will have to decide whether anybody could have heard.
But one thing is that three witnesses heard screams spread out over some ten minutes.
This cannot be.
The couple arriving outside number 53, a short time after they were filmed on CCTV at
number 83.
But the weather conditions were icy. How long did it take them to get there?
Warren Sweet said he did not arrive at Number 53’s party until 8.50pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
 When he arrived at No. 53, Warren Sweet said he heard a scream. That cannot be the
same scream that the couple heard.
 The reaction of all four people who heard screams was initially put down to students out
celebrating as term had finished that day.
You may think that the whole of those screams is totally unconnected.
You just couldn’t hear anybody from that distance.

This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
 Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
It was not something he planned.
 It was, in the words of Dr Delaney, expert prosecution pathologist witness, that death had
occurred in less than half a minute; less than 20 seconds, less than 10 seconds even.
 A very important piece of evidence is that what Tabak wrote in his statement is nearly the
same and corroborated the undisputed pathologist expert witnesses.But his conduct
afterwards was frankly disgusting.
He took her body and disposed of it.
He caused anguish to her family.
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.
He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything.
 It was only a matter of time before the police came to arrest him.
Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that. It shows a very
calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death but it does not help in thinking of
what happened at the flat….
He went to his flat and left Joanna’s flat door on the latch.
He returned.
He turned off the oven that she had turned on.
 He took the Tesco pizza that was in the kitchen.
 He carried the body from her flat to his flat.
He then put her body in the bag that he used to cover his bike.
He then went to get his car, placed the body in the boot of his car, went to Asda, a trip he
formerly planned, and drove aimlessly around whilst deciding what to do.
He tried to put the body over the wall.
It was too heavy and so he left it by the roadside.
When he got back home, he put the pizza, the cycle cover and the sock into a corporate
dustbin.
And then, despite the awful secret that he was carrying, he tried to carry on as before:
going to parties, living with his girlfriend, etc, instead of going to the police.
There will be no excuse from me for that. He will be called to give evidence on Thursday
20 October



He is not being tried for his behaviour after Joanna died. He is not being tried for
dumping the body. What he is being tried for is whether he killed Joanna Yeates,
intending to kill or cause really serious harm to her, or whether, he panicked and did it
without thinking of the consequences.

Quote
Most of what the prosecution has stated does not go this fact: it goes to what happened
afterwards.’

From : http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf    Sally Ramage

I find inconsistencies within this opening speech!!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 03, 2017, 10:20:24 AM
Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
 
 Nothing was timed.


Well I will agree with him on that score.... NOTHING was timed!!!

(1): Trip to Asda

(2): trip to Longwood Lane

(3): The difficulties moving a dead weight around a flat then outside round the building into another flat etc etc.....

(4): The ability to dispose of a body without being seen..

(5): The exact time Joanna Yeates arrived home....

The defence contradicts themselves on many occasions.... With the opening statement saying Joanna Yeates died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm, they don't realise they go on to say later when Dr Vincent Tabak is on the witness stand that he was at home till 9:29pm....

Quote
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.

Well... it couldn't have been your client if you have him in his flat till 9:29pm!!!!!

Quote
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).

Which gives him exactly 1 minute to commit this crime......


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 03, 2017, 11:20:26 AM
From The Mirror :Dated 11th October 211

Quote
"I remember at some point before he was arrested but after Joanna was known to be missing that Tanja and I were staying at her parents' house in Cambridge for Christmas," Tabak's statement said.

"The police had phoned us at least twice while we were there. Tanja and I discussed the business of being asked to help move his car in the icy drive on Saturday December 18.

"Tanja felt maybe we should tell the police but I thought it might wrongly incriminate him and that it probably wasn't important."


With Dr Vincent Tabak refering to Tanja Morson,you would think that was even more reason for her to have been a witness, so she could confirm or deny his statement.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 05, 2017, 11:46:19 AM
Another question.....


If they had Greg Reardon on the stand as a witness, why didn't they have Mr and Mrs Yeates on the stand,... they witnessed the same as Greg... They arrived at the flat being void of their daughter...

I say this because her father found her earring I think underneath the clothes on the floor.. (wish I could find the article... or maybe I've heard him say it on video...)

So, why was just Greg a witness?????????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 05, 2017, 01:22:28 PM
Another question.....

If they had Greg Reardon on the stand as a witness, why didn't they have Mr and Mrs Yeates on the stand,... they witnessed the same as Greg... They arrived at the flat being void of their daughter...

I say this because her father found her earring I think underneath the clothes on the floor.. (wish I could find the article... or maybe I've heard him say it on video...)

So, why was just Greg a witness?????????
Most sources report that Greg told the court that it was he who found the earrings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html

"Mr Reardon said that he found a pair of his girlfriend's earrings in the bedroom. One was in the bed and the other earring was on the floor under some clothes. Mr Reardon said that he only found one of the fasteners and that usually when she removed her earrings she left them on the bedside table."

It would have been more than "helpful" if Joanna's parents too had gone into the witness box, especially to tell the court what they saw in the flat that convinced them within 30 minutes of their arrival that Joanna had been abducted. At the time of the first TV appeal, they appeared to have an open mind, so both Greg and the police may have persuaded them that she might have left of her own volition. Rebecca Scott was called by the prosecution to testify that Jo and Greg were "the real deal".
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 05, 2017, 01:27:01 PM
Most sources report that Greg told the court that it was he who found the earrings.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html

"Mr Reardon said that he found a pair of his girlfriend's earrings in the bedroom. One was in the bed and the other earring was on the floor under some clothes. Mr Reardon said that he only found one of the fasteners and that usually when she removed her earrings she left them on the bedside table."

It would have been more than "helpful" if Joanna's parents too had gone into the witness box, especially to tell the court what they saw in the flat that convinced them within 30 minutes of their arrival that Joanna had been abducted. At the time of the first TV appeal, they appeared to have an open mind, so both Greg and the police may have persuaded them that she might have left of her own volition. Rebecca Scott was called by the prosecution to testify that Jo and Greg were "the real deal".



Have you got any of Rebecca Scotts testimony... I'd be really interested to find out about that phone call she had with Joanna Yeates that originally lasted for 15 minutes, yet it couldn't have done as she was seen in Tesco at 8:36pm  and Rebecca Scott says she rang at 8:30pm and of course Joanna Yeates is not talking to anyone as she buys her Pizza!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 05, 2017, 01:39:15 PM
Have you got any of Rebecca Scotts testimony... I'd be really interested to find out about that phone call she had with Joanna Yeates that originally lasted for 15 minutes, yet it couldn't have done as she was seen in Tesco at 8:36pm  and Rebecca Scott says she rang at 8:30pm and of course Joanna Yeates is not talking to anyone as she buys her Pizza!!
It was at 8.30 p.m. on 17th December 2010, Rebecca Scott said, when Joanna called her and said how she would like to see her in Swansea, where her best friend was studying for a Ph.D. Rebecca Scott said that the winter snow had left buses and trains cancelled, and she was staying in that night. She told the court: “We had a laugh and a joke about the previous time we had seen each other. She wasn’t drunk at all. She was just Jo. She was perfectly normal.”

Some reports of Rebecca’s testimony give the timing of the call as 8.13 p.m., but this may be due to her tendency to slur her words and the close resemblance between the sound of “thirty” and “thirteen”.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 05, 2017, 01:43:34 PM
It was at 8.30 p.m. on 17th December 2010, Rebecca Scott said, when Joanna called her and said how she would like to see her in Swansea, where her best friend was studying for a Ph.D. Rebecca Scott said that the winter snow had left buses and trains cancelled, and she was staying in that night. She told the court: “We had a laugh and a joke about the previous time we had seen each other. She wasn’t drunk at all. She was just Jo. She was perfectly normal.”

Some reports of Rebecca’s testimony give the timing of the call as 8.13 p.m., but this may be due to her tendency to slur her words and the close resemblance between the sound of “thirty” and “thirteen”.

Surely she would have signed a witness statement which states the exact time of this phone call!!!

Still would make a 15 minutes phone call impossible as she was seen going from shop to shop Not speaking on the telephone... she did look at a text whilst in Bargain Booze, and went back to get another bottle of cider as her mother said on a video!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 05, 2017, 01:48:14 PM
Surely she would have signed a witness statement which states the exact time of this phone call!!!

Still would make a 15 minutes phone call impossible as she was seen going from shop to shop Not speaking on the telephone... she did look at a text whilst in Bargain Booze, and went back to get another bottle of cider as her mother said on a video!!
I agree. Rebecca Scott gave a video interview to the press at the time, and even answered questions:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2011/jan/12/joanna-yeates-final-phone-call-video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w24ccKZqsH4
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 05, 2017, 01:58:40 PM
Regarding the earrings, the ones that were found in the flat were not the ones Jo had been wearing that day. I read that when she was found, her ear studs were still in place------trouble is, I don't remember where I read it!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 05, 2017, 02:05:39 PM
Regarding the earrings, the ones that were found in the flat were not the ones Jo had been wearing that day. I read that when she was found, her ear studs were still in place------trouble is, I don't remember where I read it!

I'll find it mrswah... I am positive it was the ear-ring she was wearing that day... and I'm sure it was her father who found the one under her clothing... I believe it was the back of her earring that was still attached to her ear!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 05, 2017, 02:16:19 PM
I'll find it mrswah... I am positive it was the ear-ring she was wearing that day... and I'm sure it was her father who found the one under her clothing... I believe it was the back of her earring that was still attached to her ear!!

Quote
The attack may have started in the hallway, which was found in a chaotic state. It could have continued in the bedroom: one of the earrings Yeates is thought to have been wearing was discovered beneath the duvet. T

Still need to find the quote or video of her dad saying he found her other earr-ing underneath clothes on the floor...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 05, 2017, 06:17:02 PM
I was thinking about the sentencing of Dr Vincent Tabak and how quickly the Judge passed sentence, there was NO medical reports made as mitigating circumstances.. No leniency for a plea of guilty.. I don't remember any victim impact statements..

How did the Judge come to his decision based on what??? Surely Dr Vincent Tabaks behaviour whilst in custody was without fault..

Why didn't the judge defer sentencing whilst all the reports came in????
Where were the background reports???

Quote
Verdicts and sentencing

After listening to all the evidence in a case the District Judge or a jury, in a Crown Court, will decide on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the defendant is found guilty, the judge in the case will decide on the appropriate sentence.



If a defendant is found not guilty, by the magistrate, jury or judge, they will be 'acquitted' and free to go.

If the defendant pleads guilty or is found guilty by the judge or jury, they are convicted and the judge will pass sentence.

If you are a victim or witness in the case and have left the court before the trial has ended and would like to know the outcome of the case, you can contact the person who asked you to come to court. They will be able to give you the information on the sentence. Their contact details should be on any correspondence they send to you. 

Sentencing considerations and options

Sentencing may be carried out on the day of the trial or it may be adjourned to get reports, or it may be deferred (put back to a future date) to see how the defendant behaves. If it is deferred, the defendant will have to come back to court at a later date to receive their sentence.

It is the judge alone who decides on the sentence. They are guided by a number of considerations:

the maximum sentence they can give, which is usually set by Parliament for the offence
whether the defendant pleaded guilty or not - if the defendant pleaded guilty, the judge can reduce (discount) the sentence, the biggest discount will usually be given for those who plead guilty at the earliest opportunity
the level of sentences in similar cases in the past - this is called ‘case law’
the powers of the court - a Crown Court can issue much higher penalties than a magistrates’ court
any ‘pleas in mitigation’ or circumstances set out in background reports
any Victim Impact Report, which is prepared by an expert, for example a psychologist
any Victim Impact Statement made by the victim of the crime
The judge can give either a custodial or non-custodial sentence

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/verdicts-and-sentencing
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on April 05, 2017, 09:23:09 PM


Have you got any of Rebecca Scotts testimony... I'd be really interested to find out about that phone call she had with Joanna Yeates that originally lasted for 15 minutes, yet it couldn't have done as she was seen in Tesco at 8:36pm  and Rebecca Scott says she rang at 8:30pm and of course Joanna Yeates is not talking to anyone as she buys her Pizza!!

Whyever not?  I see people in the supermarket all the time speaking on their mobile phone as they shop.

Some minor edits have been carried out on this thread according to forum rules.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 06, 2017, 12:30:06 PM
OMG.... Have I had a eureka moment???????
I don't know I could be mistaken, but lets see......

Quote
3.3. The court clerk told the jury that Vincent Tabak was charged with the ‘murder of
Joanna Yeates between 16 and 19 December last year’. He informed the jury that the
defendant had pleaded ‘not guilty’ to murder and that it was the jury's job to say whether
he was guilty or not, of murder.

I think I have been missing this all along....... it was a Murder Trial, plain and simple if what I am reading here is correct....

The Manslaughter plea didn't count as far as I am reading into this...  He was being tried for MURDER!!!!! where does it say if he's found not guilty that it would be Manslaughter?????

I think maybe it an assumpsion... I could be wrong, but if he was found not guilty would the Manslaughter plea still stand??????

Did the Jury have the option to find him guilty of Manslaughter?????

Was that ever a possibility??? If they had found him NOT Guilty ... then what????? what would have happened then???

We have all assumed ,if I am correct that he would have been found guilty of manslaughter... am I on the right track here??? or have I got it wrong???

So if he was found NOT GUILTY.. could he then change his Manslaughter Plea ???? And knowing what evidence was available be able to have a proper defence???  Or would the judge sentence him on the Manslaughter Plea???


Is that it...... They only had to find him GUILTY of MURDER??????? They had NO Other Choice?????


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 06, 2017, 12:57:59 PM
Is that it.... he's been charged with MURDER!!!!


What did he sign???? A statement of what was supposed to be what happened on the 17th December 2010???

When he went to court in September what did he actually sign???????? A statement to events????

The Plea is codswallop!!!  Think about it..... everyone knew he made the plea... So we are told that he only has to be found guilty or not of Murder, and without repeating myself ,which of course I'm gonna do... The court case "TRIAL" was a murder trial!!!

Plain....Simple as that.... So when the Jury retired they had to find him guilty of "Murder" OR "NOT GUILTY og "Murder"

That is why you have a jury undecided.... He's apparently admitted to Manslaughter so they know he is guilty of something...

But was it there choice to find him guilty of Manslaughter..... I don't think do..... The Charge was "MURDER"...

So if a jury going to a jury room have only 2 choices Guilty or Not guilty... what do they do if they find him NOT Guilty, when they believe he has killed her, because of the statement and him sitting on the stand!!!

They are going for the guilty... if there isn't an option to find for Manslaughter,...

Does anyone know what the choices the Jury had?????

EDIT:..... The Plea is the Prosecutions Evidence that it was Dr Vincent Tabak... the Plea alone is what buried him, they had NO evidence apart from this Plea, thats what I feel  uncomfortable with, something is extremely Unsound here!!! (IMO)

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 06, 2017, 01:25:54 PM
OMG.... Have I had a eureka moment???????
...
That is brilliant, Pythagoras! It does mean that, when delivering their verdict, the foreman of the jury could in principle have told the judge that they believed they hadn't heard all the evidence, and that they were sceptical about the testimony given by the defendant. However, I sympathise with the youthful jury in deliberating as they did - they were entitled to trust the judge, who, yawning, had failed to live up to their reasonable expectations.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 06, 2017, 01:36:58 PM
That is brilliant, Pythagoras! It does mean that, when delivering their verdict, the foreman of the jury could in principle have told the judge that they believed they hadn't heard all the evidence, and that they were sceptical about the testimony given by the defendant. However, I sympathise with the youthful jury in deliberating as they did - they were entitled to trust the judge, who, yawning, had failed to live up to their reasonable expectations.


What choices did the jury have.... a simple question... they may have been able to ask questions, but as far as the trial was concerned, where the choices simply to do with the charge of "Murder"???

(1): Guilty of Murder

(2): Not Guilty of Murder

I go for clarity, when reminded recently about a case of Joint enterprise, when one of the defendants was clearly guilty and the other defendant was clearly innocent... The judge directed the jury to find them BOTH GUILTY or Both INNOCENT....

The Jury went for Guilty!!! unfair but true....

So... what and how did the Judge direct the jury in this case?????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 06, 2017, 01:39:46 PM
Whyever not?  I see people in the supermarket all the time speaking on their mobile phone as they shop.

Some minor edits have been carried out on this thread according to forum rules.
I am too busy posting on internet forums to go into supermarkets myself, but I have people to do that for me. However, I have heard that it is common for people to multi-task in this way. Be that as it may, none of the CCTV captured of Joanna herself shows her using her mobile phone at all. The court was evidently shown some CCTV footage that was not made public, since one of the news media reported that she was seen texting while she was in Bargain Booze. This struck me as curious, since none of the timings reported for the texts she sent corresponds with the time she was in Bargain Booze. These timings, of course, were not confirmed by a witness under oath, so they should be treated as hearsay.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 06, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
...
So... what and how did the Judge direct the jury in this case?????
"It is your task to decide if you are sure that when he strangled Joanna he intended to kill her or at the very least cause her really serious harm," said the judge. "If you are sure your verdict will be guilty. If you are not sure your verdict must be not guilty."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 06, 2017, 01:50:15 PM
"It is your task to decide if you are sure that when he strangled Joanna he intended to kill her or at the very least cause her really serious harm," said the judge. "If you are sure your verdict will be guilty. If you are not sure your verdict must be not guilty."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury


So they only had 2 choices........ EUREKA!!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 06, 2017, 01:56:52 PM
Question?????

Is the Plea ever mentioned at the Murder Trial ?????

This is extremely important.....  Does the fact that at The Old Bailey.. Dr Vincent Tabak entered a Plea ever get mentioned in The murder trial??????

I don't believe it does!!!!! Someone enlighten me please

This is from The Plea Topic....


I'll ask why the defence even bothered putting Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand?????

If they only has 2 choices... Guilty or Not Guilty of Murder... why on earth did the defence council put their client on the witness stand???????

This is really worrying.... The prosecutions case was weak!!! they had nothing....

So I'll ask again and again....WHY did the defence put Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand???????

The only evidence that he apparently committed this crime is his EXTREMELY WEAK STATEMENT... where was the proof to back this statement up???

They could have quite simply made the prosecution prove that he even did this crime.... he could have withdrawn his plea at anytime.... He didn't NEED to take the STAND!!!!

The Defence buried him in more ways than one (IMO)....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 06, 2017, 02:17:58 PM
"It is your task to decide if you are sure that when he strangled Joanna he intended to kill her or at the very least cause her really serious harm," said the judge. "If you are sure your verdict will be guilty. If you are not sure your verdict must be not guilty."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury


Quote
The judge told the jury that the task of deciding on a verdict was a heavy responsibility. Manslaughter was a serious offence but murder a "much graver one".

But it doesn't state that their choice was Manslaughter... that has just been accepted as given, he's letting them know which  is a more serious offence, not that they have the option as far as I can tell.... But adds weight in peoples mind that Manslaughter had been mentioned at The Old Bailey...

If Manslaughter is NOT an Option for the Jury... why does the Judge even mention it??????

Quote
He explained that for the panel to convict Tabak of murder it must be sure that he had intended to kill Yeates or cause her really serious bodily injury.

So... Murder or Not????

Quote
Tabak, 33, has admitted the manslaughter of his neighbour but denies her murder.

This is a statement by the newspaper and not the judge..... Keeping in the publics mind that he committed this crime...

Still the Jury have on 2 choices....

Quote
He explained that for the panel to convict Tabak of murder it must be sure that he had intended to kill Yeates or cause her really serious bodily injury.

It doesn't say anything about Manslaughter!!!! we just presume!!!!

Quote
Field spelled out how crucial parts of Tabak's story had only emerged when his defence began in court. He reminded the panel that the prosecution alleged he had "tailored" or "invented" his case.


Yes I agree with the Prosecution..... the whole tale on the stand was invented!!!! because it didn't happen (IMO)

So If he hadn't taken the stand... would he have been found guilty of MURDER??????? I don't believe so....

What on earth was this trial....  It gets weirder the more you look at it....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 06, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
My retired-lawyer husband tells me that someone in VT's position, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but charged with murder, would normally be convicted of manslaughter if not found guilty of murder.

The only exception would be, if the prosecution really messed up, and the judge decided there was no case to answer, or if the judge didn't believe the confession, or if he thought the defendant needed a psychiatric assessment, very rare, but possible, apparently.

Oh, those mobile phone addicts in supermarkets------don't they get on your nerves!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 06, 2017, 07:51:17 PM
I am too busy posting on internet forums to go into supermarkets myself, but I have people to do that for me. However, I have heard that it is common for people to multi-task in this way. Be that as it may, none of the CCTV captured of Joanna herself shows her using her mobile phone at all. The court was evidently shown some CCTV footage that was not made public, since one of the news media reported that she was seen texting while she was in Bargain Booze. This struck me as curious, since none of the timings reported for the texts she sent corresponds with the time she was in Bargain Booze. These timings, of course, were not confirmed by a witness under oath, so they should be treated as hearsay.

Yep, I agree with you here, Leonora!!!

Lucky old you, having someone to go to the supermarket for you. I am insanely jealous!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 06, 2017, 08:00:16 PM
I am too busy posting on internet forums to go into supermarkets myself, but I have people to do that for me. However, I have heard that it is common for people to multi-task in this way. Be that as it may, none of the CCTV captured of Joanna herself shows her using her mobile phone at all. The court was evidently shown some CCTV footage that was not made public, since one of the news media reported that she was seen texting while she was in Bargain Booze. This struck me as curious, since none of the timings reported for the texts she sent corresponds with the time she was in Bargain Booze. These timings, of course, were not confirmed by a witness under oath, so they should be treated as hearsay.

I can't find the video of her mother... but her mother says something along the lines of:... Joanna Buys 1 bottle of cider, looks at her phone and goes back to buy another bottle of cider, because it made Jo's mum smile when her mum says that...

These CCTV's need a proper look at!!

As for working out text timings...
Quote
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.

What time did she reply... At Home on my Tod'??????

Interestingly NOT divulged!!!!!!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 07, 2017, 11:08:43 AM
The first man friend she contacted on her way was BDP architect Samuel Huscroft, who had planned to go to the Bristol Ram pub with the others, but who went home instead, as he was not feeling well. She texted him: “Where are you this fine evening?” He texted back but claims that he did not receive a reply.

She also contacted a former colleague, Peter Lindsell. At 8.12 p.m. she texted him: “Peter, where art thou?! Jx”. He replied immediately that he was about to board a train at Bristol’s “Ye Olde Temple Meads” Station to Reading, where he was attending a wedding that weekend.

At 8.24 p.m. she texted Peter Lindsell again: “On my tod, just thinking about how much fun your birthday was.” He thought this was an odd comment, because she was referring to his BBQ in April 2009, and could not think why she would make that comment. He replied at 8.25 p.m., offering to meet up with Joanna and Greg for a drink – either before Christmas or after. “I took it from her text that she was at a loose end, which is why I suggested the drink, because I had not seen Greg or Jo for such a long time,” he said. “After that text, I didn’t hear any more from Jo, but didn't think that was unusual.”
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 07, 2017, 11:22:32 AM
The first man friend she contacted on her way was BDP architect Samuel Huscroft, who had planned to go to the Bristol Ram pub with the others, but who went home instead, as he was not feeling well. She texted him: “Where are you this fine evening?” He texted back but claims that he did not receive a reply.

She also contacted a former colleague, Peter Lindsell. At 8.12 p.m. she texted him: “Peter, where art thou?! Jx”. He replied immediately that he was about to board a train at Bristol’s “Ye Olde Temple Meads” Station to Reading, where he was attending a wedding that weekend.

At 8.24 p.m. she texted Peter Lindsell again: “On my tod, just thinking about how much fun your birthday was.” He thought this was an odd comment, because she was referring to his BBQ in April 2009, and could not think why she would make that comment. He replied at 8.25 p.m., offering to meet up with Joanna and Greg for a drink – either before Christmas or after. “I took it from her text that she was at a loose end, which is why I suggested the drink, because I had not seen Greg or Jo for such a long time,” he said. “After that text, I didn’t hear any more from Jo, but didn't think that was unusual.”

I understand what you say leonora...

but I'm taking the texts from the Sally Ramage papers and believe what she writes must be accurate...

 And Joanna Yeates Reply is that she is "At home.. on my Tod"...

Thats why I questioned it... and what time she arrived home...

would you link were you got your info from please..
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 07, 2017, 11:48:57 AM
I understand what you say leonora...

but I'm taking the texts from the Sally Ramage papers and believe what she writes must be accurate...

 And Joanna Yeates Reply is that she is "At home.. on my Tod"...

Thats why I questioned it... and what time she arrived home...

would you link were you got your info from please..
The text I posted was my own compilation from several different sources. The following link is typical:

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/joanna-yeates-dreading-spending-weekend/story-13546661-detail/story.html

No other source suggested that Joanna could have been at home by 8.24 p.m., so I think that on this point Sally Ramage was mistaken. I suspect that "at home" refers to Samuel Huscroft.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 07, 2017, 12:01:18 PM
The text I posted was my own compilation from several different sources. The following link is typical:

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/joanna-yeates-dreading-spending-weekend/story-13546661-detail/story.html

No other source suggested that Joanna could have been at home by 8.24 p.m., so I think that on this point Sally Ramage was mistaken. I suspect that "at home" refers to Samuel Huscroft.



No it's her reply to peter.....

Quote
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.

Samuel Ashcroft was "At Home"....  but her reply it to Peter who is going to a wedding and is at the station in Bristol.. So that is why I am questioning it.....

What time did she send Peter a reply.....????

Again I believe no one takes notice.... because they already KNOW that Samuel Ashcroft had mentioned the words "At Home"...

So it being mentioned again.. I think it just gets over looked... But it was Joanna Yeates reply to PETER!!

The third male friend is kept quite... don't know the timings of that and what was said!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 07, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
The text I posted was my own compilation from several different sources. The following link is typical:

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/joanna-yeates-dreading-spending-weekend/story-13546661-detail/story.html

No other source suggested that Joanna could have been at home by 8.24 p.m., so I think that on this point Sally Ramage was mistaken. I suspect that "at home" refers to Samuel Huscroft.

I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 07, 2017, 12:49:52 PM


No it's her reply to peter.....

Samuel Ashcroft was "At Home"....  but her reply it to Peter who is going to a wedding and is at the station in Bristol.. So that is why I am questioning it.....

What time did she send Peter a reply.....????

Again I believe no one takes notice.... because they already KNOW that Samuel Ashcroft had mentioned the words "At Home"...

So it being mentioned again.. I think it just gets over looked... But it was Joanna Yeates reply to PETER!!

The third male friend is kept quite... don't know the timings of that and what was said!!
Jurors also heard a statement from Matthew Wood, who was a school friend of Miss Yeates' older brother Chris. Mr Wood, a project manager, said he lived in Bristol and had been asked by Chris Yeates to show his sister around the city after she moved there in 2008.

He said over the next two years they met up socially a dozen times to go for a drink. Mr Wood said it was rare for him and Miss Yeates to contact each other by text message as they usually communicated by Facebook. However, at 8.26pm he received a text from her, which said: "Matt, are you out tonight?"

Mr Wood said that he was at his staff Christmas party and did not see the message until 9.22pm but immediately replied and said: "At office party. Not sure what I'm doing later." He said he never got a reply.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-victim-274748
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 07, 2017, 12:54:31 PM
I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.

That's what I always assumed mrswah... That was until I read the Sally Ramage papers...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 07, 2017, 12:55:43 PM
Jurors also heard a statement from Matthew Wood, who was a school friend of Miss Yeates' older brother Chris. Mr Wood, a project manager, said he lived in Bristol and had been asked by Chris Yeates to show his sister around the city after she moved there in 2008.

He said over the next two years they met up socially a dozen times to go for a drink. Mr Wood said it was rare for him and Miss Yeates to contact each other by text message as they usually communicated by Facebook. However, at 8.26pm he received a text from her, which said: "Matt, are you out tonight?"

Mr Wood said that he was at his staff Christmas party and did not see the message until 9.22pm but immediately replied and said: "At office party. Not sure what I'm doing later." He said he never got a reply.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-victim-274748

I wonder what made her text him, if they only ever connected via facebook.... Are we positive this was a TEXT and not a facebook text message.. on a chat??????


Doesn't that beg a question...as she didn't normally Text him??????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 07, 2017, 03:42:40 PM
That's what I always assumed mrswah... That was until I read the Sally Ramage papers...

Well, I did find another mistake in Sally's account---can't recall what it was now. Will look it up!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 07, 2017, 04:06:04 PM
I remember now : Sally mentioned that Vincent and Tanja had complained about Chris Jefferies allegedly spying at his tenants. I don't think it was V and T  who complained: I think it was previous tenants.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 07, 2017, 04:16:50 PM
I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.
That was because the police wanted us to believe that "home" was where she was headed. It is possible that she did indeed enter her flat 9 minutes after leaving Tesco, having passed Fr. Henwood on the way - but her last-minute purchase of the pizza in Tesco (instead of Waitrose) - even though there was already another frozen pizza sitting in the freezer in her flat - suggests that her unidentified text to an unidentified person m/f while she was in Bargain Booze - resulted in an agreement to share a pizza at that other person's flat, presumably close to Clifton Village. She would have been famished by this time. So I think we should keep an open mind about whether she was on her way "home".
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on April 11, 2017, 02:00:42 PM
My retired-lawyer husband tells me that someone in VT's position, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but charged with murder, would normally be convicted of manslaughter if not found guilty of murder.

The only exception would be, if the prosecution really messed up, and the judge decided there was no case to answer, or if the judge didn't believe the confession, or if he thought the defendant needed a psychiatric assessment, very rare, but possible, apparently.

Oh, those mobile phone addicts in supermarkets------don't they get on your nerves!!!!

That's correct, if the jury could not agree on the murder charge they could ask the Judge if they could return a guilty verdict on a lesser charge.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 12, 2017, 08:50:34 PM
I had to add this... Just posted on twitter minutes ago...

Quote
There are many expert witnesses who actually waste the court's time in that they do not contribute much in their short statement and most times are never cross-examined. The Bristol Crown Court case of R v Vincent Tabak [2011] is one example of a case in which experts on both sides said a few sentences (effectively, that a person could be strangled in 20 seconds) and nothing else, followed by no cross-examination whatsoever. In this same case defence barrister failed dismally (in my own humble opinion) to cross-examine another expert witness for the prosecution- a police computer expert- not one single word of cross-examination- not even to check qualifications. With regard to fraud cases that achieve a trial when a fraud is allegedly discovered and the alleged perpetrator(s) are charged with offences, accountants very well know that for a fraud investigator auditor to have detected a certain fraud, he or she must have designed or used a computer programme to detect that specific type of fraud and only that one type of fraud. Such computer programmes are so specific to a particular type of fraud that the fraud investigator seeking to detect say, 'multiple payee fraud' is unlikely to detect another type of fraud, say 'duplicate payee fraud' even though the latter fraud may be present in the transaction selected for examination. So often, fraud investigators make a lot of noise about their investigation (often using the media, etc) in the hope of scaring off fraud perpetrators or those with such intentions, much like terrorism investigations.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-expert-witnesses-part-response-recent-linkedin-sally-ramage
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 13, 2017, 10:06:19 AM
The whole quote below is only there so the information doesn't disappear... I have used part of it in my post...


Quote
28/10/2011

Conviction and sentencing of Vincent Tabak for the murder of Joanna Yeates

Ann Reddrop, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service South West Complex Casework Unit said:

“Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Joanna Yeates. Today he has been convicted by a jury in Bristol of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her no harm.

“He was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend with whom he maintained a “normal” relationship - even going so far as to text her shortly after Joanna was dead to say he was bored.

“He manipulated the police by virtue of his own in-depth research on the Internet to keep one step ahead of the investigation before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.

“He made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Joanna’s death which sought to cast her in an unfavourable light and he kept this up even when he was giving evidence to the jury. Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him being convicted of a brutal murder. He was wrong.

“Joanna went missing on 17 December 2010 after meeting friends for drinks. For several days the police mounted a missing person enquiry but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Day it became a murder investigation. The police team undertook a painstaking enquiry into this murder and Vincent Tabak became the focus of their attention following the finding of his DNA on Joanna’s body

“Late in December 2010 the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna’s murder and began preparing the case for trial.

“In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna, but that was only part of the story. The Crown’s case is and always has been that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.

“Joanna’s family has been here in Bristol during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence. Our thoughts are with them today as Tabak begins a life sentence for killing their daughter.”



I overlook things constantly.... I re-read and then it pops out;...

Quote
“Late in December 2010 the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna’s murder and began preparing the case for trial.

What evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak was the CPS lady assisting the Police with in late December 2010????

What evidence could she have possibiiy reviewed????

 How in late December 2010 Can the CPS be looking at Dr Vincent Tabak in connection to the murder of Joanna Yeates ?????

By admitting this then that in turn PROVES that the HOLLAND interview was that of a suspect and not an interview as a witness....

If they had gone over to Holland with what appear to be the sole purpose of Interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as a SUSPECT... why did they not interview him Under Caution!!!!

They have colluded in (IMO) to make a case against Dr Vincent Tabak in late December 2010..

Lets not forget :

Quote
Now as I'm re watching the video " Killers: Vincent Tabak"... The lady from the CPS says this: at 28:03 mins


The Police having had his DNA sample obtained voluntarily in Holland and checked against... erm.. findings on Jo's body.. discovered that it was his DNA was on her body...and that was one of the key factors, that lead to the planned arrest of him later in January..

What were the other key factors?????

So in the whole of January the CPS were preparing the case against Dr Vincent Tabak when they had NO evidence against the Dutchman in the first place.......

Don't forget.. the supposed Sobbing Girl had not materialized at this point!

What on earth does that say?

The evidence in December that the Police had against Dr Vincent Tabak was "ZERO"....  (And I never believed they had any in the first place )why would the police go to the CPS with evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak in December???

Thats says two things for starters..

(1):.. they came straight back from holland on the 31st December 2010 and LCG Forensics got a test sample of his matched immediatley against the Sample of Joanna Yeates ... for them to have anything whatsoever to bring to the CPS..

But they keep telling untruths about the timing of them having a profile from samples on Joanna Yeates body...
Between 48 hours and weeks... (So I believe Lyndsey Lennen's version, it took 48 Hours)

(2): If we accept number (1): and they turned it all around got a DNA sample  from Dr Vincent Tabak processed in the same day as 31st December 2010, that in itself is not enough evidence for the CPS to build a case against Dr Vincent Tabak.

I would love to see the records of the Date of the match on the 31st December 2010,

It was a partial DNA sample on Joanna Yeates... transfer was always possible.. cross contamination was another possibility , which ant Defence lawyer worth there salt could have easily of discredited...

Which makes that evidence useless....

What did the CPS do???? They are admitting they started their case against Dr Vincent Tabak in late December 2010..  But how is that even possible???????


EDIT.....
Looking at (2) again.. how would the CPS have seen the police on the 31st December 2010 ??

Firstly they need to go over to Holland... get a 6 hour interview in progress.. finish interview, get a plane back to Bristol.. PHYSICALLY take the sample to LGC Forensics.... Get the results... then got to the CPS lady all on the same day.....Not Possible (IMO) What time did the lady of the CPS work till on NEW YEARS EVE???

Was this test rushed???? Was ever precaution taken to ensure all protocols were followed...

It just sounds like it was before that date.......


http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/10/conviction-and-sentencing-of-vincent-tabak-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates.html
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 13, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
Just had a little thought..... Other key factors

Did the police originally take the image of Dr Vincent Tabak driving on "Park Street" to the CPS????

The media made much about Dr Vincent Tabak driving around bristol with the body of Joanna Yeates in the boot of the car....

The image of Dr Vincent Tabak of him on park street is dated the 18th December 2010... The reason for him being on Park Street at this time was because he had gotten lost whilst going to pick Tanja up from her works party..

He rang Tanja for directions... So there would be a call log....

Did they suddenly realise that about Park Street and thats why the Asda trips becomes relevant???

Oddly enough the CCTV on the Asda video doesn't have a timestamp..... I wonder why that is???

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 13, 2017, 11:01:51 AM
Other key factors


Late December.....

(1): No DNA Evidence

(2): No evidence of him going to Asda

(3): No Sobbing Girl

(4): No Coat fibres

(5): No Searches made on his laptop

(6): No witness statement saying about what he may or may not have said at a party

(7): No CCTV Footage of him going across Clifton Suspension Bridge

(8); No searching his work computers

(9): No computer porn

(10); No Timelines from his mobile phone

(11): No emails to and from Tanja

(12): No CCTV footage of him following Joanna Yeates

(13):No Forensic's connecting Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates

(14); No search of his car

(15):No Maps of Longwood Lane

(16):No person with negative comments about Dr Vincent Tabak

(17): No finger prints

(18): No witness seeing him commit this crime

(19):No evidence that he went into Joanna Yeates Flat

(20):NO MOTIVE

So what were the Other key factors that the CPS were reviewing in regards to charging Dr Vincent Tabak?

Because I can't see any!!!!!

Nearly forgot..... No Chaplain confession Rubbish And No Plea

So what did the CPS want to charge Dr Vincent Tabak with????

Being an upright citizen ??



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 13, 2017, 11:58:45 AM
Why didn't the Defence challenge the initial charges... and what evidence did they initailly have to arrest and charge Dr Vincent Tabak, as the DNA alone would not have been surficiant ...

Quote
In any case in which material evidence against a person consists of a DNA or fingerprint or other forensic analysis, confirmation of the match report, accompanied by other supporting evidence in the case, or positive fingerprint identification will suffice for the purposes of making a charging decision and for the magistrates’ court initial hearing.

They had No finger prints to prove identity....

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/dpp_guidance_5_annex_a.html


The Evidential Stage

Quote
4.4 Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be.

What evidence did they have against Dr Vincent Tabak when they planned the arrest and prosecution of Dr Vincent Tabak in Dec/Jan...

Quote
4.5 The finding that there is a realistic prospect of conviction is based on the prosecutor's objective assessment of the evidence, including the impact of any defence, and any other information that the suspect has put forward or on which he or she might rely. It means that an objective, impartial and reasonable jury or bench of magistrates or judge hearing a case alone, properly directed and acting in accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge alleged. This is a different test from the one that the criminal courts themselves must apply. A court may only convict if it is sure that the defendant is guilty.

What realistic prospect of a conviction did the CPS have in January 2011??

Quote
Can the evidence be used in court?

Prosecutors should consider whether there is any question over the admissibility of certain evidence. In doing so, prosecutors should assess:

the likelihood of that evidence being held as inadmissible by the court; and
the importance of that evidence in relation to the evidence as a whole.
Is the evidence reliable?

Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to question the reliability of the evidence, including its accuracy or integrity.


Well they were more than aware that the Porn was not admissible... The searches too should have been challenged

Quote
Is the evidence credible?

Prosecutors should consider whether there are any reasons to doubt the credibility of the evidence.



Oh Yes... plenty of doubts with this evidence.....

Why knowing that the case against Dr Vincent Tabak was lack luster to say the least did the CPS insist on persuing the case against Dr Vincent Tabak.. when in reality they had no evidence against him????

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 14, 2017, 12:49:49 AM
I mentioned earlier, that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen on Park Street.....

There is only one image of the car that they have said belongs to Dr Vincent Tabak on Park Street....

I was looking to see if I could see the number plate... Wing mirrors etc..And I saw something else......I have circled it....

In the red circle of the picture of the car appear what looks like is a Head???  I'm sure I can see a head a face..... It's just right of the arrow next to the car door.... The image actually goes over part of the driver side window...

It's a strange anomaly ?

Is this video image over layed or something? Are two images merged?


The funny thing is now I have seen it I can see it in all pics of the car on Park Street
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 14, 2017, 08:47:41 AM
I was looking again at the post above... The time has been blurred out on the CCTV footage of The Car on Park Street...

I'll do a comparison of a traffic cam in Bristol... It shows the time and date...

Why have they blurred the Time of the image of the car on Park Street CCTV ??

We seems to have plenty of Times blurred out on CCTV when it has Dr Vincent Tabak in them..... why?????

There must be loads more CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak driving around Bristol on Saturday 18th December...

Why do we only see one????



Another point I could be wrong, but I'll mention it anyway....

You can see a vague outline of the driver in the car on Park Street... Which puzzles me somewhat...

I don't understand how you would... If Dr Vincent Tabak is over six foot tall then he would not need to be so close to the steering wheel and probably wouldn't be visible in the car....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 14, 2017, 09:20:34 AM
...
In the red circle of the picture of the car appear what looks like is a Head???  I'm sure I can see a head a face..... It's just right of the arrow next to the car door.... The image actually goes over part of the driver side window...

It's a strange anomaly ?

Is this video image over layed or something? Are two images merged?

The funny thing is now I have seen it I can see it in all pics of the car on Park Street
Isn't it the driver's wing mirror sticking out? I can't take seriously any of these claims about CCTV clips of Renault Meganes. The CCTV clips of Joanna and Vincent, on the other hand, would be good fun - even her mother couldn't resist a chuckle at the one in Waitrose - if it weren't so serious. But as you have pointed out, their integrity is questionable. In my opinion, Joanna's movements captured on CCTV were elegant, and her body language self-assured, whereas the good-looking actress in the reconstruction looked as if she had never used a supermarket self-service checkout before.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 14, 2017, 09:36:57 AM
Isn't it the driver's wing mirror sticking out? I can't take seriously any of these claims about CCTV clips of Renault Meganes. The CCTV clips of Joanna and Vincent, on the other hand, would be good fun - even her mother couldn't resist a chuckle at the one in Waitrose - if it weren't so serious. But as you have pointed out, their integrity is questionable. In my opinion, Joanna's movements captured on CCTV were elegant, and her body language self-assured, whereas the good-looking actress in the reconstruction looked as if she had never used a supermarket self-service checkout before.

Partly the reason for posting that image with the circle is to show how everyone sees things differently, and how they interpret situations differently...

Either visually or verbally....

Brings me back to the question, why would .. Andrew Mott and Martin faithful both say that they were trying to stop a body from thawing out???

What was the significance of the body thawing for 2 police officers to mention this???

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 14, 2017, 11:09:10 AM
Quote
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics

oanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.

A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.

So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."

I knew I'd read it somewhere....

Quote
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

Which colleague went down WHERE.. to supervise the removal of the clothes???

To me this sounds like it is at the scene....  Dr Delaney does NOT need assistance from LGC Forensics in how to remove clothing....
Wouldn't a mortuary technician remove and bag the clothing ???

This puzzles me...

But it will bring me around to Andrew Mott and Martin Faithful..

Which means the picture from the Mortuary must be when she has no clothing on...
Are there any pictures from the Mortuary of Joanna Yeates clothed???

When Dr Delaney describes her flowered print pink top... When did he see this ????

Quote

There were apparent blood stains on her flower patterned pink top but no signs of injuries to her genitalia, Dr Delaney said.

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

What a weird response.... Apparent blood stains... Did he ever see the clothing???? Or just pictures of the clothing???

Then Andrew Mott:.....

Quote
Quote
Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.

Tabak's QC, William Clegg, questioned why photographs were not taken of a broom being used to arrange straps underneath the body so her body could be taken away.

"I can't comment on why that was the case," Mr Mott said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34413947

Then we have Martin Faithful :

Quote
Quote
Mr Faithfull told the court how the forensic team had made efforts to prevent Miss Yeates frozen body from thawing out, in order to avoid losing any potentially significant evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html

So the Forensic Team must be what Lyndsey Lennen says... They were at the scene....

(1): How Can you remove clothing from a frozen body????

(2): How can you take DNA samples from a frozen body

(3): Why are they even touching the body before Dr Delaney has seen it???

(4): What efforts Did the Forensic team do to stop a body from thawing out???

(5):Why would they want to stop a body from thawing out????

(6): What significant evidence would they loose???


It dawned on me why????? The real reason they needed to mention that Joanna Yeates body was thawing out..


It was so they could collect their DNA SAMPLES ! at the scene!!

How else did they collect them??? And the clothes...

I would have thought that the best conditions for collecting DNA would be when the body had Thawed and the clothes and the body had dried...  But I'm No expert...

They now they cannot take samples from a FROZEN BODY!!!! So we need the explanation about her Thawing Out...(IMO)


2 officer, cohobrating the same state of the body... Thawing!!! Yet neither of these officer were Trained in Forensics as far as I am aware...

Lydnsey Lennen says that it was all turned around in 48 hours... I cannot see how ...  That would only be possible if Joanna Yeates body wasn't frozen... Dr Delaney had to wait to do the examination because of the bodies frozen state...

So how did Lyndsey lennen And Co.... Remove the clothing from a body that was Frozen in The foetal position at a crime scene????

Quote
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky."


Why didn't the defence cross examine these witness's more throughly ????




Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 14, 2017, 01:03:11 PM
To mediate between the competing claims for poor Joanna's body made by the different forensic professionals, Andrew Mott was called in as the Forensics Co-ordinator. He had to stop the body from thawing out, so as to preserve its immediate environment from contamination until Karl Harrison could examine it. As Lyndsay Lennen says, the body was frozen to start with, but for her to get the clothes off so as to analyse the DNA on the clothes and skin, its temperature had to be above freezing. To do his worst with his little scalpel, Dr. Delaney also needed the body to thaw out. However he also needed to observe and document the clothes themselves before Lyndsay Lennen. Andrew Mott had a legitimate role as referee.

As I posted before, Dr Delaney could not even get near the body until the fire engines had finished doing whatever they came to do. The best he could do until then was to glimpse it.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 14, 2017, 01:39:38 PM
The clothing would have had to have been dried out before any samples had been taken.... when did this happen??

To be able to mark on the Jeans (circle) where the sample were taken from.. ie behind her Jeans knee....

What light source if any was used upon theses dried Jeans / clothing of Joanna Yeates to determine whether there was any other biological material upon the clothing...

They must have been looking for semen samples to determine if Joanna Yeates had been sexually assaulted, where there any stains on Joanna yeates clothing?

Did she spill her beer on herself... easily happens... did any food or drink land on Joanna yeates clothing????

There are so many questions the Defence SHOULD have asked !!!! (IMO)

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 14, 2017, 01:49:23 PM
I still query how frozen Joanna Yeates body was....

She was found on the 25th December 2010 and here autopsy was complete by 27th December 2010

The body would need to thaw at the right temperature so that all of the body was in the same decomposing state..

Would all of the Internal organs have thawed enough at this point???

For Dr Delaney to do a full autopsy??

Or was Joanna Yeates Not as frozen as we have been lead to believe???

If the body wasn't frozen completely then wouldn't that suggest she hadn't lain in Longwood Lane for all of the time stated...

And maybe died later than was first considered ....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 14, 2017, 02:24:52 PM
With the killer’s confession, Lennen’s DNA evidence was not further tested. “It happens, in court,” she says. “You get called biased, in the police’s pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so.”
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 16, 2017, 04:12:45 PM
Quote
15.6. Intention to kill

Intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire
to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur. It is distinguished from recklessness
because, on a subjective basis, there is foresight but no desire to produce the
consequences. But the perennial problem has always been the extent to which the court
can impute sufficient desire to convert recklessness into intention. The original rule was
objective. In DPP v Smith 59the test was that a person was taken to foresee and intend the
natural and probable consequences of his or her acts


Looking at this without any legal knowledge...

(IMO) How could Dr Vincent Tabak foresee the consequences of his action.... If the basis of foresight to fully understand the consequences of your action, then a medical knowledge would be needed and understanding the Medical Knowledge of how long a strangulation hold would result in death...? There was no medical evidence produced to back up Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed knowledge of venous obstruction as described by one of the medical experts.

For Dr Vincent Tabak to understand that holding someone by the throat for up to 20 seconds would result in the death or serious injury of a person, he would have had to have researched such knowledge or have it imparted to him by another medical expert....
There was No evidence from the prosecution to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was clearly knowledgable in this medical field...

And no search history to obtain such knowledge being produced at the trial....

I personally and probably many more of you were quite surprised at the little time it took to cause death... I had no idea... It seemed far too short a time for the result.... (IMO) having no medical knowledge or training I assumed that all the Crime programs I had viewed , imitated, reconstructed actual crimes... And I always saw, strangulation as a slow painful Personal attack that last minutes and not seconds.....

If... as it was intimated, that Dr Vincent Tabak strangulation of Joanna Yeates was sexual, then surely the evidence to support that theory of it being a sexual assault should have been presented at court...

There was NO SOLID EVIDENCE to support this.... No witness's took the stand to support the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak practiced Strangulation sex... Or was sexually satisfied with the action of Strangling females and gained pleasure in seeing their pain...

Quote
The original rule was
objective. In DPP v Smith 59the test was that a person was taken to foresee and intend the
natural and probable consequences of his or her acts

Could someone without this expert medical knowledge foresee that their actions would result in death... If we take it back to The Strangulation Porn that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed t have viewed, which the information of this supposed evidence was NOT brought to trial... Would they know that reinacting such acts would result in death...

Do Strangulation Porn movies come with a disclaimer of "Do Not Try This At Home.".. I very much doubt it.... And if these movies and a few interaction with Prostitutes, (whom also didn't appear at trial).. constitute Medical Knowledge, then surely all who appear in such films would either have PHD's in said medical profession or would be willing to perform in what ultimateley would be a Snuff movie..

There was No evidence before or after the trial that proved Dr Vincent Tabak watched snuff movies... The titles which were revealed by the media was a series called "Sex And Submission".. which is  a legal TV program..

In saying all that... how could the evidence available at trial prove The Prosecutions arguement that a Sexual Encounter, with the purpose to obtain sexual gratification by strangulation had taken place???

Quote
Given that s.8 Criminal Justice Act
1967 now entitles a jury to draw reasonable inferences from all the evidence, Justice
Wien in R v Belfon 60said that:
‘Foresight and recklessness are evidence from which intent may be inferred but they
cannot be equated...with intent.’

As for the jury, how could they come to their conclusion that Dr Vincent Tabak with his lack of Medical knowledge intentionally tried to cause harm or injury to Joanna Yeates....

How did they evidence presented show intent????? (IMO) it didn't....

Which then brings us to the judge.... how did he manage to sentence Dr Vincent Tabak on evidence that didn't exist???

If the Prosecution didn't provide witness's.. professional or otherwise ..to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had sought a Sexual Encounter culminating in strangulation porn... then how did he manage to give him a 20 year minimum tariff ??


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 16, 2017, 06:24:21 PM
Playing devils advocate.....

Thinking on the lines of strangulation porn and the porn industry, would someone who died as a result of such an action be charged with Murder??

Or would it be involuntary manslaughter???

If no evidence to prove Dr Vincent Tabak intentionally strangled Joanna Yeates and as the prosecution asserted it was sexually motivated why did they pursue the Murder charge?

With them divulging to the media after the trial that they had intended to use the Pornographic Material and prostitutes... But this would prejudice the jury...

It would only prejudice a jury if the defence didn't state that viewing porn wasn't illegal... there were many points the defence could have argued the porn... If indeed the prosecution intended to use it or it even existed..

Why then did they insist on it being a murder charge?? Why after the Old Bailey Appearance when they had No story as to how events had unfolded did the Prosecution pursue the Murder Charge.. when it could have easily been construed as a manslaughter case? What convinced The Prosecution In May that they had the evidence to convict Dr Vincent Tabak of murder??

The Prosecution had No tangible witness's to support there case of Murder.... especially after with holding the 1300 page document..It was inferred that the searches equalled intent...

In reality you could argue consenting adults (not saying she was) as a defence..
The proof would then have to be put back in the Prosecutions court on proving that they weren't consenting adults..

If you have a man with a pristine record who hadn't as much as a parking ticket to his name, why then could the defence not argue consenting? with the prosecution behind closed doors...

The Prosecution were NEVER going to use any Pornography material whatsoever... if the act of Strangulation sex is not an illegal activity then the consequences of partaking in such activities that resulted in death would be on the part of the actors negligence..

Would that in turn not make the charge a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.....

The porn was used later to convince a public (IMO) that Dr Vincent Tabak was a monster and not the Placid Dutchman that DCI Phil Jones described..


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 16, 2017, 07:01:45 PM
I can't remember off hand what VT was alleged to have looked up on his computer, but did he look up strangulation?

As far as I remember, I don't believe he did.

Had he committed the crime, I would certainly have expected him to.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 16, 2017, 07:16:05 PM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg397725#msg397725


Continuing from my other post......

Another thing I don't understand.... When The Prosecution and Defence appeared at the Old Bailey.. (IMO) The Defence must have argued behind closed doors about the Charge that the prosecution where going for....Murder Charge and Nothing less.... So why advise his Client to pled guilty to Manslaughter, handing A Conviction on the Prosecutions plate....

The ball would be in the Prosecutions court to prove murder!!!!

When did  the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiate.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????

It was only beneficial to The Prosecution (IMO)...

And allow a Jury to make the decision.... They were arguing whether it was Murder or NOT anyway... Wouldn't it be more prevalent for the Defence to leave it with the Jury knowing that the Prosecution were pursuing The Murder Charge..

And with the jury almost certain to have known about the plea, then that information would only prejudice them into finding him guilty... But without the plea, they may have come to a Manslaughter conclusion!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on April 16, 2017, 08:03:29 PM
I overlook things constantly.... I re-read and then it pops out;...

What evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak was the CPS lady assisting the Police with in late December 2010????

What evidence could she have possibiiy reviewed????

How in late December 2010 Can the CPS be looking at Dr Vincent Tabak in connection to the murder of Joanna Yeates ?????

By admitting this then that in turn PROVES that the HOLLAND interview was that of a suspect and not an interview as a witness....

If they had gone over to Holland with what appear to be the sole purpose of Interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as a SUSPECT... why did they not interview him Under Caution!!!!


Quote
“Late in December 2010 the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna’s murder and began preparing the case for trial."

I think you are taking the above quote too literally.  Certainly the police were asked for assistance in late December 2010 but the review and decision to arrest Tabak came later.

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on April 16, 2017, 08:18:36 PM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg397725#msg397725


Continuing from my other post......

Another thing I don't understand.... When The Prosecution and Defence appeared at the Old Bailey.. (IMO) The Defence must have argued behind closed doors about the Charge that the prosecution where going for....Murder Charge and Nothing less.... So why advise his Client to pled guilty to Manslaughter, handing A Conviction on the Prosecutions plate....

The ball would be in the Prosecutions court to prove murder!!!!

When did  the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiate.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????

It was only beneficial to The Prosecution (IMO)...

And allow a Jury to make the decision.... They were arguing whether it was Murder or NOT anyway... Wouldn't it be more prevalent for the Defence to leave it with the Jury knowing that the Prosecution were pursuing The Murder Charge..

And with the jury almost certain to have known about the plea, then that information would only prejudice them into finding him guilty... But without the plea, they may have come to a Manslaughter conclusion!!!!

It is a defendant's decision whether to plead guilty to manslaughter or murder, not his counsel.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 16, 2017, 08:35:58 PM
I think you are taking the above quote too literally.  Certainly the police were asked for assistance in late December 2010 but the review and decision to arrest Tabak came later.
You cannot escape the startling implications of Ann Reddrop's statement about her own role, John. Her first public appearance in the case was at Vincent Tabak's hearing before the magistrate's bench, three days after he had been charged. Without her statement outside Bristol Crown Court after the trial, we would have taken it for granted that the CPS did not get involved until the police had a strong enough case to put before the CPS. The police would have claimed that they had this after they had arrested their suspect and examined his car and his black coat for the forensic evidence that they would claim had been found.

Yet here is Ann Reddrop stating categorically - not "alleging" - that the police had approached her for advice approximately four weeks earlier - namely, about the time when Christopher Jefferies was being doorstepped and arrested. If, like most people, you believe that the arrest of the landlord was an act of bumbling desparation on the police's part, then you may interpret her statement to mean that the crestfallen detectives had begged the wise Ann Reddrop to advise them how to avoid any further débâcles. If, on the other hand, you concede that there is much more than meets the eye in Christopher Jefferies's involuntary role in the case, then she is telling us that she, Ann Reddrop, is the mastermind who pulled the unseen strings.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on April 16, 2017, 09:09:10 PM
You cannot escape the startling implications of Ann Reddrop's statement about her own role, John. Her first public appearance in the case was at Vincent Tabak's hearing before the magistrate's bench, three days after he had been charged. Without her statement outside Bristol Crown Court after the trial, we would have taken it for granted that the CPS did not get involved until the police had a strong enough case to put before the CPS. The police would have claimed that they had this after they had arrested their suspect and examined his car and his black coat for the forensic evidence that they would claim had been found.

Yet here is Ann Reddrop stating categorically - not "alleging" - that the police had approached her for advice approximately four weeks earlier - namely, about the time when Christopher Jefferies was being doorstepped and arrested. If, like most people, you believe that the arrest of the landlord was an act of bumbling desparation on the police's part, then you may interpret her statement to mean that the crestfallen detectives had begged the wise Ann Reddrop to advise them how to avoid any further débâcles. If, on the other hand, you concede that there is much more than meets the eye in Christopher Jefferies's involuntary role in the case, then she is telling us that she, Ann Reddrop, is the mastermind who pulled the unseen strings.

I recall the Chris Jeffries debacle extremely well and remember thinking at the time that he was the subject of a media witch hunt because of the way he looked and acted.  In the end they had to apologise to him although I still believe the BBC and Sky News got off light.

Jefferies won damages from eight newspapers over stories about him after his arrest. The publishers of the Mirror and the Sun were fined for contempt of court over their coverage.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/joanna-yeates-police-apologise-christopher-jefferies
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 17, 2017, 12:25:08 AM
It is a defendant's decision whether to plead guilty to manslaughter or murder, not his counsel.

On the advise of their Council.... Dr Vincent Tabak had followed the advice of his council up until this point by saying No comment on the advise of his council to virtually every police interview that had taken place ...... instead opting to provide the police with written statements explaining his movement for that fateful weekend!!!!...

Which begs the question why he suddenly thought... I understand English Law and I will not follow the advise of my council and will Plead guilty to manslaughter instead!!!
I won't opt for a trial.. but I'll put my hands up and make the prosecutions case so much easier for them...

I'm not as green as I am cabbage looking and I am sure that you are not!!! Why would you????

On commenting directly to your post John... a defendant follows his councils advice... especially as a foreign national having NO understanding of the law of the land which you are in!!!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 17, 2017, 12:50:19 AM
I think you are taking the above quote too literally.  Certainly the police were asked for assistance in late December 2010 but the review and decision to arrest Tabak came later.

You cannot ask for assistance on a possible suspect when there was NO evidence to link said suspect in any shape or from to the murder of Joanna Yeates...

I will repeat... You CANNOT go to Holland to interview Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours as a witness... on the 31st December 2010... when you have already made a decision that he is a suspect and NOT CAUTION HIM!!!

The minute they suspected he was a suspect.. which The Police lady said in interviews, that he brought questions to their investigation... Things just didn't add up... He was too interested in Forensics..... they should have cautioned him..(IMO) and the law of the land in the UK...

But they hid under the guise of Danish law... and used danish law in which to interigate him... which as I have posted many times... allows for a suspect to be questioned for 6 Hours or you either charge or realse... but they couldn't do that as they had no power in Holland..

Yet The CPS clearly states that the police came in late December 2010 to ask for advice..in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak being a suspect..

Which in turn,... means they went to Holland with the sole purpose of interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as a suspect...

Which the Poliice lady told an Untruth about at the trial... and in videoed interviews on the crime watch program that was screened in November 2011 after they had convicted Dr Vincent Tabak!!!

I would love to see what they were going to screen on I think was the 24th January 2011 as a Crimewatch appeal!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on April 17, 2017, 02:13:32 AM
You cannot ask for assistance on a possible suspect when there was NO evidence to link said suspect in any shape or from to the murder of Joanna Yeates...

I will repeat... You CANNOT go to Holland to interview Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours as a witness... on the 31st December 2010... when you have already made a decision that he is a suspect and NOT CAUTION HIM!!!

The minute they suspected he was a suspect.. which The Police lady said in interviews, that he brought questions to their investigation... Things just didn't add up... He was too interested in Forensics..... they should have cautioned him..(IMO) and the law of the land in the UK...

But they hid under the guise of Danish law... and used danish law in which to interigate him... which as I have posted many times... allows for a suspect to be questioned for 6 Hours or you either charge or realse... but they couldn't do that as they had no power in Holland..

Yet The CPS clearly states that the police came in late December 2010 to ask for advice..in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak being a suspect..

Which in turn,... means they went to Holland with the sole purpose of interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as a suspect...

Which the Poliice lady told an Untruth about at the trial... and in videoed interviews on the crime watch program that was screened in November 2011 after they had convicted Dr Vincent Tabak!!!

I would love to see what they were going to screen on I think was the 24th January 2011 as a Crimewatch appeal!!!

Vincent Tabak volunteered to be interviewed as a witness in Holland so it is irrelevant whether the police viewed him as one or as a suspect.  In the UK the correct procedure when interviewing a witness who during the course of the interview becomes a suspect is to caution the person before proceeding. However, in the case of VT, the interviewing officers became suspicious of him but they had insufficient forensic evidence to take it any further.  As they were outside their jurisdiction the best they could have hoped for was Tabak's cooperation.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on April 17, 2017, 02:16:03 AM
On the advise of their Council.... Dr Vincent Tabak had followed the advice of his council up until this point by saying No comment on the advise of his council to virtually every police interview that had taken place ...... instead opting to provide the police with written statements explaining his movement for that fateful weekend!!!!...

Which begs the question why he suddenly thought... I understand English Law and I will not follow the advise of my council and will Plead guilty to manslaughter instead!!!
I won't opt for a trial.. but I'll put my hands up and make the prosecutions case so much easier for them...

I'm not as green as I am cabbage looking and I am sure that you are not!!! Why would you????

On commenting directly to your post John... a defendant follows his councils advice... especially as a foreign national having NO understanding of the law of the land which you are in!!!!

Actually, a defendant can make his or her own mind up after taking advice from counsel.  Only Tabak knew the truth of what had occurred and ultimately only he could make the decision as to what to plead to.  He decided to put his hands up to manslaughter in the hope of getting a reduced sentence for his crime.  It failed and now he will spend at least another 14 years in prison before being eligible for parole.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 17, 2017, 06:56:25 AM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg397725#msg397725

Continuing from my other post......

Another thing I don't understand.... When The Prosecution and Defence appeared at the Old Bailey.. (IMO) The Defence must have argued behind closed doors about the Charge that the prosecution where going for....Murder Charge and Nothing less.... So why advise his Client to pled guilty to Manslaughter, handing A Conviction on the Prosecutions plate....

The ball would be in the Prosecutions court to prove murder!!!!

When did  the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiate.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????

It was only beneficial to The Prosecution (IMO)...

And allow a Jury to make the decision.... They were arguing whether it was Murder or NOT anyway... Wouldn't it be more prevalent for the Defence to leave it with the Jury knowing that the Prosecution were pursuing The Murder Charge..

And with the jury almost certain to have known about the plea, then that information would only prejudice them into finding him guilty... But without the plea, they may have come to a Manslaughter conclusion!!!!
When did  the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiated.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????

Why indeed! How indeed! No matter how this is twisted and turned, it does not make any sense at all. Could the secret agreement that you are inferring, between the defence and the Crown, possibly have been legal, let alone transparent?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 17, 2017, 04:33:20 PM
From the outset, we cannot determine what pressure Dr Vincent Tabak was under whilst incarcerated, and what lead to him making the plea at The Old Bailey..

Prison by definition is not a holiday home... It's there as a punishment, and I am sure that remand prisoners do not get special treatment..

Prisons themselves use dirty tricks.. everyone who is of the opinion that people don't confess to something they haven't done are very much mistaken...

You then (IMO) have to be of the mindset that the prison enviroment is just peachy and all prisoners are treated fairly... you have to believe that every prison officer is honest to the eight degree and took on the role as master of the key, because he/she wants to protect the inmate and help them repent and re shape them into upstanding citizen's...

When in reality there some officers displaying some of the same traits as the people who are incarcerated... They will remove any bit of hope that the prisoner may have .. A small bit of light in their tunnel to take away the numbness of isolation, and wait for the next time that light may appear..

Depriving prisoner of their basic rights and using whatever reason seems legit to explain this or not bothering to explain... because unless you look for the horrors that prison life brings, you would never understand how it affects the mind psychologically... Just dangle the carrot and at the last possible moment remove it... And you remove the hope that goes with it...


Just today I found a tweet that shows the cruelty that is bestowed upon prisoners... Isn't incarceration enough without cruel punishments that psychologically damages people who are in prison who's mental health may not be sound to start with...

Loosing one's liberty was supposed to be punishment in itself and reforms were supposed to help prisoners adjust to the outside world on their release... But prisons themselves appear to teach hatred (IMO) by displaying cruelties to prisoners who have very little to hold on too....

Quote
called HMP Whitemoor & officer tells me prisoners locked in cells from 5pm to 9am over 4 days of Easter so can't call families

With liberties like the above being removed and hopes dashed, to me shows just how easy it would be to wear a person down to such a point they just want it all to go away, without really understanding the consequences of their actions...

You have to be of a strong mind to start with, if you are put in this enviroment and if you are not, then any pressure could make you say anything...

Dr Vincent Tabak had lost his father and Tanja had helped him through his PHD... she was his rock... he wasn't allowed to see her or any family for around 25 days .. and if he was fragile in that respect, it would be easy to add pressure one drip at a time....

It's a disgrace that there was never a psychological evaluation of Dr Vincent Tabak presented in court, which with him being placed on Suicide watch should in itself have raised huge questions...


And I'll say again a confession is only as good as the evidence to back it up.... And the evidence was poor.. The partial DNA sample which if the want us to believe Dr Vincent Tabak used the small gate could quite easily be transfer..

Who's to say Bernard the cat never jumped into the boot of Tanja Morsons car... transferring a spot of blood... Or samples were contaminated by LCG who had a poor track record on such things...there are always explantion when the evidence isn't strong.. And A good defence team could cast doubt...

Instead of passing the Prosecution another nail to be rammed into their clients coffin (IMO)...


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 17, 2017, 05:29:24 PM
What financial help would Dr Vincent Tabak be able to gain, to prove the case against him was flawed???

I am not sure but I don't think he's entitled to legal aid, so how would he and his family fight his conviction???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 18, 2017, 09:28:25 AM
Quote
The 65-year-old was detained last Thursday on suspicion of the murder and held until Saturday night, when he was released.


Didn't they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on the THURSDAY also.... must be a little Police trick to add pressure and make it difficult for contact with family... legal council etc.. Which by charging him gave them extra days in which to interrogate him before he appeared at the magistrates court... what day was Dr Vincent Tabak supplied with a Duty Solicitor???

The difference with the two arrests was that CJ had his OWN lawyer on hand to come to his rescue and have him released on the Saturday, where as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't...

If Dr Vincent Tabak was the Calculating ,Manipulative, decitful person the CPS had stated, then why wasn't this clever man prepared??

Why hadn't he engaged the services of a Solicitor in anticipation of his arrest??

Why did he have a duty solicitor in the police station instead of his own Solicitor..??.. everyone was watching the news... if he had indeed engaged such services , his own council would have popped up at the station, just Like CJ's did.. and had him released in the same fashion....

So, he wasn't Calculated was he!!... and the polices tactic seem to be exactly the same... maybe the arrest of CJ needs more attention and what information was released at the time about him...

Remember the media made statements that CJ had a paedophile as a friend whom he had purchased the flat from...(using as example)

This tells me that the paedophile angle had always been an avenue that they were investigating(or using)(IMO)... So why did we all of a sudden have Dr Vincent Tabak suddenly have an interest in Child Porn!!!

The story seems to have been set in the begining (IMO) the similarities between CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest needs closer inspection, all is obviously not what it appears to be!!!!!

Remember when I did the searches and used CJ... I 'm believing I was on the right track with that post..

(And no.. I didn't say it was CJ and I'm not saying that now)......


One thing to remember is the Police had an angle because of the PIZZA... Why would they make such a Big deal about a missing Pizza????

I'll tell you for why... Pizza and Beer are two of the things that are used to entice young children by paedophiles.. That and watching PORN...

Sound familiar does it???? The very subject that was mentioned after Dr Vincent Tabak's trial......
So maybe that was why they thought Multiple Killers... they could have been looking for a paedophile ring!!!!!




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240260/Joanna-Yeates-murder-architect-told-friends-she-would-be-alone.html
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 18, 2017, 10:06:13 AM
Didn't they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on the THURSDAY also.... must be a little Police trick to add pressure and make it difficult for contact with family... legal council etc.. Which by charging him gave them extra days in which to interrogate him before he appeared at the magistrates court... what day was Dr Vincent Tabak supplied with a Duty Solicitor???

The difference with the two arrests was that CJ had his OWN lawyer on hand to come to his rescue and have him released on the Saturday, where as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't...
I agree with you that the choice of Thursday for the both of the two arrests was a police trick. We know that Vincent Tabak's arrest was planned well in advance, but this shows that the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was no spur-of-the-moment move as most people believe. It shows that neither Colin Port nor Ann Reddrop grabbed the phone the moment they saw the angry landlord on TV with the words, "That is our man!"

However, Christopher Jefferies did not have his lawyer ready on hand. According to both himself and "The Lost Honour..." he exercised his right to telephone a former pupil, whom he must have known well, and it was the pupil who got hold of Stokoe Partnership, London. They too had probably seen Mr Jefferies on TV. As far as we know, it was Paul Okebu whom they sent to represent the landlord, and presumably it took him a little time to get to Bristol. Meanwhile, of course, his client would be going through the usual indignities that the police reserve for suspected murderers, including an intimate medical examination and dressing up in unsuitable clothes.

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 18, 2017, 10:20:11 AM
If Dr Vincent Tabak was the Calculating ,Manipulative, decitful person the CPS had stated, then why wasn't this clever man prepared??
I do get hot under the collar about Ann Reddrop's characterisation of Vincent Tabak, as it so obviously conflicted with the facts of the case. As you say, a killer who "kept one step ahead of the police" would have made sure he had his own lawyer available, such as Sarah Maddock, a good friend of Tanja's. He had five weeks in which to get the boot of the car steam-cleaned, either in Cambridge or Holland so as not to arouse suspicion. He had five weeks to "accidentally" drop the supposedly incriminating laptop and get it repaired with a new hard disc. He could have left his black coat in a paper bag outside a charity shop and then told Tanja that he had inadvertantly left it on a train.

All of his actions, in fact, suggest a person with nothing on his conscience except perhaps not having tried hard enough to win the Binladen contract in Mecca.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 18, 2017, 10:38:00 AM

However, Christopher Jefferies did not have his lawyer ready on hand. According to both himself and "The Lost Honour..." he exercised his right to telephone a former pupil, whom he must have known well, and it was the pupil who got hold of Stokoe Partnership, London.

Leonora... I wasn't suggesting that CJ had a Lawyer prepared... I meant that with his arrest in the media anyone whom had connections to CJ could spring into action and help him, friends Colleagues etc.. They would have been outraged by his arrest and made sure he was released on Bail A.S.A.P

So... who did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to call???  It would be Tanja (IMO) she was his rock... And what could she do in relation to this??

So how many people were really just Dr Vincent Tabak's friends??? Or were they friends of a couple??? Tanja being the person they mainly knew!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 18, 2017, 02:44:41 PM
I'm still looking at this Pizza and Paedophile Angle....

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg398194#msg398194

The Police used the media to say various statements that I presume were aimed at certain suspects they were investigation...

Quote
Former pupils and neighbours (many of whom, on closer inspection, barely knew him) lined up to say that he is ‘eccentric’. Apparently, he was nicknamed Wizard because of his hair.

I believe they used CJ's arrest to let someone Know they were looking at them...

So I wondered if there had been A Police Operation named "WIZARD"..

Then I found this:...

Quote
OPERATION WIZARD
An investigation into a family counterfeiting DVD's and CD's on a massive scale.

So in context to the "Wizard" Comment... was that a reference to making Child porn DVD's ???

What double meaning is hidden in the media reports that were made at the time...?????




http://www.titanrocu.org.uk/36/section.aspx/22

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1343782/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Odd-truth-Christopher-Jefferies-great-teachers.html#ixzz4ebkRTSot
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 18, 2017, 03:19:54 PM


Why Code Names are important!!! And what they mean to the Police!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/operation-what-how-the-police-come-up-with-their-bizarre-codenames-2257475.html
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 19, 2017, 09:35:09 PM
Believe it or not, DCI Phil Jones never said anything in court, although he did read out his own statement to the press outside the court after the trial. I suspect that he and Vincent Tabak were never even in the same room together except at the pre-trial hearing at Bristol Crown Court on 20 September 2011. Several other people mentioned the pizza Joanna is said to have bought, but none of them was under oath.

Although the judge warned the jury sternly to base their verdict on the evidence alone, he made no attempt to warn them that a lot of what they would hear was NOT evidence, and hardly any of the images they would see on the screens was evidence. According to one eminent judge who wrote a book about "The Nature of Evidence", padding out trials with inessential information is standard prosecution practice.

This case bugs me too, but the biggest bug is that nobody is concerned about the fact that nobody ever even considered whether CJ or VT had any reason to kill Joanna. CJ was believed to be The Killer for a very short time, mainly because of his blue hair and conspicuous bad temper. VT is now considered to be The Killer because he said he did it. Nobody except you and I are bugged by the fact that the police knew very well that both of these suspects were of very good character. Although the police publicly flew all sorts of kites that suggested they were interested in the usual suspects - namely, (1) people who knew Joanna well enough to have fallen out with her, and (2) known sex offenders living within XX miles of Bristol - the police made sure that we knew that Joanna had no enemies nor knew anyone who could possibly have wished her harm. They also brushed aside any evidence that this might not have been the case. This is seriously disconcerting.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 19, 2017, 10:56:01 PM
I wouldn't believe what VT stated re the pizza, either.
It has occurred to me that, even if the police had found the pizza in one of the local bins, how would they have known it was the one Joanna bought? I doubt whether she was the only local person who bought a Tesco finest pizza that week, and I expect any fingerprints would have been destroyed/contaminated by then.
if it had not been Joanna in the video clips, I am sure her parents or friends would have said so, so I think we can safely conclude that it was!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 20, 2017, 08:40:15 AM
I wouldn't believe what VT stated re the pizza, either.
It has occurred to me that, even if the police had found the pizza in one of the local bins, how would they have known it was the one Joanna bought? I doubt whether she was the only local person who bought a Tesco finest pizza that week, and I expect any fingerprints would have been destroyed/contaminated by then.
if it had not been Joanna in the video clips, I am sure her parents or friends would have said so, so I think we can safely conclude that it was!
Why would the police expect to find the pizza in its package in one of the local bins mrswah? Nobody except Vincent Tabak would dispose of an unopened uneaten pizza, and at the time of DCI Gareth Bevan's appeal for the pizza, the general public had heard of neither VT nor their landlord. Surely the intention behind a massive pizza hunt was to find the packaging, which, if they were lucky, would lead them to the neighbourhood where she had eaten the pizza? Even if they found several packages of that type, a serious police force would have been able to eliminate the ones unconnected with Joanna, by e.g. examination of the sell-by dates and by those finger prints that were recoverable.

But was the pizza appeal serious at all, or was it just a smokescreen? If it was serious, then it was an obvious conclusion for the police that the hungry Joanna had gone somewhere else to eat the pizza, before going home to get abducted, and that the person with whom she ate it didn't want to tell the police, either because they were the killer, or for some entirely innocent reason.

Mr Yeates declared that the police know more than they were telling us, and this still bugs me. What did they know? We now know, officially, that neither the landlord, nor VT, nor Ann Reddrop, were even a gleam in their eye at that early stage. So what was the real purpose of the pizza appeal?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 20, 2017, 09:21:33 AM
I think the police wanted us all to think that Joanna had died shortly after getting home, before she had a chance to eat the pizza.  Perhaps that is what they genuinely believed at first. Perhaps they continued to believe it:  who knows. They needed it to be  a Friday evening crime as time went on, as this was when neither CJ nor VT had alibis. The Friday night " maybe" screams coming from up the road must have been very convenient as they put their case together, much more than the "Help Me" heard by a neighbour at mid morning on Saturday. I would suggest that the Saturday scream was far more likely to be significant than those of the Friday night revellers, but it is perfectly possible that none of the screams had anything to do with Joanna.

It is also perfectly possible that Joanna ate the pizza at someone else's house, or she bought it for someone else as an errand, and delivered it on her way home.

I am assuming that the police carried out a thorough check of her freezer !!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 20, 2017, 09:24:30 AM
...
if it had not been Joanna in the video clips, I am sure her parents or friends would have said so, so I think we can safely conclude that it was!
Did Mrs Yeates or any other person testify under oath that the distinctive young woman with the green fleece or lining WAS Joanna Yeates? No of course they didn't. Why have a trial at all if you take it for granted that only the defendant is going to lie? Why have a formal identification of the body if "anyone" could see it had to be the missing landscape architect? It was the extent of deceit and manipulation in this case that prompted you to start this forum in the first place.

It has only recently struck me that the court did hear evidence from Mr & Mrs Yeates, via the 2nd statement of the police officer who went to 44 Canynge Road twice after Greg Reardon's 999 call. There must have been something unexpected about this, but the news media made absolutely nothing of it, so we don't know what Joanna's parents said to the police at the time.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 20, 2017, 09:26:31 AM
Also, Leonora, I would think that the police always know more than they tell the public-----in all crime investigations. There are very good reasons why they would not tell the public (or even Joanna's parents) everything. This isn't sinister in any way---it is good policing.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 20, 2017, 09:36:53 AM
I think the police wanted us all to think that Joanna had died shortly after getting home, before she had a chance to eat the pizza.  Perhaps that is what they genuinely believed at first. Perhaps they continued to believe it:  who knows. They needed it to be  a Friday evening crime as time went on, as this was when neither CJ nor VT had alibis. The Friday night " maybe" screams coming from up the road must have been very convenient as they put their case together, much more than the "Help Me" heard by a neighbour at mid morning on Saturday. I would suggest that the Saturday scream was far more likely to be significant than those of the Friday night revellers, but it is perfectly possible that none of the screams had anything to do with Joanna.

It is also perfectly possible that Joanna ate the pizza at someone else's house, or she bought it for someone else as an errand, and delivered it on her way home.

I am assuming that the police carried out a thorough check of her freezer !!
Mrswah you are being uncharacteristically ingenuous. At the time of the pizza appeal, the police did not OFFICIALLY know that she was DEAD. They CERTAINLY had no OFFICIAL reason at that time to embark on a campaign of brainwashing the public into believing that she went straight home rather than via someone else's home. The screams were not mentioned until after the body had been found and the landlord arrested.

You seem to be saying that you believe that the police were already determined on a campaign of brainwashing at the time when her parents were saying "She was abducted".

Why would a VERY HUNGRY Joanna buy a pizza for someone else? That doesn't make sense either.

I believe that the police did indeed know far more about what really happened very early on, but you are welcome to disagree with my conspiratorial tone. However, the pizza emphatically belongs to the very early phase of the case. If the pizza appeal was what it seemed, then the logical conclusion was that she ate it somewhere else on the way home.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 20, 2017, 09:48:47 AM
Yes, she probably did eat it somewhere else---that is the most likely explanation, although there is no reason why a very hungry person might not run an errand for a neighbour or friend if they were passing by the relevant shop. In the early days, the police certainly spent a lot of their time following up this pizza------ it always seemed, to me, rather a waste of time, particularly as (if I remember correctly) they did most of their searching after the bins had been collected.

Either inefficiency, or the pizza was "deflecting attention away from" (I am beginning to love that phrase!) something else???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 20, 2017, 11:05:11 AM
Why Did the Defence advise Dr Vincent Tabak to make a guilty plea in MAY.. when they wouldn't have had the case files for too long and hadn't researched their own thoroughly investigations into the case??

When did Clegg take over???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 20, 2017, 12:03:09 PM
Why Did the Defence advise Dr Vincent Tabak to make a guilty plea in MAY.. when they wouldn't have had the case files for too long and hadn't researched their own thoroughly investigations into the case??

When did Clegg take over???
If you had read the translation that I have posted of Vincent Tabak's diary, then you would know that he was already thinking about pleading guilty in February 2011. That is what he told the so-called prison chaplain, Peter Brotherton, who testified to this under oath. Just for the record: I do not believe this witness perjured himself - but neither did he state that VT had confessed to the killing, contrary to what everyone was told.

Clegg took over some time between February and May 2011. The instructing solicitor Ian Kelcey was also new.

VT's first defence team, Albion Chambers, instructed by Crossman & Co of Radstock, told the magistrate that their client would be applying for bail. If it is true, as has been stated by John, that bail would never be granted to a foreigner charged with such a serious offence, then it would have been amazingly incompetent of these lawyers not to have noticed that their client was a foreigner nor to have anticipated this problem. I am not sure that I really believe they were incompetent.

At any event, the barrister Paul Cook did an about-turn the very next day by telling judge Colman Treacy that his client would not be applying for bail. It seems obvious to me that it was not Vincent Tabak who changed his mind about bail, but that something caused the lawyers to change their minds. It seems obvious to me that he might feel he was in the hands of what Aerial Hunter so bluntly called a "two-bit drongo solicitor" - and would turn to the prison chaplain for advice on how to get a more competent lawyer.

Presumably it was also "drongo" who first put into VT's head the idea of pleading guilty of manslaughter. I really don't know why she did this. A possibility that has emerged during discussions on this forum is the revelation that VT had known Joanna very well, including in the biblical sense, contrary to what he had told his duty solicitor. That would alter everything.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 20, 2017, 05:29:58 PM
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known.

He pled guilty to manslaughter. If he knew Joanna, it is more likely that he had a motive to kill her than if he hadn't known her. So, why didn't he say so in court, instead of making up that ridiculous story? He was going down anyway, so why not tell the court that he knew her?

I'm inclined to think that he didn't know her-------but I could be wrong.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 20, 2017, 06:01:52 PM
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known.

He pled guilty to manslaughter. If he knew Joanna, it is more likely that he had a motive to kill her than if he hadn't known her. So, why didn't he say so in court, instead of making up that ridiculous story? He was going down anyway, so why not tell the court that he knew her?

I'm inclined to think that he didn't know her-------but I could be wrong.
This was a COMPLEX case, mrswah. That is why Nine's 100 questions have grown to 299 and still counting. VT made up that ridiculous story to console the prosecutor (who was so disappointed at not being elected Labour MP for Basingstoke in 1997), and thereby to prevent you and me from getting taken seriously by the sort of people who read internet forums. IF you "think" VT didn't know Joanna, how else do you explain his QC Paul Cook's grovelling to the judge at his first appearance in the Crown Court: "Your honour, my client has decided not to apply for bail after all"? - and his subsequent replacement by his own head of chambers, Michael Fitton QC? - who was in turn eventually replaced by William Clegg QC, the barrister known for making prosecutors from Belfast to Belgrade tremble, yet who told the jurors trying VT, "There is probably nothing to like about my client"?

Yes, you could indeed be WRONG, mrswah - so you owe it to your loyal followers either to produce an alternative explanation of Paul Cook QC's extraordinary own-goal, or to get thyself over to the nearest nunnery.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 20, 2017, 09:52:01 PM
I think I'd prefer the nunnery, Leonora!

So, do YOU think Vincent knew Joanna "very well"???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 20, 2017, 09:56:54 PM
Nigel Lickley-----Labour candidate for Basingstoke in 1997---who would have thought it?

He was beaten by Andrew Hunter------who is a Bamber supporter (have you read the Bamber threads, Leonora???)

Oh dear!!!!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 21, 2017, 06:55:24 AM
I think I'd prefer the nunnery, Leonora!

So, do YOU think Vincent knew Joanna "very well"???
It's not what I "think" that counts, but what Crossman & Co and Paul Cook QC thought at the time. First this:

While he was in custody, Vincent Tabak and his duty solicitor prepared and submitted to the police a number of written and signed statements. The first statement, given to police the same day as he was arrested, 20th January 2011, explained his movements on the night Joanna Yeates died... In this statement, Vincent Tabak also insisted that he did not know Joanna Yeates and that he had never spoken to her nor her boyfriend. “Until her picture was shown prominently in the press I would not have recognised her,” he told police. (The Mirror, 18 October 2011)

Then they read this:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/324139/weeping-girl-tipped-off-jo-police/

Tabak knew landscape architect Jo and they worked together on joint schemes
for their respective firms, according to a former colleague of his at
consultant engineers Buro Happold. They said: “They would have met in her
office or on location.” (The Sun, 21 or 22 January 2011)

Why was this former colleague not named nor called to testify at the trial? Why was Colin Port not cross-examined by Lord Leveson about this blatant abuse of the news media to pervert the course of justice? Is it because he was interested only in the lost honour of landlords, but not in justice for skilled non-British EU nationals living and working in the UK? Is it any wonder they changed their minds about applying for bail?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 09:21:50 AM
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known.

He pled guilty to manslaughter. If he knew Joanna, it is more likely that he had a motive to kill her than if he hadn't known her. So, why didn't he say so in court, instead of making up that ridiculous story? He was going down anyway, so why not tell the court that he knew her?

I'm inclined to think that he didn't know her-------but I could be wrong.

The plea is pointless..... It's only use is to guarantee a conviction... Why would you plead guilty to manslaughter???

You would only do that if you felt that was the end of it and you get say... a 10 year sentence serve half... back home..

It wasn't the end of it... The Defense MUST HAVE KNOWN that the Prosecution were determined to go for a Murder Conviction....
Again doesn't make sense him making the plea.... There was no advantage...

I believe it would have been thrown out if he hadn't made the plea!!   They had NO Evidence... they had NOTHING..

So why did CLEGG get his client to make a plea????? 


EDIT:.......

From a different Case...  Horrendous case... but it's about the point that I am making....

Quote
But the prosecution wouldn't accept a manslaughter plea, so we pleaded not guilty.

Yes thats what I would expect!!!! If they're NOT accepting a Manslaughter Plea... you go NOT GUILTY!!!!


Why would Dr Vincent Tabak plead Guilty to Manslaughter??????

It was going to trial anyway.... The Jury would then have had 3 Options:

(1): Guilty of Murder

(2): Not Guilty

(3): Guilty of Manslaughter

Me thinks, more fishy is happening....  (IMO)



https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/27/lawyers-defended-toughest-cases-charles-manson-jon-venables-ted-bundy-charles-ng
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 10:51:35 AM
I feel shouty.....

If we remember the Prosecution did not Reveal the 1300 Page Document until the 7th October 2011 ...

So.... what did they supposedly have in May???????   A Big Fat Nothing!!!!!... How could they...

The Defence was not aware of the timelines...

The Defence was Not aware of the search History...

The Defence was Not aware of everyones movements...

The Defence was Not aware of The type of searches...

The Defence was not aware of all the emails sent to and fro

The Defence was NOT aware that the Dutch Language needed translating....

The Defence was Not aware of The Porn

The Defence Was Not aware of the Prostitues....


Because realistically this should have been the case.... Without the 1300 Page Document The Defence.... shouldn't have been aware of anything!!!


They didn't have anyone Independently scrutinizing The Laptops etc...  They would have NO idea what was on them!!!!

So when we go to The Old Bailey... How could The DEFENCE advise Dr Vincent Tabak to PLEAD GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER.... when they apparently were NOT..... Aware of all this information!!!!

And in this case SHOULD have advised there client to PLEAD NOT GUILTY!!!!

There would be NO search saying he Looked up LONGWOOD LANE....
There would be NO Search saying he looked up  "Sexual Conduct"... (definiton)
There would be NO search saying he looked up Body Decomposition

There would be NO search saying he looked up Extradition
There would be NO search saying he looked up "DOODSLAG"
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Extradition of Dutchman’

There would be NO search saying he looked up  ‘Avon and Somerset police home page’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Murder of Melanie Hall’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Joanna Yeates’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Salt supplies in the Netherlands’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
There would be NO search saying he looked up 'Penalty for manslaughter’

There would be NO search saying he looked up 'Forensic science and trace evidence’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘What happens forensic?’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘CCTV Canynge Road’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘murder in English law’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘ how fast does body decompose’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘what takes place from hour to hour after death’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘what happens to human body after death’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘% of grey cars in UK’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Renault Megan cars in UK’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Suspension bridge police footage’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘maps to Longwood lane’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘domestic rubbish’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘forensic’
There would be NO search saying he looked up 'missing sock'

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Detention of a suspect’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘letter and label sent to a public house’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘CPS’ ...‘Sentencing’

OMG...... The Defence should not have known this (IMO).. Until 7th October 2011

So how on earth did he get Dr Vincent Tabak to make his Guilty to Manslaughter Plea at The Old Bailey!!!!

The SEARCHES were the crux of the case...

The 1300 Page document had the searches... not only that... It had EVERY TIME LINE of the searches.. texts emails between the people at Flat 1 and Flat 2....

How could The DEFENCE COUNCIL know what the Prosecution HAD!!!
How could The DEFENCE COUNCIL Know He searched Clifton Bridge!!
How Could The DEFENCE Council Know he checked Longwood Lane..... If this information was only available in the 1300 Page Document that the reccieved on the 7th October 2011..

In May 2011... None of this evidence EXISTED!!!!!!!!

So why didn't he believe his client in MAY... that he hadn't comited this Crime...
Why didn't he believe his CLIENTS Version of events.....

Up until May.. Dr Vincent Tabak had Insisted that he was Innocent.... In May... Nothing had changed ,.... how could it.... if the DEFENCE were NOT AWARE OF THE 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT!!!!

No evidence existed apart from 1300 page Document and the "PLEA"......

Why didn't CLEGG defend his Client.... why this Circus!!!!

Two questions here..... he either didn't Know and set Dr Vincent Tabak's for a fall (IMO).. Or
He Knew.... which throughs up allsorts...

It wasn't a case of asking the Judge for time to read the 1300 page Document... (IMO) he already had!

The Defence should only have been aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's Timeline given by Dr Vincent Tabak to him!!!!!!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 11:03:33 AM
This is extremeley worrying...

He had to Know what was in that Document (IMO)... To come up with the pathetic story that took place...(IMO)

If Dr Vincet Tabak had looked up:

Quote
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’

He would only do this if HE went over Clifton Suspension Bridge!!! (IMO)

So why the change of route towards the The Airport???

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak change the ROUTE he was supposed to have taken????

He had nothing to lose by keeping to his route over Clifton Suspension Bridge....

Except we already KNOW that the Police had interviewed that Witness who went over The Bridge and it obviously wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!



http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 11:23:44 AM
Lets put it this way......

If the defence had scrutinized the laptops.... they would have been able to counter what The Prosecution had claimed...

They would have been able to say about the lack of "Dutch" in The Prosecutions findings...
So (IMO).. they didn't look at these laptops, they can't have...

And if they didn't look at the laptops... Didn't get The 1300 page Document till  7th October 2011
How could they possibily know what would be so called EVIDENCE against their client???

They had Dr Vincent Tabak in his own flat till 9:29 pm on Friday 17th December 2010

They had him at Adsa around 10:00pm

There was NO proof in what evidence The Defence had in May... that Dr Vincent Tabak was aimlessly driving around with Joanna Yeates in the boot of his car...

There was NOTHING to prove that Dr Vincent tabak went to Longwood Lane..
There was nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak used a Bicycle bag/cover

There was Nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak disposed of the Pizza....

Up until MAY.... there was No Evidence at all !!!!



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 21, 2017, 01:20:12 PM
When he was arrested, a duty solicitor was present while Vincent Tabak was questioned at Trinity Road police station, Bristol. We know from cross-examination of one of the detectives during the trial that she was female. We know from details of the legal aid claims made on his behalf, published as a result of an FoI request, that she was a member of the team of Crossmans Solicitors of Radstock:

http://www.crossmans-solicitors.com/the-team/4575854784

Which member of the team she was has never been made public, and it is possible that she is no longer with Crossman & Co. The current female members who do criminal defence are: Guen Browne, Marjorie Jackson and Susan Garnett.

After VT was charged, Crossmans would have instructed Albion Chambers, of which Paul Cook QC is a member.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 21, 2017, 02:23:49 PM
The plea is pointless..... It's only use is to guarantee a conviction... Why would you plead guilty to manslaughter???

You would only do that if you felt that was the end of it and you get say... a 10 year sentence serve half... back home..

It wasn't the end of it... The Defense MUST HAVE KNOWN that the Prosecution were determined to go for a Murder Conviction....
Again doesn't make sense him making the plea.... There was no advantage...

I believe it would have been thrown out if he hadn't made the plea!!   They had NO Evidence... they had NOTHING..

So why did CLEGG get his client to make a plea????? 

EDIT:.......

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak plead Guilty to Manslaughter??????

It was going to trial anyway.... The Jury would then have had 3 Options:

(1): Guilty of Murder

(2): Not Guilty

(3): Guilty of Manslaughter

Me thinks, more fishy is happening....  (IMO) ...
Why did Clegg get his client to make a plea?

He didn't.

We know that his client PUT OFF signing his enhanced statement a couple of days AFTER Clegg had promised to deliver it to the Prosecution. This was more than FOUR months after the plea hearing, yet he could hardly bring himself to go through with it.

You are very thorough, Nine, but despite all the holes you have exposed in this criminal case, you still won't confront what you regard as the unthinkable: That VT's manslaughter plea HAS to have been contrived in some way or another. It wasn't VT who made it.

Let me put it to you another way. The whole vast edifice of the criminal justice system is as it is because it is not just criminals who will steal, kill and lie, but also lawyers, police and prison officers, and witnesses, who will cheat if they expect to get away with it. Habeas corpus was devised to try to ensure that the accused could confront his accusers. This means, not just that there is someone standing in the dock, but that the someone has the identity of the accused. Anyone could say "I am Vincent Tabak", unless steps are taken to prove identity.

Astonishingly, no one who knew him seems to have been present at any of the hearings, including the trial. Not Tanja, not his boss, not his landlord, not his family. Oh yes, I know that the press photographed a couple they thought were his brother and sister outside the court at the time of the trial, but that isn't the same as someone who knew the defendant confirming his identity in the presence of the judge.

 
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 04:19:47 PM
Why did Clegg get his client to make a plea?

He didn't.

We know that his client PUT OFF signing his enhanced statement a couple of days AFTER Clegg had promised to deliver it to the Prosecution. This was more than FOUR months after the plea hearing, yet he could hardly bring himself to go through with it.

You are very thorough, Nine, but despite all the holes you have exposed in this criminal case, you still won't confront what you regard as the unthinkable: That VT's manslaughter plea HAS to have been contrived in some way or another. It wasn't VT who made it.

Let me put it to you another way. The whole vast edifice of the criminal justice system is as it is because it is not just criminals who will steal, kill and lie, but also lawyers, police and prison officers, and witnesses, who will cheat if they expect to get away with it. Habeas corpus was devised to try to ensure that the accused could confront his accusers. This means, not just that there is someone standing in the dock, but that the someone has the identity of the accused. Anyone could say "I am Vincent Tabak", unless steps are taken to prove identity.

Astonishingly, no one who knew him seems to have been present at any of the hearings, including the trial. Not Tanja, not his boss, not his landlord, not his family. Oh yes, I know that the press photographed a couple they thought were his brother and sister outside the court at the time of the trial, but that isn't the same as someone who knew the defendant confirming his identity in the presence of the judge.


If you look at it head on without Long Latin and the Old Bailey... The POINT is.....

Nobody on earth would make a Plea to anything unless, The Prosecution would accept it... There was NO way they would do that...so it easier to plead NOT GUILTY and put the Onus of Proof on the Prosecution...

Yes... so many things about this case don't add up... And I believe in Dr Vincent Tabak Innocence as you know.. I don't know the why's and wherefore's ....

I just believe it was Impossible for him to do what they said he did... And someone is walking around free who shouldn't be...

What ever the reason for this murder .. what ever scenario's are possible.. who ever you may be able to accuse.. it's virtually impossible without the evidence to back it up...

Timeline... CCTV's with timestamps on them... transcript from the trial...  video appearances of those involved on many levels...  These expose the lies.... (IMO)

You maybe have more proof than I'm aware of... but unless I see this I cannot make a judgement upon it....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 04:39:40 PM
Say the defence has the laptop contents... why are n't they preparing a case to counter????

When the Prosecution said that Dr Vincent Tabak had looked up Longwood lane on a Map..... It sounds good .. But how could he look u somewhere he didn't know about?

Quote
Defence Counsel: Did you know Longwood Lane at all?
Tabak: No.

Why didn't The Defence have within it's papers that "Longwood Lane" would come up in a street map when he was attending a party going nearby that direction???

This next question by the Defence I like :..
Quote
Defence Counsel: Was it a quiet area, did you think? What did you decide to do?
Tabak: I did something horrendous. I decided to leave her there.


Why When his Client had already said that he didn't KNOW LONGWOOD LANE.... Would he expect his client to Know whether it was a QUIET AREA or not!!!!!!

If he'd replied Yes.. Then he'd of lied straight after his answer of NO...

So why are the Defence subtly cross examining their own Client??? (IMO)

No only do they manage to cross examine their own client but they use questioning techniques that don't give too much room for maneuver..

Quote
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.


Dr Tabak say fence!! But his Councel steers him straight back to the WALL....

Quote
Defence Counsel: Did the body come into contact with the wall?
Tabak: Yes. But she was too heavy

We need the wall mentioned because of the Blood upon it... ..

Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't even correct himself, saying when I said fence before I meant wall or visor versa .....

It just question... Small answer... Nothing to endear him in any way to the Jury...

Quote
Defence Counsel: Why were you researching about rubbish?
Tabak: I read that police were sifting through rubbish and I was afraid they would find the
pizza.

Out of 1300 pages of Timelines Clegg picks up on this one?

You would have thought that there were more pressing searches to bring up!!!!

Where's Clegg's Timeline of the Rubbish search???  Because he didn't have the document!!!

Didn't Tabak go on the Stand before the Prosecution made their case???

How would Clegg know about The Rubbish Search???


Afraid they would find the Pizza....

 What about the Bicycle Bag that her body was supposed to be Transported in... That would be far more incriminating...

Oh yes and the missing sock!!







Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 06:40:17 PM
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak must have been aquainted to the location of Bristol Airport... as a seasoned traveller for his business dealings..

I keep going back over the transcript....

Quote
Defence Counsel: As we can see you sent many messages You never make typing errors.
Why did you type the word “crisis”?
Tabak: That’s how I felt. I was in complete shock. Didn’t know what to do.
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?
Tabak: In a state of despair; panic; unbelief at what had happened.

The Defence follow a pattern of putting each event in order... they do not sway from the order of which action occured..

Which is why the above quote is really confusing....

Quote
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?

As it appears... Dr Vincent Tabak travels home after he has been to ASDA... as one of the very few Timelines the Defence appears to say confirms...

Dr Vincent Tabak replies "Yes".....

So... he's been to Asda in Bedminster apparently with a body in the boot of the car.... he then return home... next ..
Quote
In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?

Firstly ...what happened at Timeline 112 ?????  A phone call.... a text ??????

So he is in Clifton Downs for at least 20 mins... the Defence must have something to prove this... or they should...

He now needs to leave "Clifton Downs" to as they say aimlessly drive towards the Airport ... which (IMO) he know where it is... to end up in "Longwood Lane"...

Which road would he have taken???   

I have had BEDMINSTER and ASDA planted in my head.... Local Jurors would know you would take the A38 towards the airport..

Quote
Defence Counsel: When you left where did you drive then?
Tabak: I drove away from home; I drove in the direction of the airport; and ended up in
Longwood lane

But it from home and not Asda that he travels to wards the Airport.....  So why drive back towards home if he needs to dispose of a body??? Why not keep driving towards the Airport from ASDA?

Why not have his state of shock in ASDA Carpark????  what shows him sitting for 20 minutes in Clifton Downs?????

This is another thing that bugs me..... Is he stuck in traffic???  Hang on a minute... Is it him waiting to go over Clifton suspension Bridge to pay the Toll?????

How bad was the traffic that night... Christmas week leading up to everyones out and about partys etc.. late night shopping... Icy conditions....

Is the image they have of Dr Vincent Tabak queuing.... him waiting in line to use Clifton Suspension Bridge???  How else would they Know he sat for 20 minutes ..... And What date was this on????? the 18th December 2010 ?? any other day ????














[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 21, 2017, 07:07:21 PM
If you look at it head on without Long Latin and the Old Bailey... The POINT is.....

Nobody on earth would make a Plea to anything unless, The Prosecution would accept it... There was NO way they would do that...so it easier to plead NOT GUILTY and put the Onus of Proof on the Prosecution...

Yes... so many things about this case don't add up... And I believe in Dr Vincent Tabak Innocence as you know.. I don't know the why's and wherefore's ....

I just believe it was Impossible for him to do what they said he did... And someone is walking around free who shouldn't be...

What ever the reason for this murder .. what ever scenario's are possible.. who ever you may be able to accuse.. it's virtually impossible without the evidence to back it up...

Timeline... CCTV's with timestamps on them... transcript from the trial...  video appearances of those involved on many levels...  These expose the lies.... (IMO)

You maybe have more proof than I'm aware of... but unless I see this I cannot make a judgement upon it....It's important for YOU to believe in one or other plausible explanation for why that plea was entered, because you yourself have spelt it out in letters a mile high - nobody on earth would have made that plea UNLESS...! You see so clearly the entire problem, which obviously bugs you, you lie tossing and turning at night for worrying about it, simply because you won't confront the most straightforward, obvious explanation - despite at least a dozen items of circumstantial evidence.

Yes, it's only a THEORY - but so is the General Theory of Relativity, the Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle. The last seems especially appropriate to the time and place of Joanna's death, the clothes she was and was not wearing, the contents of her digestive system, and the identity and motive of her assailant.

For that matter, I need hardly remind you that it is also only a THEORY that no evidence of any kind places VT in Joanna's flat, nor her in his flat. The absence of this evidence was not even mentioned in the trial, yet it is one of the most important arguments we have for believing in his innocence. Our argument is based on our rational belief that a rational prosecution would not have held back any evidence that supported their case. You can't prove that either, but if you can accept that, then accepting that the plea was faked ought to be easy for you.

Incidentally, I believe that there is some kind of rule awarding a defendant a substantial and automatic reduction in sentence as a reward for pleading guilty straightaway. It would hardly justify a guilty plea in Vincent Tabak's case, however, as we know that the evidence against him was far too weak to secure a conviction, which the CPS must have known, thereby implicating themselves in an illegal conspiracy.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 08:22:45 PM
leonora... where did I read that Dr Vincent Tabak had injuries on him???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 21, 2017, 08:50:11 PM
leonora... where did I read that Dr Vincent Tabak had injuries on him???
As soon as  Vincent Tabak arrived at the police station on 20th January 2011, Nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson asked him for his consent to make a medical examination. He appeared upset but did not cry. He “consented” to his medical examination. He told her that he was normally physically well but had been taking herbal sleeping pills. He told the nurse he was normally “happy” and had no previous mental health problems. The nurse found a 6 cm x 1 cm scar with a scab on his left arm and a bruised toe nail. She photographed these injuries.

I cannot find any account of this using Google any more.

In answer to your question about how it was "proved" to be a sex crime, this is what the judge said when passing sentence:

“The sentence for murder is the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and that is the sentence I must pass on you. There are no mitigating features in this case, only aggravating factors. These are:
“There is a sexual element to the killing of Joanna Yeates. On your own evidence and after an acquaintanceship lasting just a few minutes you moved to kiss Joanna, and I’m quite sure you did not intend to stop there and wanted to go much further. It was because of her screams that your sexual purpose was frustrated.”
...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 21, 2017, 09:39:20 PM
As soon as  Vincent Tabak arrived at the police station on 20th January 2011, Nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson asked him for his consent to make a medical examination. He appeared upset but did not cry. He “consented” to his medical examination. He told her that he was normally physically well but had been taking herbal sleeping pills. He told the nurse he was normally “happy” and had no previous mental health problems. The nurse found a 6 cm x 1 cm scar with a scab on his left arm and a bruised toe nail. She photographed these injuries.

I cannot find any account of this using Google any more.

In answer to your question about how it was "proved" to be a sex crime, this is what the judge said when passing sentence:

“The sentence for murder is the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and that is the sentence I must pass on you. There are no mitigating features in this case, only aggravating factors. These are:
“There is a sexual element to the killing of Joanna Yeates. On your own evidence and after an acquaintanceship lasting just a few minutes you moved to kiss Joanna, and I’m quite sure you did not intend to stop there and wanted to go much further. It was because of her screams that your sexual purpose was frustrated.”

Well... why was not more made of this apparent injury??? That's quite large!!

I'll add this to the hundred questions ... but how could the Judge in his own words Know what a defendant intended to do???

When was it qualified that Joanna Yeates actually screamed..... Did the judge believe Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events???


How did the judge have foresight??

How could the judge read Dr Vincent Tabak's mind??

How is intention proof of anything?? Why accept that Dr Vincent Tabak said Joanna Yeates screamed .. when he called him a lying deceitful man???

I cannot see how the aggrevating factors came into play??

"Concealment ??? Left out in the open is not concealment!!

"Planning or premeditation..... It was a spur of the moment thing... a chance encounter.. (apparently) (IMO)

"Mental or physical suffering Inflicted on the victim before death.... How do you quantify that??  You would need to know so much more about how Joanna Yeates dealt with situations to know the amount of "Mental" and Physical suffering...  The evidences apparently says 20 seconds... That is a short time by anyones book...

(Please don't take offence anyone by my approach.. I'm  being direct for a purpose...)

Abuse of position of trust... "didn't apply... didn't know her ... wasn't in such a position...

Use of duress.. or threats against another person to facilitate the commission of this crime... Didn't apply...

The Fact that the victim was performing a public service or duty... again doesn't apply..

The fact that the victim was of vulnerable age or disability... again doesn't apply...

So tell me what the aggravating factors are... because they are NOT there!!

She wasn't held captive for any length of time... this was apparently.. a spur of the moment attack that according to the evidence happened in a short space of time... so how can any of the aggravating factors apply????


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 22, 2017, 09:56:52 AM
...
I'll add this to the hundred questions ... but how could the Judge in his own words Know what a defendant intended to do???
...
The judge was not claiming to know what the defendant intended to do. He based it on the prosecutor's aggressive cross-examination of VT on this point. This doesn't excuse the judge, but it does explain his words:

Mr. Lickley: “How do you make a pass at someone which is not sexual? Were you trying to kiss Joanna on the lips?”

Vincent Tabak: “Yes, but it was not sexual. It was just a kiss. I wanted to kiss her”.

Mr. Lickley: “– Because you would find it enjoyable?”

Vincent Tabak: “Yes”.

Mr. Lickley: “What sort of kiss did you have in mind?”

Vincent Tabak: “A kiss on the lips”.

Mr. Lickley: “You wanted to kiss her on the mouth – a woman you have known for a few minutes – you didn't even know her name! You think of kissing her on the mouth? That’s sexual, isn’t it?”

Vincent Tabak: “I don’t think that it was sexual”.

Mr. Lickley: “Were you sexually aroused when you held Joanna’s throat?”

Vincent Tabak: “Definitely not.”
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 22, 2017, 10:20:12 AM
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known...
One newspaper DID report that they knew each other, as I have pointed out. In this case, the newspapers have sniffed out a lot of facts that turned out to be false, or, like this one, were never heard of again - yet their record on sniffing out really important facts, such as the reason why so many fire & rescue vehicles & officers were needed to recover the body, but not revealed to the jury, has been so bad that I am convinced that even Judge Rinder and Netflix are part of a very large conspiracy.

I am always loathe to provide ammunition for those who believe Vincent Tabak guilty as charged, especially as they seem to be so devoid of commonsense and imagination. Be that as it may, I have read of cases in which criminals forced their victims to sex by the threat of violence. One such victim was strangled, and the pathologist believed at first that she had not been raped, leading police to suspect someone close to her. Only after unidentified semen was found on her jumper did they close the case until the same DNA turned up in another case.

This means that Joanna could have been raped by a stranger, who took her sock as a trophy. I don't believe it myself. However, those who believe VT guilty ought to confront the possibility that he did go on to rape her, and that it suited the lawyers not to let the jury know this. This would have been the logical thing for him to do if he had been a sociopath who could not take rejection and liked to combine strangulation with intercourse, as Mr Lickley seems to believe.

The pathologist omitted to testify to a number of obvious facts, such as blood alcohol content. He told the court nothing about whether he even looked for evidence of consensual sex.

If VT and Jo did know each other, as that solitary newspaper allegation claimed, then that opens up the possiblity that they had been lovers, and that they may also have had sex, either consensual or not, that evening while their partners were both absent. This scenario could account for the curious about-turn of Paul Cook QC regarding the bail application, though it doesn't in any way account for the subsequent behaviour of William Clegg QC.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 22, 2017, 11:56:53 AM
Quote
Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight.

I dislike the vagueness of the Defences questions....  Which road is the defence refering too?? Is it Canygne Road??
Is it any road between.. Bedminster and Canygne Road.. Or any road between Longwood lane and Canygne road??

What captured Dr Vincent Tabak on this road? If it's a CCTV image where's the date and time stamped image of Dr Vincent Tabak on the road..

If it's a person... why did they not appear in court??

What Time and day is Timeline 113...???

How can Clegg determine the length of time it took Dr Vincent Tabak to reach home, if they was NO evidence presented or demonstration to prove this time??

 Is Clegg just hazarding a guess at this time... Why doesn't Clegg state where Dr Vincent Tabak's car is....

By Clegg stating Dr Vincent Tabak reaches his home around midnight... Is that Time accurate???

What time is around Midnight??? Exact times are extremely important...

Here he does the same ... He must know the exact times ..

Quote
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.

He know when Tanja was sent a text from Dr Vincent Tabak,... why the hazarding a guess...

Here's another point that needs correction...

Quote
Defence Counsel: When did the couple move in to Flat 1?
Tabak: 25 October 2010

How did Dr Vincent Tabak know when Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon moved into Flat 1???

What event made them moving into Flat 1 make that date so memorable??

If the facebook comments by Greg giving away his Ski equipment are dated 16th Oct 2010 and whom ever wants these items ....collect from Canygne Road.. Had they moved into Canygne Road by this time?? Had Dr Vincent Tabak noticed his neighbours before the 25th December 2010

If he had never seen his neighbours before the tragedy in December 2010.. How could he know who had moved into Flat 1 on the 25th October 2010???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 25, 2017, 05:57:27 PM
I had an interesting discusion today... I found out something about the PERSPEX Fronted Cell..... It's not the normal conversation you would have with anyone,... it was a passing comment...

I remember Jixy saying... About the PERSPEX fronted cell... and i accepted like everybody else did, the FACT.. that Dr Vincent Tabak was put in a PERSPEX fronted cell.. was because he was on suicide watch...

We all..... Including me... accepted that as a genuine reason for the way in which he was incarcerated....

Question... What are PERSPEX Fronted Cells used for?????

Is it the Norm to put Suicide Prisoners in These type of cells and I believe the answer is NO....

Think about that ... How many PERSPEX cells would prisons have to have installed to WATCH.... LOKK AFTER Prisoners on suicide watch????? Well a damn sight more than they actually have...!!!!

An Aquaintance of mine who I hadn't seen in a long time.. described a situation she found herself in... upon arrest.. and subsequently being held for 17 hours plus... Why was SHE put in a PERSPEX fronted cell......???

Massive question....Simple Answer....

They put her in this PERSPEX prisone cell... NOT because she was suicidal....... BUT.......... Because she suffered from Panic Attacks and Agrophobia... and needed the visual to stop her from feeling Trapped!!!!!

There fore as I have stated before... Dr Vincent Tabak Most likely suffered from an anxiety based illness. and couldn't cope with being in a cell where he didn't fell claustophobic.....

And as these anxiety type disorder run in family it would only go to support the fact that he suffered the same disorder as his mother....

It has be stated that Dr Vincent Tabak's mother suffers from Agrophobia... So why not her son Vincent ??? Who according to NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE to support him at trial had no problems with life what so ever.... Nonsense...

Yes... you may come back at me for the PERSPEX CELL... but i challenge you to prove the reason legally that Dr Vincent Tabak was detained behind a PERSPEX Fronted cell in the first place!!!!!!!


If it wasn't for the simple answer that he wa Agrophobic like his own mother!!



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 26, 2017, 09:45:35 AM
...
Question.. In Dr Vincent Tabak's testimoney to the court... does he ever say thta he spoke to "Brotherton"??
...
Mr. Clegg's last question on VT's first day in the witness box: “You met Brotherton and told him what you did. Did you want to kill Joanna?”

Vincent Tabak: “No, definitely not.”
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 26, 2017, 10:00:04 AM
Mr. Clegg's last question on VT's first day in the witness box: “You met Brotherton and told him what you did. Did you want to kill Joanna?”

Vincent Tabak: “No, definitely not.”

So is Dr Vincent Tabak denying he even met "Brotherton"???  Because the reply could be in that context!!

Everyone assumes he's denying killing Joanna Yeates... But Thinking about it now... he could quite easily be denying ever met with "Brotherton!!! (IMO)....


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 26, 2017, 11:32:12 AM
So is Dr Vincent Tabak denying he even met "Brotherton"???  Because the reply could be in that context!!

Everyone assumes he's denying killing Joanna Yeates... But Thinking about it now... he could quite easily be denying ever met with "Brotherton!!! (IMO)....

No of course it is not Brotherton he is "denying"! It is the question, "Did you WANT to kill Joanna?" that he is denying. That is Clegg's reason for ending the day's cross-examination with this question.

It would be sensational if he had denied meeting Brotherton, and the prosecution would certainly have pounced on that.

It is the barristers and the judge who should be brought before their own professional bodies. Mr Lickley told the jury that VT confessed to Brotherton that he had killed Joanna. However, Brotherton never used the word "confession" except to say that "it was NOT a RELIGIOUS confession". He was a careful witness ensuring that no one could ever charge him with perjury, as he emphasised that "it was NOT a confession". But everyone pounces on the word "religious". Brotherton NEVER testified that VT told him he had killed Joanna. It was Clegg who put that idea into the jury's head by posing it as a question that the witness did not need to deny.

Unlike jurors, judges are trained to detect and control this kind of trickery on the part of barristers. The jury trusted the judge, yet he remained silent.

Brotherton's supposed "betrayal" of VT's confidence caused so much comment in the press (none of whom understood what was going on) that the authorities published a warning to prisoners that the chaplaincies could not guarantee confidentiality.

Your research into this issue is excellent, but the conspirators could also have used another prisoner as "listener". This has been done in many other cases, but none of these would have made such an impact in court as Brotherton did.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 27, 2017, 08:17:55 AM
There are loads of things that should have been produced in court....

Like the Coat Stand, that we can see clearly in the crime scene photo's... that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak hung his coat upon...

Did they forget to take it to Forensics???

Did they think the killer came round in a onsie... Common sense must say that it's possibly been touched by an intruder.. But we have it there for all to see in the hallway of Flat 1...

The kettle is missing.. and appliances from the kitchen are missing... did they think the killer wanted to pop the kettle on...

I still have a problem with Greg being able to take away his possessions... and the only photograph that are available of Flat 1 are when Greg's possesions have been removed....

That's not right... how would that give a true representaion of how Flat 1 should look like...

They painted the idea that Flat 1 was a time capsule....  That would imply that nothing had been touched since Joanna Yeates disappearance...

The Flat to me looks staged...  How can you have such a tidy Flat when a Murder was supposed to have taken place there... Greg says how messy it was ....So why is it so TIDY???

Didn't the Jury even question this.... what were they told upon entrance to the flat... we don't know... because they seem to have completely put out of their heads that a VIOLENT STRUGGLE took place in that Flat...?
How did  that come into play when deciding on Dr Vincent Tabak's fate...

Did they had to visualize what took place there ??? They had to imagine how furniture was knocked over ??

Which brings me back to the console... where is it in the photographs.. mrswah said consoles are tables as well.. so I would imagine that it should  be in the hall... "BROKEN"!!

Where are the photographs of this broken Console?? Were the jury shown photographs of the flat before the clean up... when it had all of Greg's possesions in situ???

Or.. did they just see it when they went on their visit???

When you compare the crime scenes of Joanna Yeates and Becky Watts, they are vastly different... They didn't remove everything out of Becky Watts home...

The photo's of Joanna Yeates flat are definetley staged ... she didn't move into a flat with NO Carpets....  So they had to move all the furniture to take the carpets up....

Did they take photographs so they could put everything back in its place ??? where are these photographs??? What did Joanna Yeates Flat TRULY look like!!!





Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 27, 2017, 09:24:27 AM
We don't know, Nine.

I remember, when Jo first went missing, there were conflicting reports about the state of the flat, some saying it was too tidy, some saying the opposite.

Greg said (in court) that he found a mess, and that he had tidied up before realising that something untoward might have happened to Jo.

Jo's parents commented on the state of the flat, but it was never clear exactly what they meant.  I assume that they feared Jo had been abducted because they found her keys, purse, phone, etc in the flat, and knew that she would not have gone out without these items.

As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly.    Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 27, 2017, 09:30:17 AM
We don't know, Nine.

I remember, when Jo first went missing, there were conflicting reports about the state of the flat, some saying it was too tidy, some saying the opposite.

Greg said (in court) that he found a mess, and that he had tidied up before realising that something untoward might have happened to Jo.

Jo's parents commented on the state of the flat, but it was never clear exactly what they meant.  I assume that they feared Jo had been abducted because they found her keys, purse, phone, etc in the flat, and knew that she would not have gone out without these items.

As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly.    Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.

I can't find the post at the mo... But in one of the video's Jo's mum appears in she says about the washing up still being in the sink upon their arrival....

I wanted to know who cleaned that up... once they had contacted the Police and thought she had been abducted, you are not really gonna start doing the dishes... so why do we see a clean sink in the time capsule of the Flat???

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 27, 2017, 09:33:06 AM
A...  Assume Nothing

B...  Believe No one

C..   Challenge everything../ check everything

A..B..C.. 

A basic for all to follow.. Police. Defence ,Prosecution Forensics alike....  Why didn't they implement this

The assumptions that were made in this case are tenfold..

Who did they believe??
Who was challenged ??
What was checked??
What was Assumed??

Challenged virtually nothing... The Defence Challenged Virtually No one.. And everyone believed a story, that was not Checked....

Dr Vincent Tabak's Black Coat... Looks like a wool fibre type coat.. The Defence want us to believe that there was no fibre transfer from Joanna Yeates onto Dr Vincent Tabak's coat... It gets put upon the coatstand when he arrives at the flat..

Has anyone really challenged this ??? When do perfect strangers entering another residence take their coat of and hang it up???

They don't... the Offical line is they do not know each other.... only people who have meet and feel comfortable in a social situation would take their coat of and hang it upon the coat stand...
Why would it be one of the first things that he would do??

Maybe once feeling a little more comfortable you would take your coat off, but I would imagine that he would put it across his arm..

We have no fibre transfer from Joanna Yeates on anything belonging to Dr Vincent Tabak... There should be some.. why didn't the defence challenge this before trial... why didn't the defence question everything..

Was The DNA Profiles tested against everyone who came into contact with Joanna Yeates ... The answer is NO!! why??

Was Tanja Morson's statements brought to court as she lived with Dr Vincent Tabak... No.. Why??

Was The Landlords statements brought to trial.... NO!! Why??  Could have challenged him!!



Did everyone involved in this case follow the simple A.. B... C...?? What other A.. B... C... should they have followed ??

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 27, 2017, 09:52:02 AM
What are the principles?
The SRA sets out the following principles:

(1):uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice

(2):act with integrity

(3):not allow your independence to be compromised

(4):act in the best interests of each client

(5):provide a proper standard of service to your clients

(6):behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services

(7):comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsman in an open, timely and co-operative manner

(8):run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles

(9):run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity

(10):protect client money and assets

Well there's rich picking ........ Does lambasting your Client to a jury constitute any of the Principles of Law??

Does offering a Base Metal Service constitute the Principles of Law??

I have lost trust in the Defences ability to show a Fair and open approach to their own client, does that Constitute that Principles of Law??

In Fact it was the Defences statements of hatred they had for their client that pricked my ears about this case.... I couldn't understand this??

Could I put my hand on heart and say that this case was conducted with the "Principles Of Law"... (IMO) NO!!



https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/articles/the-ten-principles/
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 27, 2017, 11:54:21 AM
...
As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly.    Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.
Of course there were suspects at the time! Officially, VT became a suspect on 31 December 2010. At that time, CJ was already a suspect, and had become one not later than 28 December 2010, when he was seen on TV for the first time.

Although we have been told that Lindsay Lennen took away the bedding for forensic analysis while Joanna was still a missing person, the heavy gang didn't move in until January, when dangerous chemicals were brought in. Ask yourself why the jury wasn't even TOLD about the forensic examination of the flat - let alone being told the evidence that you know very well would have had to exist if an inexperienced murderer had been loose in there. It seems obvious to me that the heavy gang were there to OBLITERATE forensic evidence that a later investigation could have used to incriminate someone other than Vincent Tabak. If you disagree with that conclusion, why not produce some arguments to refute it?

That is probably the explanation for the black stains in the bathroom too.

The flat ceased to be a crime scene after Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011, and there was no reason why Greg Reardon should not have had his possessions restored to him by then. The reason for taking the jury to see the flat was, obviously, to allow them to feel important and feel a tingle in their spines, and brainwash them into believing that the crime really did take place there - especially as it most probably took place elsewhere.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 27, 2017, 01:28:44 PM
I didn't know Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011. (How do you know this, Leonora?)  What would have happened had VT not pleaded guilty, and had been found not guilty at the trial ? Surely, the police don't close a case until they have found the perpetrator??

I don't understand what the jury visit to the flats was intended to achieve, except to bring it home to the jury members that an ordinary young woman, leading an ordinary life, was unfortunate enough to be murdered by the beast next door, after experiencing an ordinary day------and it could happen to any of us.  I remember that the jurors in the Rosemary West trial visited her home too---but at least they knew for certain that a number of young women's  bodies had been buried in that home. It has never been proved that Joanna died in her flat---or in VT's.





Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on April 28, 2017, 11:19:20 AM
I didn't know Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011. (How do you know this, Leonora?)  What would have happened had VT not pleaded guilty, and had been found not guilty at the trial ? Surely, the police don't close a case until they have found the perpetrator??

I don't understand what the jury visit to the flats was intended to achieve, except to bring it home to the jury members that an ordinary young woman, leading an ordinary life, was unfortunate enough to be murdered by the beast next door, after experiencing an ordinary day------and it could happen to any of us.  I remember that the jurors in the Rosemary West trial visited her home too---but at least they knew for certain that a number of young women's  bodies had been buried in that home. It has never been proved that Joanna died in her flat---or in VT's.
The Crown was to serve its case papers to the defence by 1st April 2011, so Operation Braid must have been completed by then. The inquest was held on 28th March 2011. The very interesting details (attached) of the expenditure on the case up to 31 March 2011 was published as a result of someone's FoI request.

The only beasts living next-door to me, mrswah, are of the friendly four-legged variety like your "avatar", so I don't expect the same fate to overtake me!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on April 28, 2017, 12:02:50 PM
Quote
Operation Braid-Murder of Joanna Yeates Expenditure


Operation Braid - Spend to 31/03/11



Description Spend to 31/03/11
 
Overtime Costs............                 £ 231,352.00
 
Agency Staff Costs .........              £ 4,164.00
 
Accommodation & Subsistence ...   £ 2,345.00
 
Travel/fuel/hire cars etc.....           £ 7,505.00

 Equipment Purchases......             £ 10,639.00

 Contribution from other Forces ..  £ 6,662.00
 
Purchase of Storage Crates...        £ 5,484.00
 
Telephony Costs............              £ 3,216.00

Interpreters Fees and other costs  £ 3,468.00

Printing and Advertising Costs...... £ 440.00

Total of Overtime & Expenses..      £ 275,275.00

Forensic Costs.....                         £ 83,379.00

Salaries.....                                  £ 856,000.00

                                        TOTAL £ 1,214,654.00



(1):  Overtime Costs... Expected.. long hours put into case

(2):  Agency Staff Costs ... I wonder what agency staff they used and if any should have been called as witness's??

(3):  Accommodation & Subsistence.. I'm presuming this is for the family.. unless part of this was used when they
       went to Holland??

(4):  Travel/fuel/hire cars etc.... Yes this would include flight to Holland..

(5):  Equipment Purchases... I wonder what equipment was purchased ??

(6):  Contribution from other Forces .... Now this one I at first puzzled over, because I don't know what other forces
       were involved.. I just thought it was Avon and Somerset Police... But Then I wondered if they were referring to
       the DUTCH POLICE??
       Or is it the Fire Service they are referring too??

(7):  Purchase of Storage Crates.... That's a lot of money on storage crates... what on earth have they got stored in
        them??? None of it came to trial!!!

(8):  Telephony Costs......

(9):  Interpreters Fees and other costs....

       Now an Interpreter was hardly used.. where is the breakdown of this??
       The Police may have had an interpreter in the begining.. But They never used one to translate the Dutch text or
       they would have appeared in court!!!
       Or did they need an Interpreter when they were in Holland?? Did they
      use an interpreter when they INTERVIEWED Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland??????

If so... where are all the translations... thats a lot of money for interpreters... especially when the Defence have to pay for their own!!!!!

(10): Printing and Advertising Costs...

(11): Forensic Costs = £ 83,379.00....  I would love  a breakdown of these cost... Especially LGC's costs or are these
        LGC's cost??
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on April 28, 2017, 12:44:21 PM
It all sounds very expensive, but in terms of murder investigations, I have no idea whether it is!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 03, 2017, 05:04:22 PM
Quote
Tabak: I was hoping she was alive but clearly she wasn’t.
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to carry her to your flat?
Tabak: No she was too heavy. I tried again.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take her body?
Tabak: To my flat.
Defence Counsel: Did you leave Joanna’s door shut or open?
Tabak: Open.
Defence Counsel: What did you do next?
Tabak: I decided to put her body in my bicycle cover.
Defence Counsel: Was it your bicycle cover or Tanja’s?
Tabak: No- it was mine.
Defence Counsel: How easy was it to put the body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: Very difficult but eventually I did it.
Defence Counsel: Why did you put her body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: I didn’t want anyone to find out and I put the body in my car.
Defence Counsel: Was Joanna’s door still open?
Tabak: Yes.

Then...... So after struggling with the body and it being his first murder... he has the presence of mind to do this next :..

Quote
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
Defence Counsel: Why did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: I was not thinking straight.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: In my car.
Defence Counsel: You decided to take the body away. How were you going to do that?
Tabak: In the car.
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.

From the trial.....

Is the Defence happy in accepting that their Client apparently... left the door on the latch with NO mind or WORRY that someone may turn up to the flat and wonder what was going on?????

He returns to the flat twice... Would he really!

He was supposed to be in his Flat for an hour with Joanna Yeates body... you think that

(A): He'd of cleaned up in that time

(B): He of made sure he had both socks!!

It's only the Defence that tells us that Joanna Yeates told Dr Vincent Tabak that Greg was away.... How did he know???

Someone.... anyone... friends/family could have turned up at Joanna Yeates Flat at anytime, seeing as it was the week leading up to Christmas....

Did none of the neighbours drop off Christmas Cards???  Did anyone drop of Christmas cards ... ??

Why would he return to the flat at all, when it was always feasible someone could have turned up???

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 03, 2017, 06:40:25 PM
I was wondering what happened to all of the possesions that were removed from Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....

Did the Bulk Destruction Policy come into play....?? What happened to the Car and household goods that were tested???


Quote
Bulk destruction policy

It is not possible to define bulk for the purpose of this policy. Prosecutors should consider the issue of bulk on an individual case basis, and in liaison with the NCA / HMRC / police colleagues.

Bulk goods (for example, drugs, excise goods, alcohol etc) and associated packaging can be destroyed post charge. Prosecutors should make a decision as to the destruction of bulk goods following agreement from the defence or upon receipt of the defence statement.

The prosecutor must be satisfied that the case officer has:

Provided evidence, by way of witness statement, as to the quantity and nature of the bulk goods;
Provided photographs of the bulk goods and / or a video of the bulk goods in situ;
Confirmed that there are no issues as to continuity;
Confirmed that the decision about the selection of a representative sample has been recorded in a policy book / day book;
Provided an assurance that a representative sample has been retained by the case officer; and
Confirmed that the bulk goods will not be destroyed until they receive written consent from the prosecutor.
It is important that the defence are notified, at the earliest opportunity, of the prosecution's intention to destroy the goods. The prosecutor should either (a) write to the defence; or (b) raise the issue at the PTPH / PCMH so that the issue can be made the subject of directions:

notifying them of the prosecutions intention to destroy the goods;
giving them 7 days to provide any written reasons to object; and
making it clear that in the event no response is received, the prosecution will move to destruction of the bulk goods.
Prosecutors should be alert to the possibility of the defendant changing his / her defence team after the prosecution has sent the letter about intention to destroy the goods. In such circumstances, the defendant may claim that the earlier defence team has not acted appropriately with regard to the letter. The claim may weaken the prosecution case, so prosecutors must be prepared to overcome this argument. A full and clear audit of decisions and correspondence will be essential in order to rebut any potential challenges.


Do photographs exist of these bulk goods... Have these bulk goods been retained??

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on May 04, 2017, 09:22:50 AM
I was wondering what happened to all of the possesions that were removed from Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....

Did the Bulk Destruction Policy come into play....?? What happened to the Car and household goods that were tested???

Do photographs exist of these bulk goods... Have these bulk goods been retained??

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/
No "bulk goods" were reported to have been impounded in this case. "Bulk goods" would be goods such as a crates of duty-free wine, cases of cigarettes, ivory, coral, or of course illegal drugs in quantities considered more than for personal use. The nearest things we get to "bulk goods" in this case are the adult and child pornographic materials, which of course could be replicated indefinitely, if they really existed.

Just because Tanja Morson's car and Vincent Tabak's mountain bike were too bulky to get inside a large hold-all doesn't mean that they were covered by the regulation that you quote. I expect Vincent's family were allowed to collect his mountain bike eventually, just as Amanda Knox's family were allowed to collect her climbing boots after she had been convicted.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 04, 2017, 09:27:08 AM
No "bulk goods" were reported to have been impounded in this case. "Bulk goods" would be goods such as a crates of duty-free wine, cases of cigarettes, ivory, coral, or of course illegal drugs in quantities considered more than for personal use. The nearest things we get to "bulk goods" in this case are the adult and child pornographic materials, which of course could be replicated indefinitely, if they really existed.

Just because Tanja Morson's car and Vincent Tabak's mountain bike were too bulky to get inside a large hold-all doesn't mean that they were covered by the regulation that you quote. I expect Vincent's family were allowed to collect his mountain bike eventually, just as Amanda Knox's family were allowed to collect her climbing boots after she had been convicted.


Well they spent £5,484 on Storage Crates according to the Expenditure..

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg401172#msg401172
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 04, 2017, 12:45:05 PM
Where were the Exhibits in this Case?? What was produced at trial??

(1): Joanna Yeates Coat

(2): Joanna Yeates House keys

(3): Joanna Yeates Phone

(4): Joanna Yeates Sock

(5): Joanna Yeates Rucksack

(6):Joanna Yeates Black Bag

(7): Joanna Yeates Purse

(8): Bargain Booze Reciept

(9): The Bottles of Cider

(10): Tanja Morson's Car

(11): Dr Vincent Tabak's Black coat

Where any of these items brought to the court or in the case of the car visited by the jury??

These would have added value and impact for the Prosecution... So did anyone see them??

If NOT why NOT??

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 15, 2017, 05:31:15 PM
Quote
Alibi

In the absence of forensic evidence or a description, some TIE subjects can be eliminated through alibi enquiries. Alibi enquiries establish that a subject was not available to commit the offence because the person was in another location during the time that it was committed.

The degree of reliance that can be placed on alibi elimination depends on the credibility of the person providing the alibi. The HOLMES2 elimination criteria distinguish between alibi witnesses who are independent of the nominal, those who are associated with them in some way and those who are in an intimate relationship with them. Clearly, the value of alibi enquiries depends, to a large extent, on knowing with some certainty the location of the crime and the times during which it occurred. If it is not possible to set reasonably tight locations and alibi times, it is likely that many TIE subjects will remain not eliminated.

How did the Police exclude any alibi Dr Vincent Tabak may have had in the intial arrest?? 

Quote
Clearly, the value of alibi enquiries depends, to a large extent, on knowing with some certainty the location of the crime and the times during which it occurred.

They had no clear idea of when where or how Joanna Yeates had died when they Arrested Dr Vincent Tabak and with the Time Stamp being Void on the Asda CCTV it makes it difficult to know at what time he visited ASDA??

We know he went into Asda Twice.... where these two seperate visits at very different times ??

Quote
Not eliminated

Someone who cannot be eliminated using codes 1–5 must be recorded as not eliminated. This does not mean that they are a suspect in the case. Where the elimination criteria are broad, it is likely that fewer TIE subjects will be eliminated than where the criteria are more narrowly defined.


Why didn't they just release Dr Vincent Tabak on bail when they had NO Hard Evidence to retain him...

Quote
Investigation
Working with suspects
The identification of suspects, the trace/interview/eliminate (TIE) strategy and the arrest strategy are explored in this module. In terms of the arrest strategy, considerations around timings, background checks, searches, planning, pre-arrest briefings and post-arrest issues are included.

Even if they had suspected Dr Vincent Tabak... they do not appear to have taken much notice the working with subject stratergy (IMO)...

Quote
Arrest strategy
An investigator must decide whether the suspect can or should be arrested. The decision to deprive an individual of their freedom should not be taken lightly, and advice should be sought from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) if needed. Once a suspect has been identified, a strategy development approach can be adopted to gather material that will either implicate them in the offence or eliminate them. Every individual who falls within the suspect category must be treated in the same way. If there are specific reasons for not following the same procedure, these should be recorded in the crime report or policy file.

So this is the point Anne Redrrop decided that the evidence they had presented to her warranted planning his arrest... The only problem was all they had was a partial DNA sample... So what did they actually arrest Dr Vincent Tabak with???



https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#arrest-strategy
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 17, 2017, 10:46:01 AM

Just spotted a little something..... When The Defence is talking about the Prison Chaplain.... he is fully aware (IMO)... that he is NOT a prison Chaplain in the true sense of the word:..

Quote
Defence Counsel: You met Brotherton and told him what you did? Did you want to kill
Joanna?
Tabak: No definitely not.

He refers to the Chapalin as Brotherton and NOT Brother Brotherton... he doesn't give him a title... Not even Mr Brotherton...

Well Mr Defence person... what did you know about "Brotherton"...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 18, 2017, 08:52:29 AM
Bad Character Evidence....... Part One...

We have sort of covered this, but I just keep looking at how they actually managed to introduce "Bad Character Evidence" under a cloak...

Quote
Bad character
Further information

Bad character of the defendant(s) and non-defendant(s)

Previously, evidence of bad character fell within the category of inadmissible evidence however, this has been changed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA).

The Act provides for the admissibility of previous convictions in support of the propensity to commit like offences and/or to be untruthful. Common law rules in the main are abolished.

Bad character evidence is evidence of, or a disposition towards, misconduct rather than evidence relating to the facts in issue. Misconduct includes the commission of an offence or other ‘reprehensible behaviour’.

Initially I always believed that the exclusion of the Porn was the only "Bad Character Evidence" that they could use against Dr Vincent Tabak.... But I now believe they manipulated the "Evidence" in such a way, that they did allow the unsuspecting Jury to hear this "Bad Character Evidence" as it was drip feed throughtout the " Defences statements in court... I believe it is the DEFENCE themselves who Produce The "Bad Character Evidence" and as I have said many times before bury their client...

Why would a Defence team... push through on their own volition, Evidence deemed as "Bad Character Evidence"???
I have no experience in these matters ... But surely that is not a legal move!!


Examples of what was said by the Defence, which could be percieved by the Jury as "Bad Character" (IMO) The below quotes are from The Sally Ramage Papers
Quote
s.But his conduct
afterwards was frankly disgusting.
The Defence are Telling The Jury that their client is of "Bad Character".

Quote
He caused anguish to her family.
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.
Only a person without Morals would have no compassion for the family..

Quote
He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything.
Allowing the Jury to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was conniving ,deceitful and manipulating

Quote
Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that.

There was Nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak told lie after lie..
Quote
It shows a very
calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death
Again... stating that his OWN client is a"Calculating person"...


I will do this in parts as it will be way too long....






 
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 18, 2017, 08:52:52 AM
" Bad Character Evidence" Part Two.......

The below quotes come from the papers at the time of the trial.....

Quote
  his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
Covered this one..
Quote
:  “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”

The Defence push the boundaries of decency here... They cast aspersions on Dr Vincent Tabak's over all Character, without any "Evidence" provided by the "DEFENCE" themselves to prove the contrary

Quote
And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.
By bringing into court that his longtime girlfriend had failed to appear at the trial, it suggest, that Dr Vincent tabak is such a dispicable person, they one and only person in this country who knew him well enough had, as it appeared "Failed him"...  But infact.. Tanja Morson was kept away from the trial and sent away on holiday by her family...
Quote
He had told “lie after lie to the police.

This that Defence are refering too, is the infamous CJ interview where he talks about CJ's car.....

Quote
did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
That again is an UNTRUE..... If Dr Vincent Tabak did everyting in his power to cover his tracks he would have disposed of his "Laptop" in a River in Holland"...

But the Jury are being influenced by the Defence as to The "Bad Character" of their OWN Client...
Quote
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.
Another example from the Defence as to Dr Vincent Tabak's carefree nature and uncaring approach...

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

WOW... This one is EXTREMELY harsh.... The Defence had completely dropped there client in the fire.... "Nothing to like".... That statement in itself should be enough for the Jury to think that this man is Guilty of everything... Everything from this trial to anything your imagination can come up with...

He makes this HUGE "Statement "... Yet "No"... "Good Character Evidence".. was brought to court in Defence of Dr Vincent Tabak... and The "Good Character Evidence should be brought to trial by The Defence...

If it is the Defence who are actually bringing The Bad Character Evidence to trial about their own Client.... Is that not an abuse of power.... Is that "Not an abuse of the Principles of Law??...
Quote
“I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

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

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


Quote
but it does not help in thinking of what happened at the flat….
This Particular quote is quite worring.. not saying the others aren't , But this quote allows The Jury to conjour in their minds what they may think occured to Joanna Yeates , and what perverse things he may have done after being alone with her dead body...

There is absolutley NO Evidence as to What happened to Joanna Yeates apart from what Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand...

Ever time the Defence utter words of distain for their client, it was another underhanded attempt to cast doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak "Good Character"...  There was nothing in Dr Vincent Tabak's history to suggest that he was a man of "Bad Character"... The CPS could find nothing to support a claim of any Offence that Dr Vincent Tabak had previously...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 18, 2017, 08:53:32 AM
"Bad Character Evidence Part Three...

In light of the Evidence that it was indeed it was "The Defence" who Introduced "The Bad Character Evidence" against their own client and in turn Dr Vincent Tabak had No chance to have "Good Character Evidence" Brought to trial... Isn't this
Evidence Evidence in itself that an "UNFAIR Trial had taken place.....

* When a Defendant such as Dr Vincent Tabak is being "Prosecuted" by both the "Prosecution and "The Defence" at
   Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for the "Murder of "Joanna Yeates".. how in "Law" can this be permitted??

* How in "Law" is the boundaries of fairness being played out"

* How in "Law" did this "Dutchman" stand a chance to recieve a "Fair trial" ?

* Why has there "Not " been a retrial???

If it was a possibility for me to make this my online "Application" to "Request" a retrial for Dr Vincent Tabak on the "Evidence I have shown how the trial was in "law" "Unfair"... Then please accept my writtings as such... because someone out there must be reading this who Knows "Law"... and can see that........Dr Vincent Tabak.. The Placid Dutchman Did not recieve "A Fair trial " in this country of ours and as such I believe that "All the "Evidence".. should be brought to the Forefront and be scrutinised .... This "Evidence I believe.. Will not only show that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't recieve a fair trial in this country.... But it is my belief, it will also show that "Dr Vincent Tabak is actually Innocent of the Crime of which he has been found "Guilty of....

I would like "Ever Point that has been made brought to someones attention from:

* All The Time Stamps On All CCTV Footage that Avon and Somerset Police had in their Possesion

* The Illegal use of "Dutch Law" to interview Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours

* That fact that DC Karen Thomas did not caution Dr Vincent Tabak as a "Suspect" when it appears a Twin Track
   Investigation was taking place and that was her intention to gather "Evidence" against Dr Vincent Tabak as she
   suspected him of being involved with Joanna Yeates disappearance..

* The "Evidence that they supposidly had to Arrest Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place

* The Crying Girl Phone Call

* The Phone Call made from Holland

* The Taped Police Interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak

* The Phone records of Dr Vincent Tabak

* The 1300 page Document

* Good Character Evidence of Dr Vincent tabak

* The Role of The Fire Service nad the testomony of these personal

* DCI Phil Jones on the witness stand

* CJ's Second witness statement

* CJ on the witness stand

* Tanja Morson on the witness stand

* Timings of events that happened

* The Evidence that Anne Reddrop had to Plan Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest

* An explanation as to what was under the Two Forensic tents if Joanna Yeates wasn't

* The Asda CCTV Footage of Dr Vincent Tabak in the car park and the times of his Two visits

* The playing of the original "Crime Watch" program.. that was scheduled to air days after Dr vincent Tabak's arrest

* Mr Brotherton explaining his Job and Role in Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction

* Tanja Nickson's qualifications and explanation as to the "Computer Evidence"

* Scott Fulton, Head of E-services for Avon and Somerset Police , who was running an advisory role as a second job
   and wasn't part of the Police force... What other Input did he have in this trial ?? Did he help Tanja Nickson with
   her presentation???

I'll continue on next post...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 18, 2017, 08:59:09 AM
"Bad Character Evidence " Part  Four....

* Colin Port and his role an Knowledge of Information that was with held from the Defence... With his admission at
   the Leveson enquiry that there was CCTV footage at "Caffe Nero" of a woman and child behind Joanna Yeates and
   this was the clearest know Footage by the pubic, as we have just  found out.... Of Joanna Yeates last Known
   movements.

* Witness's who could prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was of "Good character"


* The other Tenants of 44 Canygne Road explaining the disruption that they were under during the Police
   Investigation and did any of them leave the building and stay else where...

* The DNA Evidence put under the microscope...

* Did they put Joanna Yeates DNA into "The National Data Base and have a return of No Matches??

* The CCTV in "Colour" showing what Joanna Yeates was wearing on the night of the 17th December 2010

* A comparison Given to the clothes that Joanna yeates was found in... In particular "The Flower patterned Top"
   described by Dr Delaney and what appears by the court artist to be "Blue Jeans on Joanna Yeates, instead of The
   Black ones she was wearing on the night of the 17 Th December 2010...

* A demonstration showing how difficult it is to move a dead body on ones own

* The full Toxicology results of Joanna Yeates

* The discrepencies in other witness accounts cross examined

* The Hundred Questions I originally had that have now swelled to over "750" Questions...

* The Dutch Translation of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's writings...

I could go on.... I believe whole heartedly that this case not only has been completely "Unfair" and contravened many of our laws... (IMO) But also an "Inquiry" on the level of "The Leveson Inquiry"... should be undertaken and all those responsible for Dr Vincent Tabak's current situation should be brought to BOOK!!!! (IMO)

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on May 18, 2017, 11:27:27 AM
... I believe it is the DEFENCE themselves who Produce The "Bad Character Evidence" and as I have said many times before bury their client...
Mr. Clegg asked the pathologist Nat Cary whether asphyxiation could form part of a sexually motivated attack.

Dr. Cary replied, “There are some people, probably a pretty small number in the population, who become sexually aroused by asphyxiating someone,” he told the jury. “It is fair to say there are some people who become sexually aroused by being asphyxiated.”
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 18, 2017, 12:17:37 PM
Mr. Clegg asked the pathologist Nat Cary whether asphyxiation could form part of a sexually motivated attack.

Dr. Cary replied, “There are some people, probably a pretty small number in the population, who become sexually aroused by asphyxiating someone,” he told the jury. “It is fair to say there are some people who become sexually aroused by being asphyxiated.”

Another reason to add to my list Leonora.... of "The Defences Bad Character" of their own client... To keep suggesting that Dr Vincent Tabak was the sort of person NO Evidence had proved he was !!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 18, 2017, 06:36:04 PM
Looking at more of the tweets .... It was The Lawyers... who decided how much detail was in Dr Vincent Tabak's statements...

Attached Tweets ....

Dr Cary Says Joanna Yeates face was virtually uninjured .....

Dr Cary States The redness on her nose was caused when her body froze and her skin was damaged...

Now we have got the PROBLEM... Of where "The Blood Came From"... because I always thought her nose was damaged in the struggle!!! Which makes it difficult for it to be in Dr Vincent Tabk's Car Boot!!!

How did Dr Cary find a fracture of Joanna Yeates Voice box.. which was not found in the First Post Mortem examination??


Dr Cary says its difficult to redress a dead body.... Is this question posed because Joanna Yeates had different clothes on....


http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=2
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 18, 2017, 07:45:36 PM
Please may I have a copy of the 200 page Transcript, of recorded Police Interviews following Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest .. That DC Richard Barnston, described at the trial...


Dc Paul Derrick.. denied there was tension between him and the duty solicitor.... (He's a new name for me to add....)

OMG... as I'm reading these tweets it's all screaming out at me..... Very cleverly worded .. is all I will say... Think I'll go back to Lyndsey Lennen and the "Forensics Topic after this post....

Now The defences Cross examination of Tanja Nickson is extremely brief according to the tweet...

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=1
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 19, 2017, 11:18:10 AM
Part one.......  i know I write long posts .. So I have split it into three....


I was Just looking at The News clips and I found one with Paul Vermij (Tabak family spokesman) , it got me thinking....

Video's are brilliant... they often put things into perspective, were the written word is often missed....

Quote
Vincent arrived with his girlfriend,er...on the 28th of December and they spend a few days together.. ermmm.... Celebrating Christmas and and New Years Eve and they left back for the UK on January the 2nd

Watching Paul it really got me visualising this little break to Holland to see his family... They had only arrived on the 28th December, I hadn't really thought about it properly...

Lets get this into some kind of order:

20th December early hours in The Morning... Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja are woken up to be asked by the Police if they have seen their neighbour...

I do remember Joanna Mother saying that Tanja seemed concerned...  Because she had also been round before the Police ...

22nd December 2010 according to the trial transcript.. Dr Vincent Tabak's House was visited by The Police... Some say it was the 23rd December... At this point they carried out what is discribed as a routine search of the flat...

Then on the 31st December the Police interview him in Holland at Schiphol airport for six hours.


Well that's the quick version.... But putting yourself In Dr Vincent Tabaks position, just turns the whole thing around..

He is first awoken by Joanna Yeates family and then the Police on the 20th December 2010 in the early hours.... Most people don't take into account that Joanna Yeates Family had already been around and knocked on the door of flat 2....
So it is already registering that something quite serious is happening...

We all think this is Sunday... but the missing persons call didn't happen until the Monday... So he is not long back from America.. Tired and has been knocked up out of bed twice in the early hours of Monday morning ... he then has to get ready for a full days work....

I'm not surprised this event was in the for front of his mind.... Now we know that Joanna place of work had informed everyone ..How I don't know?.. could the same info have been sent to Buro Happold....  That isn't as far fetched as it sounds....  I have posted about an "World Architect News" online publication that featured "The Murder of Joanna Yeates....  Anyway..... Everyone is talking about this event... and when he returns home.. There is Police activity around the building..

This must be sinking In.. Dr Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend Tanja have moved to a respectable part of the city.. an affluent part of the city.. where you would imagine, it was safe... And this News and Police activity would be a little un-nerving for anyone, let alone a Dutch national In a foreign land....

After the initial flurry of Police.. The activity doesn't stop...  not only do the pair need to continue with their working lives but there home lives are now blighted by the media interest....

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/vincent-tabak-makes-first-court-appearance-netherlands-news-footage/655331800
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 19, 2017, 11:19:33 AM
Part Two......

On the 23rd December the Police come around again to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... And this time conducted a search of the premises.....

To me... this action is the important action..... This is an abuse of power in my opinion..... They have a Dutch National with no real idea of English law... A neighbour missing and he wouldn't put up any resistance to this...
Ordinarily... when there is A Missing Person... The police "Do Not" search the surrounding properties... they don't just assume that one of the neighbour in the local community has a body hidden in the house...

They would just make house to house Inquiries... and that would be it....  On this day after the Polices Intrusion into their home Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja travel to her Parents home in Cambridge.... The pair are probably hoping for some peace...

But No..... DC Karen Thomas who I believe is "The Murder Investigation" Team Member from the Twin Track Investigation... doesn't let it lie...   She phones Dr Vincent Tabak on the 24th December 2010 to ask him more questions...... This I believe is NOT normal Police Procedure..(IMO)...  The poor Man is trying to get away from the attention that is surrounding his building and has gone away for a few days for Christmas.... "Why" Is DC Karen Thomas ringing him???

We must bare in mind.. That DC Karen Thomas stated that it was his behaviour in Holland that prompted her suspicions... So again..."Why" did DC Karen Thomas ring Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was away in Cambridge ?? There really is NO rhyme or reason for this....

He has been spoken to twice and had a search of his home by the time she decides to ring him on the 24th December 2010... So why is she harrassing him when he's at Tanja's parents home....

With these constant questions ,searches and people whom they are staying with asking questions... I am Not surprised that this was always on Dr Vincent Tabak's mind... he could get away from it.....

They then travel to Holland and are there on the 28th December 2010... Of Course Dr Vincent Tabak is going to tell his family what has been Happening In England right next door to where he lives... We need to remember that Dr Vincent Tabak has lead a very quite life... pootling about, he is quite unremarkable in the sense that he never draws attention to himself... But now.... He his girlfriend and the building are at the centre of one of Englands Biggest Media Profiled Cases....

So it's not surprising he knows a lot about it.... Now I'm coming to why I started to write this ... And it is of course the "Infamous Interview in Holland"....

Ok... I know the Official version is that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ.... which i do not believe for one moment..... But I really want to understand how any why.. they persuaded Dr Vincent Tabak to come to that Interview In the first place.....

As we would assume Dr Vincent Tabak knows Dutch Law... And I am of the belief that they "Police Team who went to Holland, not only used Dutch Law when they Interviewed him.... But I believe that when he spoke on the phone, he was made aware of the situation.... And it is extremely feasible that they explained about this Interview over the phone....

DC Karen Thomas has implied that Dr Vincent Tabak's sister was like a mother hen fussing over him.... And whilst we have the image of a Placid Dutchman in our minds we can sort of see where she is coming from.... I always thought she was there looking out for him.... But there has to be more than that....

Dr Vincent Tabak's sister has accompanied him because not only does Dr Vincent Tabak know that this is an Official Police Interview, So does his sister... and she is probably making sure that they stay within the boundaries of Dutch Law....(IMO)

I had to really think about this...... If Dr Vincent Tabak is trying to get away from all of "The Media Attention" and is on his well earned break for The Christmas period.... WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE AGREE TO GIVE A WITNESS STATEMENT... In Holland when he is relaxing and wanting to spend time with his family....???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 19, 2017, 11:21:18 AM
Part Three.....

He's only been in Holland a few days... And DC Karen Thomas who up until this point has NOT left Dr Vincent Tabak alone... Is Flying out on her mission to Interview him as a "Witness"..... Now in anyone's book that information that Dr Vincent Tabak may or may not have had ,could wait for the couples return to England...

But DC Karen Thomas again, won't let it lie.... she flys to Holland and Interviews Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours...
I know I've explained before that in Dutch Law..  You can Interview a suspect for 6 hours.. then you either charge or release them...

Now it was never DC Karen Thomas's intention to charge Dr Vincent Tabak with anything whilst he was in Holland... But she used 'The Full Application of Dutch Law" to intimidate Dr Vincent Tabak (IMO)....

Her note book must have been close to bursting by the time this Interview was complete... she had gone totally prepared to undermine and un nerve Dr Vincent Tabak... (IMO)... Her intension was already fixed .. her knowledge that "DutchLaw' allows a 6 hour Interview must have been fixed in her mind... Or did she just conveniently stop at around 6 hours.... I don't believe THAT for one second....

She had to be prepared, there are no two ways about it.... She wouldn't want to contravene "Dutch Law"... especially as Dr Vincent Tabak's sister was present.... So would have checked what the Dutch Procedure would be on Interviewing a suspect ....... I can Confidently say Suspect...... because no matter how DC Karen Thomas wants to dress this appauling treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak up... She had to Know That "Dutch Law" allows for 6 hours...(IMO)

The answer to this stares us in the Face.... If she had gone to Holland with the "Sole" Intension of Interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak as "A Witness"... then the Interview could and should have carried on for longer.... They could have popped to the bar to make them all feel more comfortable.... But it wasn't like that.... This was a Serious Interview...  And Dr Vincent Tabak was defineatly a "SUSPECT" (IMO)... And his sister was their purely to protect his interests....

This action alone I believe is Illegal (IMO)... we then come to the excuse of why they take Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA swab.....
This reason is across between two answers that Dc Karen Thomas  and DCI Phil Jones do NOT exactly agree upon... When we see DC Karen Thomas talk about when she comes to the end of the "Process".... as she like to call it.. Because of Dr Vincent Tabak's apprant over interest in "Forensics" and his story NOT being quite right... This is why DC Karen Thomas says she asked for a DNA sample.....

Now when we look at DCI Phil Jones reason for why they took Dr Vincent Tabk's DNA.... he at first talk about Dr Vincent Tabak's ....again apparent over interest of "Forensics... But then adds that they took his DNA Following the policy we had taken with all our witness's....

Now I believe that statement made on video by DCI Phil Jones is wrong.... And by both of them giving different reason's for obtaining Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA... How can we be completeley sure that he did indeed give this sample Voluntarily???  Ann Redrrop herself on video states that Dr Vincent Tabak was reluctant to give this DNA sample.... What reason did DC Karen Thomas give Dr Vincent Tabak for obtaining his DNA???

He has to be under the impression that the Interview is legit... It's done within the boundaries of "Dutch Law"... But chuck a bit of English Law into the mix and anything could have been said to Dr Vincent Tabak to get him to give what "they" describe as a "Voluntary" sample... (IMO)

We do not now what is contained within the notes of a 6 hour Interview that DC Karen Thomas and her Colleague took.... So we do not know the type of questions and what questions she and her Colleague asked Dr Vincent Tabak.... And without there content being revealed in court, we only have their "word" that Dr Vincent tabak was over Interested in "Forensic's " and that his story had changed!.. Personally I do NOT believe them (IMO).. I believe they have proven that they as "The Law' cannot keep their simple story straight.. which can be seen in various video's ... So why should i believe.... Again in DC Karen Thomas words.. "Their Version of Events"!! (IMO)..

I don't... I don't believe a word of it.... The used the law to hound Dr Vincent Tabak... And they also used the fact that he was a Forgien National to confuse him into cooperating with the English Police Force ,..(IMO)..

So why didn't the Defence look into the legal status of this Interview?? Did "The Base Metal Service', not stretch to finding out just a few basics of "Dutch Law"??  Or were the Defence to concerned "That Their Base Metal Service" Had not much room for manuover ..(IMO)...

Which ever way you look at it.... Dr Vincent Tabak DID NOT have FAIR treatment from the outset...... (IMO) From being questioned not only by "The Missing Persons" enquiry team to being question agin by "The Murder Enquiry" team.. in this Twin Track Investigation.... Is it any wonder that Dr Vincent Tabak had trouble sleeping?? As he had no concept of English Law and would NOT be aware of what a "Twin Track Investigation" was.....(IMO)

Or maybe that was how they got around harassing him.... They could have told him that was how Investigations were conducted,... And every time someone called or search his home... it was from either "The Missing Person" team or "The Murder " team...(IMO) Maybe that's why Dr Vincent Tabak was being so helpful... because he was dealing with TWO Investigations at the same time....

And in my opinion.... it was them that Manipulated The Dutchman and not the other way around...... (IMO)!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on May 19, 2017, 12:47:57 PM
It is highly likely that VT didn't know what a "twin track investigation " was, since I am British, and I didn't know either!

It is also highly likely that he didn't know the ins and outs of English law----why should he have done?

I would imagine that he was told that it was "normal procedure" to give a DNA sample, so he did. I wonder if Tanja was asked to give one too---does anyone know?   And, perhaps it really is "normal procedure"---I have no idea!  The whole business of going all the way to Holland to interview him, when he was returning home a couple of days later, is a bit over the top, however!  Very over the top, in fact. And, goodness knows why the police kept phoning him while he was in Cambridge.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 19, 2017, 10:37:03 PM
This Case is about..... Smoke.... Mirrors..... And Leverage..... In my humble Opinion.... And there are some of you out there who know EXACTLY what I mean.....

My Mammoth 17 hour stint yesterday... and 15 hour stint today... Finally put things into perspective.... For some aspect of this case at least....( Not Forgetting 8 months of Typing for as many hours a day....) lol   ?{)(**
 &%+((£


And now  I believe I can Prove that... The Placid Dutchman Is Innocent.... which I have always believed ....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 27, 2017, 01:51:31 PM
Maybe I have been unfair with The Defence in the light of what I believe I have uncovered..

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8051.msg408563#msg408563\

Maybe it was the Defences best effort with Little Time to tackle this case fully and with The reluctance of the prosecution to hand over 1300 pages of Document... That The only way "CLEGG" could actually help Dr Vincent Tabak... Was to discredit his own client..

Making as many moves as he could so someone would say that procedure hadn't been followed in this case... And then an appeal would be forth coming....

He also needs the trial to take it's course because ....he needs them all to perjure themselves so he can actually back up the fact that Ann Redrrop actually misused her powers and the like of DC Karen Thomas happily told the world about Dr Vincent Tabak's weird behaviour in Holland!!! (IMO)..

And the only person not covered in flies is DCI Phil Jones..... who never took the witness stand in court ,... But Happily stood next to Ann Redrrop as she Publicly claimed she had been Investigating Dr Vincent Tabak since ... late December 2010.. And he watched her commit Judicial Suicide in front of A Nation (IMO).... Maybe someone needs to look at DCI Phil Jones Motives for pursuing Dr Vincent Tabak whilst never taking the fall for it going wrong in court... (IMO)

What could DCI Phil Jones possible have to hide... ??? I wonder if he does a spot of putting?? Or would that be too rude to ask?? (IMO)..

Yes... it's true... Clegg doesn't loose cases like this.....as leonora pointed out...  Maybe this case isn't lost after all....  8)--))

Maybe they Defence are still pulling strings behind the scenes as we all write on here ..... I really hope so...  And whilst your at it... check out the timings and do a demonstration on how hard it is to carry a body around please ....  8)--))
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: AerialHunter on May 27, 2017, 05:52:31 PM
It struck me as odd that a QC with the experience of Clegg could be such a prat. Maybe there is rather more to what you are suggesting here.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on May 28, 2017, 09:36:53 AM
Maybe I have been unfair with The Defence in the light of what I believe I have uncovered..

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8051.msg408563#msg408563\

Maybe it was the Defences best effort with Little Time to tackle this case fully and with The reluctance of the prosecution to hand over 1300 pages of Document... That The only way "CLEGG" could actually help Dr Vincent Tabak... Was to discredit his own client..

Making as many moves as he could so someone would say that procedure hadn't been followed in this case... And then an appeal would be forth coming....

He also needs the trial to take it's course because ....he needs them all to perjure themselves so he can actually back up the fact that Ann Redrrop actually misused her powers and the like of DC Karen Thomas happily told the world about Dr Vincent Tabak's weird behaviour in Holland!!! (IMO)..

And the only person not covered in flies is DCI Phil Jones..... who never took the witness stand in court ,... But Happily stood next to Ann Redrrop as she Publicly claimed she had been Investigating Dr Vincent Tabak since ... late December 2010.. And he watched her commit Judicial Suicide in front of A Nation (IMO).... Maybe someone needs to look at DCI Phil Jones Motives for pursuing Dr Vincent Tabak whilst never taking the fall for it going wrong in court... (IMO)

What could DCI Phil Jones possible have to hide... ??? I wonder if he does a spot of putting?? Or would that be too rude to ask?? (IMO)..

Yes... it's true... Clegg doesn't loose cases like this.....as leonora pointed out...  Maybe this case isn't lost after all....  8)--))

Maybe they Defence are still pulling strings behind the scenes as we all write on here ..... I really hope so...  And whilst your at it... check out the timings and do a demonstration on how hard it is to carry a body around please ....  8)--))
I like this very much. Just one small gripe - I don't believe ANY of the witnesses actually perjured herself/himself - except VT himself of course. It was all too carefully planned for that.

By "perjury", I mean telling porkies. Of course, a witness also swears to tell "the whole truth", and NONE of them did that! Not even the Home Office Pathologist, who failed to mention why he could not get near the body for 6 hours - until it had been recovered from wherever it was by the fire & rescue service. I assume that does not count as perjury.

Rebecca Scott told the court, "I knew when Joanna bought a kitten that Greg was the real deal". Her phrasing allows for the unspoken possibility that the couple could have started to drift apart subsequently. There was much speculation about this at the time of Joanna's disappearance and death. This is no reflection on the character of either of the two young people.

Barristers are immune to prosecution for telling untruths in court, but normally you expect them to pounce on each other, and you expect the judge to pounce on either of them. This did not happen in this unusual trial.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on May 28, 2017, 10:24:44 AM
Just to clarify-----perjury is lying in court,  but declining to tell the court everything you know, and deliberately leaving bits out,  does not count as perjury.   Is this what you are saying, Leonora? Just asking out of my own ignorance !!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 28, 2017, 10:45:53 AM
Just to clarify-----perjury is lying in court,  but declining to tell the court everything you know, and deliberately leaving bits out,  does not count as perjury.   Is this what you are saying, Leonora? Just asking out of my own ignorance !!!

Do you know exactly what DC Karen Thomas said in court??...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on May 28, 2017, 11:27:30 AM
Do you know exactly what DC Karen Thomas said in court??...
Detective Constable Karen Thomas from Avon & Somerset Constabulary, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, testified on the sixth day of the trial, 17th October 2011.

DC Karen Thomas telephoned Vincent Tabak on Christmas Eve 2010 while he and his girlfriend were staying with her parents at Sawston near Cambridge. The DC questioned him about his movements on the night of Joanna Yeates’s disappearance. He told her he had been in his flat all evening, before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up his girlfriend after she left her employer’s works party. He added that he had not known Joanna Yeates personally. During a subsequent interview, the DC’s suspicions were to be aroused by the fact that he would change his story to include an evening trip to Asda in Bedminster.

Detective Constable Karen Thomas testified that she and a colleague had travelled to the Netherlands on New year’s Eve 2010 to question Vincent Tabak, after he and his girlfriend had seen on TV that their landlord had been detained for questioning. The contact was initiated by Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend, who telephoned to Avon & Somerset Constabulary about the curious case of the landlord’s car in the night. They had noticed that the landlord had moved his car during the night when Joanna disappeared, so that it was facing the opposite direction the following morning. The Detective Constable told the court that it was this telephoned attempt to incriminate his landlord that had first aroused the police’s suspicions of Vincent Tabak.

She told the court that both Tanja Morson and Vincent Tabak’s sister Eileen “fussed” over the defendant and expressed concern that he might be tired, “more than you would expect in the case of a grown man. I would describe the sister as a bit of a mother hen”, she added.

The Detective Constable told the Court how overly-interested Vincent Tabak had been in hearing more about why the police had removed Joanna Yeates’s front door, in full view of the TV cameras. She told him, “Removing the front door of a murder victim’s apartment is standard procedure”.

The Detective Constable told the court that she took Vincent Tabak’s fingerprints and a swab of his saliva during the interview.

During the 6 hour interview at Schipol Airport, Vincent Tabak gave the Detective Constable an account of his movements during the evening of the murder that occupied 18 pages of her notebook.

Vincent Tabak told her that he had been to the Asda supermarket in Bedminster. Her suspicions were aroused by the fact that Bedminster is on the opposite side of the River Avon to 44 Canynge Road, but on the same side of the river as Longwood Lane. Vincent Tabak told the Detective Constable that he had purchased beer, crisps and rock salt in Asda, but she did not ask him for the receipt.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on May 28, 2017, 11:47:06 AM
Just to clarify-----perjury is lying in court,  but declining to tell the court everything you know, and deliberately leaving bits out,  does not count as perjury.   Is this what you are saying, Leonora? Just asking out of my own ignorance !!!
We can all agree that telling a barefaced lie in court while under oath is perjury. However, it is not perjury if the lie is immaterial to the case, and it may not be perjury if the witness honestly believed it to be true.

Deliberately leaving bits out that are material to the case violates the oath, but as most of the Prosecution's witnesses did this without being prosecuted, it presumably doesn't count as "perjury". In a REAL trial, Counsel for the Defence would have begun his cross-examination of Peter Brotherton by asking him, "Would you tell the court your occupation?" He would also have cross-examined Lyndsey Farmery and begun with the same question.

I am sorry that my account of DC Karen Thomas's testimony is composed almost entirely of indirect speech. I can remember more detailed reports in the press but they seem to have been removed from the internet. However, I remain convinced that she avoided telling any lies. Her sin was the sin of omission. In a REAL trial, the judge himself would certainly have asked her, "Having spent all that money to fly to Holland, what did you and the defendant talk about for the rest of the six hours?"
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 28, 2017, 01:13:32 PM
Detective Constable Karen Thomas from Avon & Somerset Constabulary, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, testified on the sixth day of the trial, 17th October 2011.

DC Karen Thomas telephoned Vincent Tabak on Christmas Eve 2010 while he and his girlfriend were staying with her parents at Sawston near Cambridge. The DC questioned him about his movements on the night of Joanna Yeates’s disappearance. He told her he had been in his flat all evening, before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up his girlfriend after she left her employer’s works party. He added that he had not known Joanna Yeates personally. During a subsequent interview, the DC’s suspicions were to be aroused by the fact that he would change his story to include an evening trip to Asda in Bedminster.

Detective Constable Karen Thomas testified that she and a colleague had travelled to the Netherlands on New year’s Eve 2010 to question Vincent Tabak, after he and his girlfriend had seen on TV that their landlord had been detained for questioning. The contact was initiated by Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend, who telephoned to Avon & Somerset Constabulary about the curious case of the landlord’s car in the night. They had noticed that the landlord had moved his car during the night when Joanna disappeared, so that it was facing the opposite direction the following morning. The Detective Constable told the court that it was this telephoned attempt to incriminate his landlord that had first aroused the police’s suspicions of Vincent Tabak.

She told the court that both Tanja Morson and Vincent Tabak’s sister Eileen “fussed” over the defendant and expressed concern that he might be tired, “more than you would expect in the case of a grown man. I would describe the sister as a bit of a mother hen”, she added.

The Detective Constable told the Court how overly-interested Vincent Tabak had been in hearing more about why the police had removed Joanna Yeates’s front door, in full view of the TV cameras. She told him, “Removing the front door of a murder victim’s apartment is standard procedure”.

The Detective Constable told the court that she took Vincent Tabak’s fingerprints and a swab of his saliva during the interview.

During the 6 hour interview at Schipol Airport, Vincent Tabak gave the Detective Constable an account of his movements during the evening of the murder that occupied 18 pages of her notebook.

Vincent Tabak told her that he had been to the Asda supermarket in Bedminster. Her suspicions were aroused by the fact that Bedminster is on the opposite side of the River Avon to 44 Canynge Road, but on the same side of the river as Longwood Lane. Vincent Tabak told the Detective Constable that he had purchased beer, crisps and rock salt in Asda, but she did not ask him for the receipt.

Well if her admission in court is that it was the telephone call that aroused her suspicions ... Again i will ask.... why was Dr Vincent Tabak Not Cautioned.. when they arrived in Holland to take his statement???Cautioned... as a matter of procedure... Does that therefore mean any material gathered at said Interview would be Inadmissible in court?? Has all the evidence from Dr vincent Tabak been obtained "Illegally"???

If Dr Vincent Tabak was NOT Cautioned... And bothe DC Karen Thomas And DCI Phil Jones have both given differing reason as to why Their suspicions were raised... also differing reasons as to why his DNA was obtained.... The the addition of "Finger Prints" also being obtained in "Holland"... would only be taken if someone was being charged with a crime ...(IMO)..... Yet they would probably say that this was for Elimination purposes...(IMO)... Yet why go armed with DNA swabs and The ability to take Dr Vincent Tabak's finger prints ... if you only went to Holland to ask a question about a car moving position as the story goes???

And when we come to Dr vincent tabak's sister...DC Karen Thomas then goes on to imply that his sister is a "Mother Hen"... Which is a really bad stereotypical description of any female who maybe trying to question the procedure of said "Interview"...(IMO).. And also would therefore discredit any future concerns that his family may have in relation to this trial...... (IMO)..


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on May 28, 2017, 01:52:23 PM
I'd just like to add this description of what :Mutual legal assistance requests... entail... and maybe highlight, how it was used to obtain an "Illegal" statement of Dr Vincent Tabak and evidence samples......(IMO)..


Quote
Mutual legal assistance (MLA) is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. MLA is generally used for obtaining material that cannot be obtained on a police cooperation basis, particularly enquiries that require coercive means. Requests are made by a formal international Letter of Request (LOR). In civil law jurisdictions these are also referred to as ‘Commission Rogatoire’. This assistance is usually requested by courts or prosecutors and is also referred to as ‘judicial cooperation’.

I like to scrutinize as much of this as possible:

Quote
(MLA) is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences.
Dutch Authorisation to gain access by legal means to Dr Vincent tabak... (IMO)...

Quote
MLA is generally used for obtaining material that cannot be obtained on a police cooperation basis, particularly enquiries that require coercive means.

This One does exactly what it says on the Tin....(IMO)

* COERCIVE... Using force to persuade people to do things that they are unwilling to do:

So was Dr Vincent Tabak "Reluctant" to give his DNA as Ann Redropp had claimed on one TV Documentary about Dr Vincent Tabak and The Joanna Yeates Case??

What else was Dr Vincent Tabak reluctant to do?? Maybe have a 6 hour Interview with DC Karen Thomas and Partner whilst he was trying to enjoy his time in Holland with his own family.....

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mutual-legal-assistance-mla-requests

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on May 28, 2017, 02:03:00 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.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... 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

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah 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?????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... 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/


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... 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"..



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
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... 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
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora 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.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... 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?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah 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.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... 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 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
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora 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?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... 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)...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on June 27, 2017, 02:01:21 PM
Note to posters:

I will allow some leeway but spurious remarks or comments which are irrelevant to the topic under discussion will be removed.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on June 28, 2017, 08:12:12 PM
Quote
This is what Tabak’s defence counsel said in his address to the court:

The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.


Ok this puzzles me..... When is the opening address... Is that just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand or his speech to the court on the 10th/11th October 2011 ??

I do believe it's just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand... But..... Maybe not...

Did Greg say in his witness testimony on the stand ... "That The Kitchen Blind"...was broken ????

Two problems with that......

And please don't remove my post I am not  pointing any fingers....

Either it is William Clegg who introduces this vitla piece of information to the Jury first... Or it is Greg....

Now if it is William Clegg who introduces this information to the Jury first.... How can he state as Greg Confirmed ??? If Greg hadn't already been on the witness stand???

And if Greg mentions the blind being broken.... How could he know the importance that the blind would play if he wasn't aware of what Dr Vincent Tabak witness statement would contain.....

Did William Clegg directly ask Greg Reardon in Court if the kitchen blind in Flat 1 was broken when Greg Reardon took the witness stand ??????

It's an important question... (IMO)...

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on June 28, 2017, 08:43:39 PM
Ok this puzzles me..... When is the opening address... Is that just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand or his speech to the court on the 10th/11th October 2011 ??

I do believe it's just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand... But..... Maybe not...

Did Greg say in his witness testimony on the stand ... "That The Kitchen Blind"...was broken ????

Two problems with that......

And please don't remove my post I am not  pointing any fingers....

Either it is William Clegg who introduces this vitla piece of information to the Jury first... Or it is Greg....

Now if it is William Clegg who introduces this information to the Jury first.... How can he state as Greg Confirmed ??? If Greg hadn't already been on the witness stand???

And if Greg mentions the blind being broken.... How could he know the importance that the blind would play if he wasn't aware of what Dr Vincent Tabak witness statement would contain.....

Did William Clegg directly ask Greg Reardon in Court if the kitchen blind in Flat 1 was broken when Greg Reardon took the witness stand ??????

It's an important question... (IMO)...

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Mr Clegg's made his opening speech at lunch-time on 19th October 2011 - the day before Vincent Tabak went into the witness box for the first time. Mr Clegg's reference to the broken blind was made in this speech. Greg Readon had testified two days earlier, on 17th October 2011. In his testimony he claimed that he saw both Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson walk past his window when they returned home. This implies that the blind could not be closed. As a key prosecution witness, he could have been coached in what to mention, provided it were true, and what not to mention, if it were potentially prejudicial to the prosecution's case.

Where the couple had been on the Sunday evening has never been reported.

Mr Clegg did not cross-examine Greg Reardon at all.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on June 28, 2017, 09:13:49 PM
Additional to the above post of mine... : .. Sorry to repeat a little ... But you will understand stand why by reading the post ...

Quote
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.

It's biting is that statement.... It's nipping away at me.... It has got my goat!!!!!

It's ridiculous... Really we all need to think about that statement of 'The Defence".....(IMO)...

Dr Vincent Tabak has signed a statement in September as to what took place apparently on the evening of the 17th December 2010.....

If....and this is so "MASSIVELY" Important.... "The Defences" arguement for Dr Vincent Tabak managing to get contact with Joanna Yeates by waving at her throught the kitchen window.... Then "WHY" did "The Defence" need to clarify that the blind was broken... or even mention the blind ?????

Lets do logic.....

(A): Did The Defence Visit Flat 1 at Canygne Road before the trial......

Answer I doubt that very much.....

(B): Did the defence see pictures of a "BROKEN KiTCHEN BLIND" ???

Well if it's the picture of the blind that I have attached... there is NO evidence That this BLIND IS BROKEN.....

So.... Why would CLEGG even need to suggest to Greg Reardon that this Kitchen Blind was Broken and not merely left pulled up ?????

The Prosecution cannot 'Apparently"... Know the significance of this BLIND.... So CLEGG has to Bring this information to the courts attention.....

If the photographs and video that we know from the Juries visit show that the blind is "PULLED UP"...  Then the idea that it was broken shouldn't come into play...... The Blind is Innocuous.. The relevance of whether or not it was broken... really is pointless in a way....

If Joanna Yeates has  just arrived home and the kitchen blind has been raised for instance... Maybe it was something she did every morning because of the lack of light at the side of the house...

If she was killed straight away as it has been suggested... she may not have gotten around to pulling the blind down....

But... they make a fuss over whether or NOT this BLIND is BROKEN.....

Again.... CLEGG... didn't need to ask if the blind was broken... It's raised....This is what evidence he would have seen and this is what evidence he should be happy with.....(IMO).... No need for "Clarification as to whether or not this "BLIND WAS BROKEN"...... So it's utterly Ridiculous that he uses the fact that GREG confirmed that this BLIND WAS BROKEN....

Who Mentioned the "BROKEN BLIND FIRST" and WHY Would you???

I can probaly tell you for why... I do remember a photograph from ages ago and I cant find it now... But I was sure that the blind hadn't been pulled up properly... And was dangling lower on one side... But we couldn't possibly have such a photo if Joanna Yeates Flat was a Time Capsule and hadn't been touched or entered until the Jury visit....

So did Clegg also see this photo of the Uneven kitchen BLIND????  Because quite honestly he had no GOOD Reason (IMO)... To Clarify that the KITCHEN BLIND WAS BROKEN If it bwas raied up high enough for Dr Vincent Tabak to see Joanna Yeates in her Kitchen.... (IMO)!!!!!!



http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on June 28, 2017, 09:39:29 PM
Ok... I have sort of covered this before... Also.. I have posted before and it's been removed... And that is probaly because I mentioned people by name...

Well No names mentioned as such... But... An extremely Important piece of information all the same ...

I'm referring to "The Old Bailey" hearing..... the very same "Old Bailey" hearing that was held in court 2... A special court room for trials of such importance that it is a high Security Court Room....  A Court Room where Terrorist and such cases are normally heard and NOT A Simple Murder Trial....

This is my CRUX.... 'The "GUILTY" Plea to Manslaughter!!!!

I'll now jump straight to the trial on October 2011...

When any person appears at trial ...(IMO).... They stand accused...

"The Fundamental part of any body appearing before a "JURY"... Is.... The Defendant Is INNOCENT until Proven GUILTY.... NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN EVEN GUILTIER if that is even a concept....

Dr Vincent Tabak should legally (IMO)... never have entered such a plea... and I do not understand how it ever happened!!!!

'The only reason any defendant enters a "Plea" is either... When they are at trial... or The Prosecution is happy with "The Plea " the defendant is entering and the Judge decides the sentence.... leaving "NO" reason to have a JURY!!!!!

But No.... NOT in this case.... "We Have a Defendant" who is Guilty Until Proven GUILTIER..... Which in law I don't know where that stands ....

You see in America they have deals as to take the death penalty off the table.... But we don't have "The death Penalty"... So Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't need to make a "PLEA" at all.... The only reason to make the PLEA would be so that the Judge would decide sentence.... And not arrive at your own trial as a Guilty Man Trying Not To Look GUILTY!!!

That concept is out of "WHACK"... (IMO)....



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on June 28, 2017, 10:14:59 PM
Quote
There are few passages in the English law reports better known than that in the speech of Viscount Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords appeal case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, when he said:
“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … . If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner ... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to anacquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” ([1935] AC 462, at pp.481-482).

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

Quote
There must be a hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law (including unbiased jurors).

Well The Jury are already bias (IMO)... They have a "GUILTY PLEA" sat in their laps... !!!!

Quote
There must be equality of arms between the parties, so, for example, the defence has the same right to examine witnesses against them as the prosecution has and both parties have the right to legal representation etc.

No equality of arms (IMO)...When the defendant has pled "Guilty" To Manslaughter!!!!

Quote
Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

Article 6(2) concerns the right of every person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.

Provisions which require defendants to prove elements of their defence (reverse onus provisions) may breach this right, particularly if a legal burden of proof is placed on the defendant (requiring them to prove that the case against them is not true).
Not "GUILTY" Until Proven even "GUILTIER"!!!

Quote
Minimum rights in criminal trials

Article 6(3) also guarantees the following minimum rights that apply in criminal trials:

* the right for an accused to be promptly informed of the accusation against him or her – this must be in a language which he or she understands and the charge must be detailed and adequately precise

* the right to have enough time and facilities to prepare a defence

* the right to legal representation, including the right to either defend oneself in person or through legal assistance chosen by the accused, for legal aid to be provided if a person cannot afford legal representation, and when the interests of justice require it

* the right to examine witnesses against an accused and for an accused to present witnesses for their defence – this right does not prevent vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence in alternative ways, either anonymously or via video-link etc., as long as the entirety of the evidence against the accused is not presented anonymously
the right for an accused to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he or she cannot understand the language used in court

Lets go back to that quote...

Quote
the right to have enough time and facilities to prepare a defence

With so many defence Lawyers in a Matter of months and everything apparently being Tickerty Boo by May 2011... As for The Judge to be able to set a trial date of October 2011..

When in REALITY... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have time to prepare a "PROPER" Defence!!!


Quote
the right to examine witnesses against an accused and for an accused to present witnesses for their defence – this right does not prevent vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence in alternative ways, either anonymously or via video-link etc., as long as the entirety of the evidence against the accused is not presented anonymously
the right for an accused to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he or she cannot understand the language used in court

Did every person who saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the night he was out drinking champagne and apparently being bored appear in court??? Or were some of the statements just witness statements read out in court????

Nowhere... In anything I have read so far does it say that a defendant goes to court as A Guilty Man!!!!.... To me it's unpresidented... But I'm no Lawyer...


https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial

https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Reasonable-Doubt
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on June 28, 2017, 10:36:00 PM
Ok..... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg414338#msg414338

This won't leave me tonight.... I'm sending my husband bonkers again... But he did make a valid point before I came back to post...

The Only Other possible reason he could see that a defendant may "Plead" 'Guilty" To A Charge  was if they were facing other chargers relating to the case....

Well as I said to my husband... Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't facing any other charges in relation to 'The Murder Of Joanna Yeates".... So..... Again and not to bore you all...

How Can You Appear At Your Own Trial "Guilty" Of The Charge..... Before a Jury finds you  Guilty..... !!! WHEN THE PRESUMTION OF INNOCENCE IS THE FIRST PART OF ANY DEFENCE!!!!!!

AGAIN... How Can You Appear at your own trial as 'Guilty" Before being Proved "GUILTIER"??????


EDIT.... I'm like.... argggggggggggg


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on June 29, 2017, 10:03:23 AM
Ok this puzzles me..... When is the opening address... Is that just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand or his speech to the court on the 10th/11th October 2011 ??

I do believe it's just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand... But..... Maybe not... think it's just a statement....

Did Greg say in his witness testimony on the stand ... "That The Kitchen Blind"...was broken ????

Two problems with that......

And please don't remove my post I am not  pointing any fingers....

Either it is William Clegg who introduces this vitla piece of information to the Jury first... Or it is Greg....

Now if it is William Clegg who introduces this information to the Jury first.... How can he state as Greg Confirmed ??? If Greg hadn't already been on the witness stand???

And if Greg mentions the blind being broken.... How could he know the importance that the blind would play if he wasn't aware of what Dr Vincent Tabak witness statement would contain.....

Did William Clegg directly ask Greg Reardon in Court if the kitchen blind in Flat 1 was broken when Greg Reardon took the witness stand ??????

It's an important question... (IMO)...

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


I have come back to this because, I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was on The witness Stand before Greg Reardon.... So did "William Clegg"  Address the court about 'The Broken Blind before" Greg Reardon took the stand ???

From The Sally Ramage Papers .... Which is from "Cleggs Address to the court"... Which I believe he made on 10th October 2010...

Quote
He believes it was the one
that had been from behind her back and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury.

Then from The Guardian....

Quote
Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates by grabbing her around the throat after she began screaming but had not meant to seriously harm her, a murder trial jury heard on Monday.

Tabak claims he held a hand around the landscape architect's throat for about 20 seconds using no more than "moderate force".

Makes me think his address with the claims of Greg Telling the Court that the Blind was broken could have easily been said before Greg Took the witness stand ....

This next statement I find odd... Is this statement been read to the jury just beofre Greg Reardon takes the stand???

Quote
According to Tabak, Yeates had begun to scream after he put an arm around her back. He put a hand over her mouth and the screaming stopped.

Tabak said he removed his hand and 25-year-old Yeates began to scream again. In a defence statement read to the jury at Bristol crown court, Tabak claims he then put his hand around her neck.

Would the defence statement be read out so early on in the trial ??

Then the article goes on to say....

Quote
Tabak, a 33-year-old Dutch engineer, later sat in the dock with his head in his hands as Yeates's boyfriend, Greg Reardon, described his last moments with his girlfriend before he left to spend a weekend away and his rising concern when he came home to discover her missing.

Which Gives the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak's statement was read just before Greg Reardon took the stand and "William Clegg" made his address to the court....

When Greg Reardon take the stand he initially is only sat down for 5 mins when they call a break for lunch... if I remember correctly... So It's conceivable that William Clegg Addressed the court with his information ... and then read out Dr Vincent Tabak's witness statement.....  which seems to be wrong.... (IMO)... shouldn't the prosecution present their case first and the "The Defence comes in with their rebuttal..??

Why does "Clegg" feel the need to implant in the Juries mind the version of events written in Dr Vincent Tabak's statement before Greg Reardon takes the stand ????


Think this needs further investigation....


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/17/vincent-tabak-held-jo-yeates-throat

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 01, 2017, 05:58:26 AM
I'm trying to find the listing at "The Old Bailey" for Dr Vincent Tabak....  Looking at the Law Pages for cases that have been heard there, I cannot seem to find it....  Would his case be listed at "The Old Bailey" for his plea hearing???

I would have thought it should have been..... But it isn't there .... Anyone any idea???  You need to scroll down to the date... There is one restriction there... But when I clicked on it ... The case was of a 17 year old boy...

http://www.thelawpages.com/legal-directory/Central-Criminal-Court-(Old-Bailey)-14-2.pgs

I have attached an images of names and dates of appearances... and Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't appear... Why would that be ???


The other attachment is the search I did ...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 01, 2017, 07:09:35 AM
Again trying to find as much Information with regards Dr Vincent Tabak's apperance at The Old Bailey.... came across webslueths forum and the members who followed this case....

They were expecting the case to be heard at Bristol Crown Court and noticed the change.... 

Quote

Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD

For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...

http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm

So we have Two listings..... "Court Serve" list "The Old Bailey" hearing as "For Mention"....
Yet "Bristol Crown court" Court Serve"... list the hearing at "Court Serve" says it for a 'Plea and Management Case hearing.....

Quote
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:32 AM
Aha - Courtserve listing for Bristol Crown Court refers to it being the Plea and Case Management hearing.
Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD

SITTING AT THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURTS
Plea and Case Management
T20117031 TABAK Vincent

VIA VIDEO LINK FROM HMP LONG LARTIN
http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm

OMG... what does this mean????

So Basically... The hearing at "The Old Bailey".. should have been a "For Mention" Which from this PDF i'll quote...


Quote
If notification is received saying that the PCMH will not be effective, the case should
remain listed on the allocated date but the Case Management Judge should direct
whether it should be listed for PCMH or for mention and to fix. At the hearing a new
PCMH and trial date should be set with liberty to apply.

What made them change from "For Mention"....

Then we get this ....


Quote
If no resolution or compromise can be reached through the above process, the case
should be listed for mention in consultation with the case management or trial
Judge. Hearings should if appropriate and practicable be listed for the
instructed/trial advocates’ availability in accordance with Part 3.8(2)(d) of the
Criminal Procedure Rules.
(g) The Court should provide blank pro forma orders to the advocates before mention
hearings. The Judge should then direct counsel to draft any agreed order for his
approval and should not release the advocates until such an order has been lodged
with, and approved, by the court.

How did they manage to list the same case as at one court "For Mention" being The Old Bailey court 2..... And at Bristol Crown Court as "the Plea and Case Management hearing."

As far as I can tell.... this hearing should have been "For Mention" at The Old Bailey" and not the Plea and Case Management hearing.


Is it legally possible to change what 'The Hearing" was for in less than a day?? Or have "TWO DIFFERENT COURT LISTINGS AT TWO DIFFERENT COURTS FOR TWO DIFFERENT HEARINGS FOR THE SAME CASE???..... That can't be right!!!!! (IMO)..

They have gone from having to argue points... Dr Vincent Tabak making a "Plea" !!

Shouldn't the next step have been a Plea and case Management hearing on another date and not Dr Vincent Tabak entering a "Guilty Plea" ??

This is really weird..... They had case management hearing after "May" if I remember correctly.... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to enter a "Guilty Plea" at A "For Mentions" hearing before a "Case Management Hearing" took place?????

Also on the original "Old Bailey" Court Serve.... It says that the Defendant will Attend..... How did they change that ??????

http://barcouncil.org.uk/media/49148/best_practice_guide_to_listing.pdf

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?129675-UK-Joanna-Yeates-25-Clifton-Bristol-17-Dec-2010-13/page21


EDIT..... They didn't change the hearing status in less than a day... they listed "TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HEARINGS AT TWO COURTS".... If you look at the time that Clio posted the TWO COURT DATEs... 

 At:   05-04-2011 11:32 AM... (May)
 And: 05-04-2011 11:17 AM ... (again it's May)

So that's  15 Minutes apart..... So Again I'll ask...... How can you possibly list Two different Types of hearings for the same case on the same day????
Am I missing something here ????

 
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 01, 2017, 08:11:05 AM
We are all aware that Ann Reddropp "The Head of The Complex Crime Unit"... Sought to follow this case through to the bitter end....

I never understood why she would be involved as Dr Vincent Tabak's Case was basically A Simple Murder Trial....

Quote
. Complex cases that are likely to go to the Crown Court and last more than four weeks should be managed in accordance with the Protocol for the control and management of heavy fraud and other complex criminal cases link to external website4, which sets out best practice and gives guidance to investigators, prosecutors, defendants and judges.

19. Legal Adviser's Office (LAO) or a solicitor agent will manage cases that fall within the Protocol, the key points of which are as follows:

* Interviews with suspects and witnesses should be managed effectively to ensure that they are relevant, well structured and of a length which can be properly presented to the court at trial. Interviewees should be provided in advance with relevant information, such as documents you intend to refer to during the interview. A well structured interview will prevent time being lost in court;

* Disclosure of material to the defendant should be made in an effective and time efficient manner. Only those documents that meet the test for disclosure (i.e. that assist the defence or undermine the prosecution) should be disclosed; the defence should not be swamped with all the documents the prosecution holds in relation to the case. Evidence schedules should also be prepared as early on as possible. The judge will engage in active case management to ensure that the process of disclosure does not cause the case to overrun;

*Prosecuting lawyers should be involved in the investigation as soon as it appears that a complex or lengthy trial is likely. The criteria for referring cases to LAO for independent legal oversight should be considered at the outset of the investigation and kept under consideration throughout;

*Any case that may last more than eight weeks should be referred by the prosecuting lawyer to his/her supervisor to ensure that it is run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. If the case is likely to last more than six months, it must be referred to the Head of Litigation in LAO; and

*Once the charges (informations) have been laid, the appointed judge is required to take a pro-active role in managing the case. HSE may be required to justify the length of the case and demonstrate that it could not be conducted in a more time-efficient manner.

Well already they managed to time the case so it would last just 4 Weeks.... So does it mean that these rules don't apply????

Quote
Advance sentence indications
20. In cases before the Crown Court, the defence can request an indication from the judge of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed should the defendant decide to plead guilty (often referred to as a ‘Goodyear indication’) 5. The request can be made at any stage of the proceedings, including at trial, although it is most likely to be made at the plea and case management hearing (see above).


So if Dr Vincent Tabak was going to "Plead Guilty" he should have been given a "GoodYear"???

Quote
An indication can only be sought by the defence and should not normally be given until the basis of the guilty plea has been agreed with the prosecution (for example, by way of an agreed Friskies schedule with aggravating, mitigating and other factors relevant to sentence) or where the judge has concluded that s/he can deal with the case without the need for a Newton hearing6 – see The sentencing hearing.)


So... I'll say yet Again..... Why without ANY PROVISIONS.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak Plead Guilty To Manslaughter ??

Why without consulting with The Prosecution does The Defence Offer "A Guilty Plea To Manslaughter"????

Quote
Goodyear (as above), paragraph 70(a). “An indication should not be sought while there is any uncertainty between the prosecution and the defence about an acceptable plea or pleas to the indictment, or any factual basis relating to the plea. Any agreed basis should be reduced into writing before an indication is sought. Where there is a dispute about a particular fact which counsel for the defendant believes to be effectively immaterial to the sentencing decision, the difference should be recorded, so that the judge can make up his own mind.” (paragraph 66).

So if a "Goodyear could NOT be sought by The Defence because obviously The Prosecution were "Always" going for "A Murder Charge" as Ann Reddrop says... Then again.... why did Dr Vincent Tabak make "A Plea " at The Old Bailey handing The Prosecution the case in their lap????

So we NOW have... A "For Mention" hearing where "A Goodyear" wasn't offered yet The Defendant... Dr Vincent Tabak pleads "GUILTY"...... I'm not quite as green as I am cabbage looking.... But surely that cannot be right!!!!!


http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm#complex

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 01, 2017, 08:20:57 AM


Quote
For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK


Quote
Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031


So I believe that U20110387 Vincent Tabak .... Is Dr Vincent Tabak's case Number at The Old Bailey....

Anyone out there know how to chase that up ????

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 01, 2017, 08:27:12 AM
What does Via PVL... mean ???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: AerialHunter on July 01, 2017, 12:28:41 PM
Additional to the above post of mine... : .. Sorry to repeat a little ... But you will understand stand why by reading the post ...

It's biting is that statement.... It's nipping away at me.... It has got my goat!!!!!

It's ridiculous... Really we all need to think about that statement of 'The Defence".....(IMO)...

Dr Vincent Tabak has signed a statement in September as to what took place apparently on the evening of the 17th December 2010.....

If....and this is so "MASSIVELY" Important.... "The Defences" arguement for Dr Vincent Tabak managing to get contact with Joanna Yeates by waving at her throught the kitchen window.... Then "WHY" did "The Defence" need to clarify that the blind was broken... or even mention the blind ?????

Lets do logic.....

(A): Did The Defence Visit Flat 1 at Canygne Road before the trial......

Answer I doubt that very much.....

(B): Did the defence see pictures of a "BROKEN KiTCHEN BLIND" ???

Well if it's the picture of the blind that I have attached... there is NO evidence That this BLIND IS BROKEN.....

So.... Why would CLEGG even need to suggest to Greg Reardon that this Kitchen Blind was Broken and not merely left pulled up ?????

The Prosecution cannot 'Apparently"... Know the significance of this BLIND.... So CLEGG has to Bring this information to the courts attention.....

If the photographs and video that we know from the Juries visit show that the blind is "PULLED UP"...  Then the idea that it was broken shouldn't come into play...... The Blind is Innocuous.. The relevance of whether or not it was broken... really is pointless in a way....

If Joanna Yeates has  just arrived home and the kitchen blind has been raised for instance... Maybe it was something she did every morning because of the lack of light at the side of the house...

If she was killed straight away as it has been suggested... she may not have gotten around to pulling the blind down....

But... they make a fuss over whether or NOT this BLIND is BROKEN.....

Again.... CLEGG... didn't need to ask if the blind was broken... It's raised....This is what evidence he would have seen and this is what evidence he should be happy with.....(IMO).... No need for "Clarification as to whether or not this "BLIND WAS BROKEN"...... So it's utterly Ridiculous that he uses the fact that GREG confirmed that this BLIND WAS BROKEN....

Who Mentioned the "BROKEN BLIND FIRST" and WHY Would you???

I can probaly tell you for why... I do remember a photograph from ages ago and I cant find it now... But I was sure that the blind hadn't been pulled up properly... And was dangling lower on one side... But we couldn't possibly have such a photo if Joanna Yeates Flat was a Time Capsule and hadn't been touched or entered until the Jury visit....

So did Clegg also see this photo of the Uneven kitchen BLIND????  Because quite honestly he had no GOOD Reason (IMO)... To Clarify that the KITCHEN BLIND WAS BROKEN If it bwas raied up high enough for Dr Vincent Tabak to see Joanna Yeates in her Kitchen.... (IMO)!!!!!!



http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

If Clegg was building a picture for the jury the fac that the blind MUST have been in the up position because of its condition does make it relevant. Clegg had to explain how Tabak and Yeates came into contact, and the simple coincidence of Tabak passing the window when Yeates was in view is more than enough for him, seeing as he opening gambit seems to hang Tabak out to dry.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 01, 2017, 04:39:38 PM
What does Via PVL... mean ???
Prison Video Link
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 11:49:28 AM
Part 1.....

Quote
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD

For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...

http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm


I really wasn't sure what For Mention was... But an Article in 'The Independent" say:


Quote
The defence shall apply to the court for the case to be listed for mention if they are unable to obtain instructions from the defendant. If the defendant fails to attend court, the judge will wish to consider whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.


So..... what happened between the two listings.... ??

So if they were unable to obtain instructions from Dr Vincent Tabak.... How on earth did we jump to a "Plea and Management Case Hearing... in 15 minutes ???
 

I'm trying to understand 'The Courts role... to send this case for "A Plea and Case Management Hearing."...

They listed it as two things

(A): For Mention

(B): Plea and Case Management Hearing

Which I stay with (B)... If it was a "Plea and Case Management Hearing" and Obviously... we have Dr Vincent Tabak out of the "BLUE" pleading "Guilty" To Manslaughter.... Then The Defence and Prosecution alike should have been aware of this.... (IMO)... That why I was surprised 'A GoodYear" wasn't applied....

But also if when they appeared at "The Old Bailey" They all were under the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plea...

Quote
When a case is to be sent for PTPH to the Crown Court the
Magistrates should expect the parties to provide information on any
relevant communications between them in accordance with the duty
of engagement (CrimPR 3.3).

Where guilty pleas are indicated the Magistrates should consider
ordering a PSR. Separate guidance on this has been published.
Where not-guilty pleas are indicated the magistrates should explore
with the parties:

 Whether the defendant is prepared to plead to other
offences?
 In brief terms what are the issues in the case, what evidence
and issues are agreed and what is likely to be disputed?
 What information, or other material, is required by either of
the parties to facilitate an effective PTPH?

So A Guilty Plea... must have been Indicated....  So was A "Pre- Sentence Report" ever ordered ???? Or were they all aware that 'The Plea" was a was 'A POINTLESS EXERCISE" for Dr Vincent Tabak ???? As "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit Insisted That It Was A Murder Charge"???


The venue had changed... It was supposed to be at "Bristol Crown Court"... So they all must have been aware... (IMO)...

So with Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea... The Judge:

Quote
At the PDH, arraignments will normally take place. If the defendant pleads guilty, the judge should wherever possible proceed to sentencing.

What stopped that ???? This is why I do not understand Dr Vincent Tabak entering 'A Plea"...  It seems ludicrous (IMO)...

Not only did "The Prosecution" not accept this "Plea."...  "A Trial Date was set"....


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/law-report-new-rules-on-crown-court-pre-trial-hearings-1601692.html

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/cm007-eng.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 11:50:22 AM
Part 2.....

Now this is were it gets Interesting to me.....


Quote
Readiness for trial or appeal
3.10.—(1) This rule applies to a party’s preparation for trial or appeal, and in this rule and rule
3.11 ‘trial’ includes any hearing at which evidence will be introduced.
(2) In fulfilling the duty under rule 3.3, each party must―
(a) comply with directions given by the court;
(b) take every reasonable step to make sure that party’s witnesses will attend when they are
needed;
(c) make appropriate arrangements to present any written or other material; and
(d) promptly inform the court and the other parties of anything that may―
(i) affect the date or duration of the trial or appeal, or
(ii) significantly affect the progress of the case in any other way.
(3) The court may require a party to give a certificate of readiness.

It says it all..... in "Hushed Tones"....

Dr Vincent Tabak as we are aware  never had any 'Good Character" witness's... In actual fact.... Dr Vincent Tabak really had "NO" witness's at all.... which if you think about "A Plea and Case Management Hearing"... that was all signed sealed and delivered by 5th May 2011... Then what had 'The defence " done for their client ????

By The time they are all at "The Old Bailey"... every witness, every statement, every piece of "Evidence"... should be in place....

How was that possible????

Because if we remember it was supposed to be a "For Mention" hearing.... Which wouldn't need every witness, every statement and every piece of evidence in place...

William Clegg had not that long before taken over the case.... So... what did he have time to check????

"Brotherton's" rubbish about a confession... did "NOT" come into this hearing.... There was No evidence of "This Supposed Confession"...

So we literally have an extremely short space of time for the preparation of this case... and the Interviewing of witness's...

(IMO).. The Defence never Intended to call... CJ.... They never Intended to call Tanja Morson.... They never Intended to call anyone who could give a "Good Character" witness statement for Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)...

Come to think of it.... CJ is never mentioned by name anywhere as far as I can tell..... So I do not believe that The Defence ever had a statement from CJ.... Or The Prosecution for that matter.... The only statements that CJ ever made (IMO)... were the Police Interviews ....

Which makes sense now as to "WHY" he's always referred to as "The Landlord"... I hadn't thought of it before... At first I thought it was because Dr Vincent Tabak was possibly referring to The Land Lord of The Pub... But on thinking about it now... It must be because they didn't have a statement from CJ...

And don't you think they should ???

Back to The Old Bailey..... If there are NO statements from anyone... how did they come to a "Plea" ?? when in reality it should have been a 'For Mention" hearing....  Where "A Defendant" may not have given instructions...  Dr Vincent Tabak was not saying very much up until this point.... he seemed to have little or no trust of the Justice System" (IMO)... (And who can blame him)... So this Placid Dutchman has said virtually "Nothing" .. nothing to indicate possible witness's who could give "Good Character" "witness statements ".. Nothing that would show anything untoward... Nothing that would indicate that he had killed his next door neighbour... Yet he appears at The Old Bailey and goes....  "Yep... I did it".... really ???

Do people really believe that a man who has said nothing to indicate his guilt... A man who has done nothing to indicate his guilt... (Dumping his laptop).. A Man who did not abscond back to his native Holland... Where procedures would have put a holt on setting any date for trial as the hoops they would need to jump through could take quite some time .... This Placid Dutchman... who freely returned to England would suddenly out of "Nowhere" Pleas 'Guilty To Manslaughter" ???

What had "The Prosecution and "The Defence " discussed to get to the point that they were all ready for trial ?????

And a discussion must have taken place.... (IMO)... which means again ..."WHY" would Dr Vincent Tabak plead "Guilty " To Manslaughter" if the judge wasn't going to go straight to sentence ??? If the very same Judge was "NOT" going to give any reduction to his final sentence for making such a "PLEA"....
It makes NO SENSE!!! (IMO)..

Which means... by The 5th May 2011.... Every single witness and piece of evidence was ready for trial... which means.. that Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea was known well in advance... And I can't accept that....

I cannot accept that an Intelligent man would make a plea to his "Guilt" without any provisions in place.... I cannot accept that 'William Clegg" QC.... rolled over and allowed his client to go with such a plan... William Clegg.. A distinguished Professional who would fight tooth and nail for a defendant charged with war crimes... Yet simply says ...  "Ok he did"... (IMO)... let move on to trial......

What is this case saying???? Why all The Untruths??? Why All The deception??? Why The Circus???

Do the general public really understand what went on in This Case ??? Because it seem highly irregular to me....

I think Dr Vincent Tabak should get a Retrial...  I believe certain individual's need investigating in relation to this case.... (IMO)...


Think I need to come back to these witness statements.....  "Good Character" statements in particular...


https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/crim-proc-rules-2014-part-03.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 11:51:09 AM
Part 3.....

I'm going back to "The Good Character" witness statements........

Question.... did anyone make A Good Character Witness statement ever ????? Personally I do NOT believe that ever happened.... Which is important....

A list of people I can think whom could have been called as 'Good Character Witness's ...

(A) Tanja Morson

(B): Tanja Morson's Mother would called the Dutchman 'The Lovely Vincent"

(C): Gunter Morson"

(D): Tanja Morson's Father

(E): Cora Tabak

(F): Marcel Tabak

(G): Erik Blokhuis ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Friend In Holland)...

(H): Any professional from The University in Holland

(I): Anyone from Buro Happold

(J): Any of The residents from the flats at 44 Canygne Road

(K): Of Course CJ....

(L): Mr Massoeurs  (A Neighbour of Dr Vincent Tabak's from Holland

(M): Any Neighbours he knew from his Bath address

Basically there should be statements in Dr Vincent Tabak's case file from all of these people (IMO)... If The Defence ever bothered to interview them to be possible "Good Character" witness's...

If by the time they have reached "The Old Bailey" in May 2011... And this is when "The Porn" was first mentioned as to Dr Vincent Tabak's 'Bad Character" I can't really see either..... The hearing I believe was 30 minutes... Which with all the relevant information that needed to be in place... " The Porn" may not have had chance to be aired!! (IMO)..

And therefore if The Defence have their Good Character Statements... That in turn means that 'The Prosecution" have all their "Bad Character" statements also... ???

(A): The Prostitutes that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently solicited in this country..
(B): The Prostitues That Dr Vincent Tabak solicited in America
(C): Female colleagues he may have made advances upon previously
(D): Female friends or acquaintances he may have made advances upon previously....

All of these statements should be with The Prosecutions case files ...(IMO)... If The Bad Character evidence was ever real and true.... (IMO)... That's why I still don't believe that their was ever any Porn... (IMO)... I personally believe "The Porn" was a ruse... As to not have to produce "Good Character" witness statements for Dr Vincent Tabak....(IMO)..


 Where were all the "Good Character" References?? Are they in "The Case Files of The Defence ???? Even if they were not used they still should be there (IMO)... because it is not until what appears last minute that Dr Vincent Tabak, pleads "Guilty to Manslaughter"...

This case has brought me to tears many times.... And I am not forgetting The Poor Yeates Family in this... I sit here frustrated at what appears to have happened in this case.... And what on the surface Initialy to some appeared to be a legit case... becomes more and more of a travesty, the more I look at it... And the Placid Dutchman... lost in an English Legal System he never had any chance of Comprehending... Especially once "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit, put herself at The Helm of this Investigation and Prosecution of "A Placid Dutchman" being charged with what essentially is.... "A Simple Murder Case".....

Have they all gone beyond their remit??? Have they Not followed procedure???

As far as I can tell I would say so... though as you can tell I am no legal expert... But common sense and logic tells us... Too many untruths were told.... Too many individuals of Importance used their role to bury The Dutchman... (IMO)... Too Many Individuals could not keep "THEIR" story straight... and too many indiviuals showed up our legal system for what it is capable of.... which (IMO)... Is the appaling treatment of A Dutch National whom had great hopes and dreams in this "Free" Country of ours... Who's life was ready to take off in his personal and professional aspects... who could have enjoyed all the freedom's we all take for granted...

Yet... Someone,.. wanted Dr Vincent Tabak to pay for Joanna Yeates death...  And the real question you should all be asking yourselves is:

"WHY".... why go to such great lengths to convict "A Placid Dutchman" of a Crime he denied most vigorously for so long... To appear at The Old Bailey and suddenly change his Plea... When his appearance should have been for A "For Mention" hearing....

What possible motive did "The Head of The Complex Crime Unit have in her pursuit of this "Placid Dutchman"???

What possible motive did William Clegg have "Not" to Defend his client to the best of his "Ability"??? (IMO)..

What possible Motive is there for us all having "The Wool Pulled Over Our Eyes" ?? because In My Opinion... It well and truly has been..... And that's a shocking state of Affairs...



EDIT.... If William Clegg went to "The Old Bailey" without any "Good Character References" does that suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak was "Under Duress" to make "A Plea" ?? when The "Plea" was of "NO" actual benefit to him WHATSOEVER????




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15259135
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 12:37:29 PM
Which court Room did Dr Vincent Tabak attend at The Old Bailey when The Court Serve Listings give TWO different Court Rooms ?????

Quote
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD

For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Quote
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:32 AM
Aha - Courtserve listing for Bristol Crown Court refers to it being the Plea and Case Management hearing.
Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD


So is it

(A):"Court Room 1"

(B) "Court Room 2

or

(C): Neither as I didn't mage to find a listing for Dr Vincent Tabak  on The Archive of Cases heard at The Old
       Bailey...

That also makes an interesting possibility.... Where is it listed that Case Number:.... U20110387  Dr Vincent Tabak's appearance at The Old Bailey... other than on the original "Court Serve" website....


Someone needs to seriously check That Number... And what it refers to because I cannot find any reference anywhere other that the web slueths websites in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak's Old Bailey Case Number .... Oh yes... and which court was he at???

How is it possible to be listed not only for TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HEARINGS.... But at TWO DIFFERENT COURT ROOMS??????

Question.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was was always due to appear via "Video Link"... which court Room was set up for this Video link???

Did any of the media attend "The Hearing"????  can anyone anywhere tell us With absoulute certainty... which court Room did Dr Vincent Tabak appeared in at The Old Bailey...


I have just had another thought.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was only supposed to appear at The Old Bailey "For Mention"... Then his family would have been explained too why their would have been no possible need for them to attend this hearing.... Nothing much would change.... I presume that they would have been directed as to where to obtain the information to the hearing at "The Old Bailey"...


Where the Tabak family deliberately wrongly informed that this case was to be a "For Mention Case"... thus their attendance would not be needed as it was via video link and nothing at this point untoward would happen to Dr Vincent Tabak ????

The only benefit I can see for having TWO different hearings listed... Is to DUPE The Tabak Family (IMO)... because I honestly cannot see any advantage other than that for Two listings to have been listed on Court Serve for Dr Vincent Tabak's appearance at The Old Bailey.....(IMO)....


CAN ANY OF YOU ??????


Edit...... I was Just thinking that it was slightly odd that the "Plea And Management Case Hearing does not list the Defendants Case Number.....

So Offically did Dr Vincent Tabak have A plea and Management Case hearing or just "A For Mention".. Hearing ????

Or..... Is the Plea and Case Management hearing under a different case number again????



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 12:48:04 PM
Again back to the TWO listings....

Is it unpresidented to Have Two different Listings... of TWO Different Types of Hearings... At Two Different Court Rooms for ONE Case?????

No-one can possibly make such a grave mistake in Listings ???? They have to be deliberately listed that way (IMO)....

So who gave the information for the "Listings"??????? In an attempt to "Mislead".... (IMO)...

What can be done about this information???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 12:55:22 PM
Maybe the two listings were for the two different cases VT had to answer to. First murder and the second porn, remember the judge at the beginning of VT's trial said that the porn could not be used in the murder case because it would bias the jury against VT.

Could you also tell me how Joanna saw VT through the kitchen window if in fact she did, when the light was on inside and very dark outside. This point has always puzzled me.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 01:19:09 PM
Maybe the two listings were for the two different cases VT had to answer to. First murder and the second porn, remember the judge at the beginning of VT's trial said that the porn could not be used in the murder case because it would bias the jury against VT.

Could you also tell me how Joanna saw VT through the kitchen window if in fact she did, when the light was on inside and very dark outside. This point has always puzzled me.

Hi Nina.... I don't believe that was the case ....  Both listings have the time as 10:00am in the morning..... No-one can possibly attend "TWO COURT ROOMS" at the same time... whether via video link or not.... The Judge .. Prosecution and Defence have also got to be in Two places at the same time.... and unless they have a "Full Set Of "DOPPLEGANGERS" in The wings.... that isn't happening anytime soon....

And normally all of the case would be heard in ONE Court Room and Not TWO different Court Rooms....


So..........NO... No... And "NO" Again..... There was something well and truly dodgy about "The Old Bailey Hearing.... (IMO)... Just like I believe something Well and Truly Dodgy about This Whole Case...(IMO)...


If The "For Mention" is what the Hearing is about... Then William Clegg hasn't got the Instruction For his Client and all of the pretty maids are NOT in a Row..... They need ALL.. of the information there to even go for "A plea Management hearing " that would result in a Plea being made... If I'm understanding this correctly...


If the "For Mention" Hearing was taking place... then at that hearing they would set a date For "The Plea and Management Hearing'.... Not roll them into ONE!!!!... These hearings take time to organise as I am sure you are aware....
"
So.... How can they have TWO different listings for One Case ....At One Court being The Old Bailey"... in Two Court Rooms being 1 and 2 ....  on the same day????

That must be a virtual impossibility.... Or as I will keep saying something "UNTOWARD" Happened...... (IMO)...

Come on.... please someone with Criminal Law Expertise please explain how this is possible... and where if anywhere I am possibly going wrong....


Nina... can I ask you something..... Doesn't this Case strike you as ODD...??????


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 01:52:05 PM
Just Looking at The Judge....  On Wiki... It doesn't Mention The Joanna Yeates Case in his listing....


Then I found these two images of him... and they look different to me...


Are the images even the same man ?????

I can't tell....  The next to last screenshot is an image of three pics together ... do they look like the same man ????


https://www.judicial.ky/judicial-administration/justices-of-appeal

http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/barristers/profile/the-hon-sir-richard-field

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Field_(judge)


https://caymannewsservice.com/2015/01/four-more-appeal-judges-to-tackle-high-court-backlog/

http://www.topfoto.co.uk/imageflows/preview/t=topfoto&f=0313989



EDIT.... Why would Judge Field... wear Glasses for his Photograph in his Gowns ... which suggests he wears them permanently....and The Drawn court images of The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... Yet any other pictures of him show him without glasses... ??? Slightly strange....(IMO)..
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 02:10:14 PM
Yes there are a few things that strike me as odd, but speaking as one that knows nothing about the legal system, I don't think any particular court case would follow a precise format, each case would be different and both sides are going to go where both the evidence and the words of the person on trial take them. Does that make sense?
Also just because you don't believe that the two listing were for the two different charges doesn't make it so. Say that one was just for a plea of guilty, that surely would not take long. They, IMO might be listed at the same time one is just a guilty/not guilty plea the other manslaughter and all the legal waffle that must go with that, before the trial starts.

I would like an answer about the lighting in the kitchen and how Joanna managed to see VT and therefore let him in. That is one other thing that strikes me as odd.

You see in my mind, although there may be odd things re: the trial, I keep coming back to the point that VT admitted he murdered Joanna and he has had 7years to shout his innocence since then and he hasn't. Also when he gained entry to her flat he knew (IMO) that Greg R would not be disturbing him by coming home.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 02:31:32 PM
Yes there are a few things that strike me as odd, but speaking as one that knows nothing about the legal system, I don't think any particular court case would follow a precise format, each case would be different and both sides are going to go where both the evidence and the words of the person on trial take them. Does that make sense?
Also just because you don't believe that the two listing were for the two different charges doesn't make it so. Say that one was just for a plea of guilty, that surely would not take long. They, IMO might be listed at the same time one is just a guilty/not guilty plea the other manslaughter and all the legal waffle that must go with that, before the trial starts.

I would like an answer about the lighting in the kitchen and how Joanna managed to see VT and therefore let him in. That is one other thing that strikes me as odd.

You see in my mind, although there may be odd things re: the trial, I keep coming back to the point that VT admitted he murdered Joanna and he has had 7years to shout his innocence since then and he hasn't. Also when he gained entry to her flat he knew (IMO) that Greg R would not be disturbing him by coming home.


The Point you make about The Lighting in the kitchen, is a Good Point Nina....

As science would help prove If The Light is ON in The Kitchen and it is dark outside... Joanna Yeates could not possibly tell who walked past her Kitchen window....

Yet I do not know where it says that the "Outside Light " was on..... Except I would say.. But for the images of 44 canygne Road... where the "OUTSIDE LIGHT IS ON"... even though it is DAYTIME....

Makes it look like it's Not been touched since Joanna Yeates was last there !!!! But is it true???? Was The outside light on or off????

Greg mentions The hallway light being on.... But Not the outside light as far as I know .!!!!

Ok... Even More Interesting... Is the Light appears to have been turned on at some point.....

(A): Image 1 has the lights on!!!

(B): Image 2 has the lights off...... !!!!


So Someone obviously turned them ON!!!! Was this the second time The Forensic went in or after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest..... Because again... If it is a time capsule..... The lights should either have been "ON" permanantly...or... "OFF" permanently.... NOT BOTH!!!!!!



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 02:41:53 PM


You see in my mind, although there may be odd things re: the trial, I keep coming back to the point that VT admitted he murdered Joanna and he has had 7years to shout his innocence since then and he hasn't. Also when he gained entry to her flat he knew (IMO) that Greg R would not be disturbing him by coming home.

And you are probably not alone in that Nina....  But prisoners learn to keep their heads down... (IMO)... It has been shown that this is the case.... And as with the "ChildPorn" Charges.... A Case was left on file..... Maybe that is "The Leverage " they need to keep Dr Vincent Tabak silent along with his family.... They don't want to rock the boat.... As British Justice has already demonstrated it's power to them all..... (IMO)...

He plead "Guilty" to Manslaughter" apparently.... But I just don't know ANYMORE to be honest... They said he did.... They said he was appearing in court 1 and COurt 2 of The Old Bailey aT THE SAME TIME AND THE SAME DAY.... BUT THAT COULDN'T POSSIBLY BE TRUE EITHER..... COULD IT!!! (IMO)....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 02:47:28 PM
. Also when he gained entry to her flat he knew (IMO) that Greg R would not be disturbing him by coming home.

Now how could he possibly know that ?????  Who told him????

We have had stories that it was CJ.... we heard from The Defence That it was Joanna Yeates who told him.... But no-one was in court to verify how Dr Vincent Tabak could possibly come about that "VITAL" piece of Information....

So how on God's Green Earth Did They prove how Dr Vincent Tabak Knew That Greg Reardon would be away that weekend... Giving him a supposed opportunity to Kill his next door neighbour .. whom he had never spoken too before??

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 03:10:24 PM
Quote
Practice Summary
Richard Field is an arbitrator accepting appointments in a wide range of commercial arbitrations, both domestic and international.  He was called to the Bar in 1977 and appointed QC in 1987.  He was a High Court judge sitting in the Commercial Court from 2002 to September 2014.  In the years 2008 – 2012 he was a Presiding Judge on the Western Circuit and was appointed Judge In Charge of the Commercial Court in January 2014.

This Is For Judge Richard Field....... "A High Court Judge" Sitting in The Commercial Court from 2002 to 2014!!!!

Followed by....  Ya gonna Love this ......

Quote
The Work

The Commercial Court deals with complex cases arising out of business disputes, both national and international.

Super-Court-Commercial-Court-Work
A Commercial Court “Super Court”

There is particular emphasis on:

insurance and reinsurance
banking and financial markets
commodities
shipping
arbitration
The work of the Commercial Court is governed by Part 58 of the Civil Procedure Rules

The Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide sets out detailed information on how litigation is conducted in the Admiralty and

The guide is regularly updated to reflect rule changes and suggestions for improvement from users. The 2011 edition has been updated five times, in October 2011, March 2012, March 2013, April 2014 and March 2016. Read the summary of changes.

Suggestions for changes to the guide from users are welcomed and can be emailed to the Commercial Court listing office at comct.listing@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk


Did you see that...... There we go again.......

The Commercial Court deals with complex cases arising out of business disputes, both national and international.

THE MAGIC WORDS........... "COMPLEX CASE"!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG......

What has Dr Vincent Tabak's "(Sorry to say it this way..but).... "Simple Murder Case".... Got anything to do with...

(A): The Head Of the Complex Crime Unit

(B): A Judge who basically deal with Complex Crime of a business nature both NATIONAL AND
       INTERNATIONAL..?????

For the love of God someone tell me .... please .... What is going on??????

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/high-court/queens-bench-division/courts-of-the-queens-bench-division/commercial-court/about-us/

http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/barristers/profile/the-hon-sir-richard-field
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 03:20:39 PM
There is a good chance IMO that VT overheard part of a conversation due to the fact that both bedroom windows were next to each other. Heard through an open window? I would have thought there were a few ways in that flat to overhear the odd thing. A while ago you put up a picture of no.44 where each door and window was labelled, any chance of you putting it up again? You see I don't think that there was a security light on the back of the house, just outside the front door as most of us have.

Why are you talking about daylight security lights when my question was about the kitchen light being on and Joanna being able to see VT outside in the dark? I'm in the middle of cooking sunday lunch, sorry, gotta go and see to my roasties. Will be back though.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 03:29:54 PM
There is a good chance IMO that VT overheard part of a conversation due to the fact that both bedroom windows were next to each other. Heard through an open window? I would have thought there were a few ways in that flat to overhear the odd thing. A while ago you put up a picture of no.44 where each door and window was labelled, any chance of you putting it up again? You see I don't think that there was a security light on the back of the house, just outside the front door as most of us have.

Why are you talking about daylight security lights when my question was about the kitchen light being on and Joanna being able to see VT outside in the dark? I'm in the middle of cooking sunday lunch, sorry, gotta go and see to my roasties. Will be back though.

I cannot see how Dr Vincent Tabak over heard anything....  Firstly I do Not believe he would have finished work when Greg Left for Sheffield around 5:00pm I believe it says at Trial...  So who would he have over heard it from??? It's apparently blumming cold outside... So No neighbours are hanging around for 1 and 3 quarter hours waiting for Dr Vincent tabak to return , so on the off chance he might overhear a conversation....

You would need the outside light on so that Joanna Yeates could see who walked past her flat.... otherwise she wouldn't be able to see anyone in the dark especially with her kitchen light being on.... And her kitchen light MUST have been on if we believe the Crime Watch depiction on her in her Kitchen !!!!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 04:00:10 PM
No I don't mean on that particular day, no doubt it would have been mentioned in the week leading up to Greg R leaving. After all Joanna asked him to text her when he reached Sheffield because of the bad weather conditions. Now that presumably would have been part of a conversation.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 04:25:29 PM
Why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak seen by a "Recorder" Rather than A High Court Judge who deals with "Complex Crimes"???  For what is essentially "A Simple Murder Case "??????

Quote
Recorders

Recorders are fee-paid, part-time judges. For many it is the first step on the judicial ladder to appointment to the circuit bench. Recorders’ jurisdiction is broadly similar to that of a circuit judge, but they generally handle less complex or serious matters coming before the court.

It is a post open to any fully qualified solicitor or barrister with at least ten years’ practice before the Crown or county courts. They are required to sit for between 15 and 30 days every year with at least one ten-day continuous period. The appointment is for an initial five-year period, extendible for further successive five year terms up to the retirement age of 65.


Now I might have found something else that has distracted me....  Namely what Does a High Court Judge

Quote
High Court judges are sometimes known as “red judges” because of their colourful robes, but their dress codes are actually more complex than that.

Red robes are usually worn only by judges dealing with criminal cases.

High Court judges presiding over civil cases wear the civil robe introduced on 1 October 2008, with red tabs at the neck of the gown and no wig.

Judges hearing Family Division cases in Chambers do not wear court dress.

High Court judges sitting in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal wear a black silk gown and a short wig.

On Red Letter Days, which include the sovereign’s birthday and certain saints’ days, all High Court judges wear a scarlet robe.


But ...

Quote
Circuit Judges

Circuit JudgeBands worn over a violet robe and a short wig.

When hearing criminal cases, circuit judges wear a red tippet (sash) over the left shoulder.

When dealing with civil business, circuit judges dress as in criminal cases, but with a lilac tippet and without a wig or bands, wing collar or collarette.

On some occasions – when dealing with certain types of High Court business, or when sitting at the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) in London – circuit judges wear a short wig and black silk gown over a court coat and/or waistcoat.


Now I thought Justice Field was A Circuit Judge????

And when Justice Field appeared at the Old Bailey he wore his Red Robes as depicted by the Court appointed Artist....

Shouldn't he have been in BLACK????? At The Old Bailey????? (Image 1)

And violet Robes at Bristol Crown Court.. (Image 2) ???



https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/court-dress/examples/

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/jurisdictions/criminal-jurisdiction/

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 04:33:14 PM
OK a couple of questions for you Nine.

1.  Why have you still not given me your opinion on the lighting?
2.  Why are you and some other posters making VT out to be a liar? Whatever he has said it seems like you go all out to prove the opposite. To a certain extent I do believe the man, but always remember this is a story with only one person telling it.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 04:47:07 PM
OK a couple of questions for you Nine.

1.  Why have you still not given me your opinion on the lighting?
2.  Why are you and some other posters making VT out to be a liar? Whatever he has said it seems like you go all out to prove the opposite. To a certain extent I do believe the man, but always remember this is a story with only one person telling it.


I do not believe that the outside light was on... Therefore Joanna Yeates could not see anyone out side....

I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... Unless someone can prove to me otherwise... And not the Circus they called a trial....

As for only one person telling it.... Yes... words did come out of the mouth of Dr Vincent Tabak...... Question being..... who told him to say those words ????


You may see it that some posters are making Dr Vincent Tabak out to be a liar... but that is not quite accurate... I personally believe He kept to a story he was coached to say.... (IMO)... And once 'The Plea had been entered... His Goose was proverbally Cooked!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 04:47:30 PM
(http://images.slideplayer.com/22/6357883/slides/slide_9.jpg)


What was that again??????

"NO JURY UNLESS THE DEFENDANT PLEADS NOT GUILTY??????  Not Unless the defendant Pleas Partial GUILT!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 05:13:27 PM
Well I'm obviously not going to get an answer about the lighting. Reminder: I was asking about the kitchen light (interior) being on and how Joanna could have seen VT on the outside of the building.

I believe VT is guilty, in his own words, until anyone can show me anything different.

Yes the words did come out of VT's own mouth, remember this is Bristol and not Guantanamo Bay. He won't have been tortured and been brainwashed to plead guilty when innocent. I think that no-one would disagree with the statement that the Joanna Yeates case was not Avon & Somerset's finest hour, but I don't really think that they would stoop to any of the things that have been posted on this thread.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 05:27:17 PM
Ok... Back to photographs of Judge Richard Alan Field.. Born 1947


http://www.topfoto.co.uk/imageflows2/?s=Richard+alan+field+

(http://img01.us.imageflows.com/imageflows/imagethumbs3/t=topfoto&f=0360935&z=170)

(http://img01.us.imageflows.com/imageflows/imagethumbs3/t=topfoto&f=0313991&z=170)

(http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/people/_Profile-Medium/RichardField.jpg)

The First Photo is apparently 87....  So he's always worn Glasses.... must have had eye surgery since 2011


I've added an extra Image from the post below...

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 05:30:20 PM
Doesn't it count that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and not guilty to murder?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 05:33:38 PM
Wouldn't that require a jury?

The 'photos you have put up all look like the same man to me.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 05:34:32 PM
Doesn't it count that he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and not guilty to murder?


Of Course... But Then shouldn't the Judge have passed sentence.... Shouldn't Dr Vincent Tabak have been offered something for "A Plea"... and not blindly make The prosecution Case Easier !!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 05:36:29 PM
Wouldn't that require a jury?

The 'photos you have put up all look like the same man to me.

That's fine... I can't see him in this photo though.. `is he the dude with the glasses with the book????? He's supposed to be there ....

(http://cache.emirates247.com/polopoly_fs/1.578189.1452216307!/image/image.jpg)
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 05:43:03 PM
Think I'm getting lost with all this legal mumbo jumbo ........ but I was answering you're post re: poster which says: No jury unless defendant pleads 'not guilty'.

VT pled not guilty to murder so he got a jury - right?

The jury found him guilty.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 05:43:32 PM
3rd left I think.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 05:45:24 PM
Look at the ears.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 05:45:46 PM
Could be.... (Still wearing glasses)... But my simple question really is... why have two different types of hearings listed at the same court at the same time on the same date in different court rooms ???

Especially when court room time is carefully managed ????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 05:51:11 PM
Think I'm getting lost with all this legal mumbo jumbo ........ but I was answering you're post re: poster which says: No jury unless defendant pleads 'not guilty'.

VT pled not guilty to murder so he got a jury - right?

The jury found him guilty.

Agreed... To an extent.... But Why "Plea" "Guilty To Manslaughter"...when he has NO Guarantee of The Prosecution accepting his Plea... Or The Judge passing sentence... Or even a reduction on his sentence.... Make NO Sense Whatsoever !!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 05:58:20 PM
Surely Nine there are NO guarantees when you are on trial. Your defence can tell you what they think will happen, but no guarantees, right down to the jury.

You're right it doesn't make any sense at all. VT destroyed two lives on that day Joanna Yeates and his own.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 06:12:34 PM
You've lost me a bit on this one Nine. VT had to plea to something didn't he and the prosecution didn't accept his manslaughter plea. Again no guarantees Nine.

Don't you have to have the trial before the judge can pass sentence?

Reduction in his sentence .... why? This man has killed someone whether by manslaughter or murder, why on earth give him a reduction?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 06:24:36 PM
Surely Nine there are NO guarantees when you are on trial. Your defence can tell you what they think will happen, but no guarantees, right down to the jury.

You're right it doesn't make any sense at all. VT destroyed two lives on that day Joanna Yeates and his own.

Ok Nina... Firstly thank you for posting today...  ?{)(**
But I would say that you are working firstly.... may I say... On the premise that The Guilty Plea means he is Guilty....

Can I ask you... To imagine that the Guilty Plea just didn't happen... And show me how on earth Dr Vincent Tabak had time to commit this crime... when he was at his home till 9:29pm on Friday 2010... ???

Show me how The Prosecution had Proven Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt....

Help me understand... Why so many witness's were absent from this trial....Help me understand "HOW" So many witness's for The Prosecution just gave written statements ???  Help me understand why the venue for his... "For Mention Hearing"  Or whatever they decided to tell untruths about this Plea.. Management... Whatever the heck they want to call it "hearing.".. At Two different Court Rooms on the Same Day at a Venue that was suddenly changed too....  And was listed twice on the Court Scene website.... For what reason???


Help me understand ...Why 'A Placid Dutchman... who was content with his lot in life as all outwardly appearances would suggest... That he would risk complete ruin and imprisonment ... To try his chances with his next door neighbour whom he had never meet... A Placid Dutchman who had spent 10 years gaining his PHD to become a People Flow Specialist....

A Placid Dutchman.... WHERE...... No supporting evidence of any such devience was presented to the Court/Jury to prove he had various tendencies.... Never mind the Porn!!!! Where NO females whom had had contact with Dr Vincent Tabak queuing up saying what a Deviant he was and how they were accosted by him were presented to the court/jury....... All those female work colleagues...acquaintances... All of them who were afraid of Dr Vincent Tabak... All lined up in a row for the prosecution to tell their stories of horror..... Where were they??????

Where was any Psychological Evaluation of this Placid Dutchman... Proving His tendencies... proving as some have said that he was A Serial Killer In the making!!!!

Everyone knows this case from what they have read in the papers... and a trial that was simply a formality... Let everyone try and look at this case in a different light... By taking away.. "The Plea"... And actually looking at the evidence the prosecution  didn't have... And what supposed Defence Dr Vincent Tabak received... Because in my opinion.... The Defence was a School Play at best.... And The prosecution were playing a game of Smoke and Mirrors... Whilst this DUTCH NATIONAL didn't have a clue at to what happens with the "British Judical System" as his Defence Lawyer was The only person who could provide him with any explanation....


And really Nina.... Do you think that William Clegg Helped Dr Vincent Tabak????  The very same William Clegg who said these Unkind words about their client... Who was A Foreigner in A Foreign Land ??

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

To support a vulnerable Dutch National In his Hour of need!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 06:25:32 PM
You've lost me a bit on this one Nine. VT had to plea to something didn't he and the prosecution didn't accept his manslaughter plea. Again no guarantees Nine.

Don't you have to have the trial before the judge can pass sentence?

Reduction in his sentence .... why? This man has killed someone whether by manslaughter or murder, why on earth give him a reduction?


Why did Dr Vincent Tabak need to "Plea " at All ??? ... He didn't ....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 02, 2017, 06:45:50 PM
Nina... I've been called A loony and all sorts... For believing in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocence.... And maybe some people believe that I am...

But you cannot undo things that i have discovered that are wrong about this case...

* Searches he couldn't make because he wasn't at home

* A Cat that is "TOO" old to be Bernard.. In a photo of Joanna Yeates holding him..

* The number recorded on Dr Vincent Tabak's shirt when he's running with Tanja being a different Number to the
   official recorded race number he was ...

* The Head of The Complex Crime Unit at The Helm of a Simple Murder Trial...

* A supposed Prison Chaplain... who for all intense and purposes is a "Prison Officer...

* A Fire Brigade.. service attending for 4 days... (thanks mrswah)

* The Dutch Language completely Missing from Dr Vincent Tabak's searches

I could go on... But we have "The One Hundred Questions" thread for that... which now is more than 1000 questions I have about this case.... Not to mention the other 1000 questions I am not at liberty to post about!!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 02, 2017, 10:00:24 PM
Again Nine surely VT had to plea to something everyone who is being tried has put in a guilty or not guilty plea, unless I'm missing something.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 07:03:50 AM
Again Nine surely VT had to plea to something everyone who is being tried has put in a guilty or not guilty plea, unless I'm missing something.


An extremely interesting point Nina.... And something I had not considered, because I had just assumed that everybody who attends court enters a plea... I had never really considered the fact that someone may still be silent and not enter a plea whatsoever...

So what happens when a defendant doesn't enter a plea ??

Normally apparently... The Judge will enter a 'Not Guilty Plea" on their behalf...  But I cannot find anywhere online where the judge enters a "Guilty" plea.... That doesn't mean that it can't happen... (i Believe).. So.... did the words "Guilty ever actually come out of the mouth of Dr Vincent Tabak ???

OMG... Just had a thought.... I presume Court 2 is a closed court ....  It's a very special court remember... A court Room that the likes of Dr Vincent Tabak should not have attended .... For what really is a "Simple Murder Case !!

Ok... lets go with that.... Dr Vincent tabak has up until he attends The Old Bailey at Court Room 2 professed his Innocence... Then when we get To The Old Bailey Court Room 2... With such surprise to everyone following this case.... Out of the blue he pleads "Guilty To Manslaughter..... "WHY"....  with No deal in place... (which I'll come back too)...

Like all of tis case "THAT" makes no sense .... (IMO)....

So "WHO" actually entered Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty To Manslaughter Plea "?????  leonora has always gone with it must have been an imposter who made the plea.... A theory that I have never been in support of... (No disrespect leonora)... But with not ever thinking about whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak actually spoke the words himself... "Guilty To Manslaughter"... until you asked Nina... I am now considering the alternative....


So... highly unlikely to be an imposter.... But legally possible for someone else to actually enter the plea for him.... I do not believe that reporetrs were actually in Court Room 2 at the time of Dr Vincent tabak's appearance, with it being a "High" Security Court Room"...

So in Answer to your question... It is possible that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't enter a "Guilty" plea....  I like to look at "How"... How this was possible... But firstly we need to remind ourselves of what has taken place thus far....


* You have "The Head Of The Complex Case Unit at The Helm"... Following and Prosecuting this simple "Murder"
   trial to the bitter end...

* A Change Of Venue for this Particular case.. A Hearing at The Old Bailey

* Two different types of hearing listed in the Crime Serve website

* A For Mention Hearing at Court room 2

* A Plea and management Case Hearing at Court room 1... (Check pg 12 on this thread)

* A Foreign National with NO Interpreter

* The use of Court Room 2 at The Old Bailey... A court Room where Terrorism and such cases are heard... An
   extremely secure court room indeed...

* A Defence Team... Burying Their Client

* A Prosecution Team with NO Evidence

* No Defence witness's

* No Good Character Witness's

* Too many written statements , read out in court..

* A prison Officer assuming The role of Chaplain

* Searches That were never in Dutch

* Searches that didn't belong to Dr Vincent Tabak..

* 3 Different prisons he was incarcerated in within 48 hours....

* A Prisoner No One Can Locate.....

* The Complex Crime Units Use of "LOR"'s (Letter of Request From a Foreign Nation) To be able to Interview Dr
   Vincent tabak in Holland

* And A Placid Dutchman.. Sobbing in Court... Never admitting his "GUILT"...(IMO)..

This case has been strange enough... So Yes Nina.. It is possible for him to "Not To Plead"..... And for someone else to enter his plea.... It May be unusual... But it's NOT IMPOSSIBLE.... And that also would answer leonora's question or should I say theory of an imposter taking Dr Vincent Tabak's place...

So with the irregularities in This Case all ready... And The Highly secure court room that this hearing took place at... I wouldn't be surprised if someone did enter Dr Vincent Tabak's plea for him....

I'll quote from one of my posts...

Quote
The defence shall apply to the court for the case to be listed for mention if they are unable to obtain instructions from the defendant. If the defendant fails to attend court, the judge will wish to consider whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

Here the defence basically have "NO" Instruction from the Defendant.. that would be why it one of the listing at The Old Bailey was listed as 'For Mention"..

But The other listing on the same day at the same time is a 'Plea and management Case hearing"... where obviously some "PERSON"... managed to get the case listed twice... which allowed for the "PLEA" to be entered ....

So if they... who ever "they "May be .... Can list a Case as

(A): For Mention

(B): Plea and Management Case Hearing

At The same time on the same day at two different court Rooms at "The Old Bailey".... Then Nina.... How hard is it to imagine that the very same people actually entered Dr Vincent Tabak's plea for him... Seeing as This Placid Dutchman had kept quite ALL This Time....  And I presume that there is NO Video Evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak entering his plea....

This case is extremely unusual.... In every aspect... from start to finish.... And really Nina... I think a different question really needs to be asked now....  As I have always believed that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent of this Crime....And obviously someone else is 'GUILTY"/// Then the real question is.... "Why go to such great lengths to put this PLACID DUTCHMAN away for life for a crime he did not commit... And the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that 'The Real Killer' Is being protected... Which means the questions you need to ask yourselves is "WHO" and WHY ???

Why did "The Placid Dutchman" become collateral damage to save someone else's skin???? As this extremely weird case seems to suggest...

I would like to see an INQUIRY Into Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration, Trial and Conviction...  I would like to cry tears of joy rather than frustration for a "Foreign National" who had hope and dreams when he came to this country of ours.... A Foreign Nation people have gone to extraordinary lengths to convict with "NO" evidence....  A Foreign National that everyone in our country was happy to see banged up...  A Foreign National I have spent a long  time trying to prove his Innocence... A Foreign National that is Impossible to Locate via "The Prisoner Relocation Service... A Foreign National who has been Silent for too many Years ... A Foreign National who hasn't got a voice...

And mostly to show this "Placid Foreign National" that people in our country still believe in truth and justice and fairness... And even if he is NOT allowed to speak for himself.... I and other people like me, will do our best to bring to everyones attention, the appauling treatment of this 'Placid Foreign National"..  Who had everything going for him...   Not only that... The Yeates family deserve to know the truth, and really, I don't envy the person who needs to explain to them, what was done...

So yes Nina... you question is perfect... but I must admit at first I nearly dismissed it, thinking you were pulling my leg...




Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 07:36:57 AM
I would just like to add to my above post...

Could The New head of The Complex Case Unit take a look at This case.... It seems to come under your 21 criteria set out on the Government website... 21 Criteria, (IMO)....
 That needs a Case to be

*  COMPLEX...

*  Muti faceted

*  Multi person

*  Multi Crimes

*  Multi Laws broken
or to put it actually In The Government words and Criteria...

Quote

* Substantial and complex fraud

* Large scale human trafficking

* Serious drug related offences involving substantial importation, manufacture or supply, particularly with an
   international dimension

* Major targeted local criminals in organised or international crime

* Serial sexual assault where there has been a protracted investigation
 
*Large scale child abuse, abduction or paedophile abuse cases involving multi generational abuse of several victims

* Major large scale public disorder offences of a political, racial or religious nature, or which cause particular local
   concern

* Complex / serious cases involving professional misconduct

* Hate related murders

* Mercy killings / aiding and abetting suicide

* High profile / multi victim / multi defendant murders

* Serious / complex Animal rights extremism cases especially across several police force areas

* Complex restraint and confiscation of assetsRape offences involving unusual violence or repeated attacks

*Cases involving complicated public interest immunity (PII) issues
 
* Complicated betting / lotteries cases

* Sensitive, serious or complex cases of major media interest e.g. allegations involving individuals or organisations
   with a high public profile

* Cases requiring consideration of gross negligence manslaughter and any case involving a fatality in which the
   investigation is being conducted in accordance with the Deaths at Work protocol (but note that cases of corporate
   manslaughter are currently dealt with in the Special Crime Division in HQ)

* Outgoing European Arrest Warrant cases i.e. where the Area is seeking the return of a suspect from abroad

* Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs)

* Cases where consideration is being given to issues of immunity and restricted use agreements under Serious
   Organised Crime Act (SOCA) 05 (but not in relation to approving a letter of agreement with a co-operating
   defendant)
 
*All cases involving the negotiation of jurisdiction with the USA
Home » About us » Complex Casework Unit

South West Complex Casework Unit

The CPS set up Complex Casework Units (CCUs) in 2008 to help us deal more effectively with major cases, working closely with the police and other law enforcement agencies to disrupt and prosecute organised crime. A national template was created for the new units and there is now a CCU in 14 out of the 15 CPS Areas with separate arrangements for London.

The national template sets out the mandatory security arrangements for CCUs, with a heightened level of security and vetting; this protects all staff, not just those working in the CCU.

The South West CCU works with the police in Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall and Gloucestershire. It was set up in Bristol in April 2007 and follows the national template in its casework remit.

Cases come into the CCU by a variety of routes. Police dealing with serious and organised crime refer cases directly to the CCU at an early stage, often at the very inception of an investigation when target criminals are identified. Sometimes these investigations lead to prosecutions which can be handled most appropriately back in the originating office; others remain with the CCU throughout.

Other cases are identified by individual CPS lawyers working in other teams who then refer them to the CCU.

Crown Prosecution Service
CPS South West
Temple Quay House, Bristol: 0117 930 2800
Longbrook House, Exeter: 01392 356700
Penhaligon House, Truro: 01872 243000
Visit the Contact page for addresses.
 
Site MapCrown Copyright and DisclaimerTop of pageWeb design agency Ecru

Just take your time and read our thread.... And do what you do best.... "Prosecute" The Multi People" whom have been complicate in this Crime.. (IMO)... And help free 'The Placid Dutchman"..  And "Prosecute them Under

* Complex / serious cases involving professional misconduct

Then I'll be a happy bunny... because for all intense and purposes I believe that is what should happen.... And not forgetting... The immediate release of Dr Vincent Tabak... from where ever they have held him for so many years...


And I'll add one more thing.... 'When it was said that "THE TRUTH MAY NEVER BE KNOWN"... I disagree... And I say...

It's about time that the truth of this Case was KNOWN... Known so everyone in our Country can feel proud of our Justice System... Knowing what great lengths were gone too... To prove 'A Placid Dutchman's Innocence" When he couldn't speak for himself!!!

http://www.cps.gov.uk/southwest/who_we_are/complex_casework_unit/
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 11:46:11 AM
Hi Nine, can I start by asking you not to post VT as a PLACID Dutchman, he wasn't very placid was he if he killed Joanna. Can I also say that I would never call you a looney ...... you just happen to hold a different view of VT to me and therefore we should be able to debate this without getting personal. Neither would I pull your leg (would have liked to on the odd occasion but didn't lol !!

As I have said I know/knew little to nothing about the legal system but have now done a lot of reading and now know more than I want to. It seems that in England we have two pleas guilty or not guilty, if the person remains silent the judge will enter a plea of not guilty and presumably its then up to both sides to prove their case, guilty or innocent. A judge is bound by law to enter not guilty so I don't think you'll find a judge giving a guilty one online.

You obviously read the CCU write up on the Tabak case, very stark I thought. Also it seemed a lot longer than the other few I read, which to me proves that some cases likie Madeleine McCann and Joanna Yeates seem to grab the media/public more than other cases. This is why VT was moved from Horfield prison Bristol.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 12:03:09 PM
Hi Nine, can I start by asking you not to post VT as a PLACID Dutchman, he wasn't very placid was he if he killed Joanna. Can I also say that I would never call you a looney ...... you just happen to hold a different view of VT to me and therefore we should be able to debate this without getting personal. Neither would I pull your leg (would have liked to on the odd occasion but didn't lol !!

As I have said I know/knew little to nothing about the legal system but have now done a lot of reading and now know more than I want to. It seems that in England we have two pleas guilty or not guilty, if the person remains silent the judge will enter a plea of not guilty and presumably its then up to both sides to prove their case, guilty or innocent. A judge is bound by law to enter not guilty so I don't think you'll find a judge giving a guilty one online.

You obviously read the CCU write up on the Tabak case, very stark I thought. Also it seemed a lot longer than the other few I read, which to me proves that some cases likie Madeleine McCann and Joanna Yeates seem to grab the media/public more than other cases. This is why VT was moved from Horfield prison Bristol.


Hi Nina... I must insist that I call him a Placid Dutchman....  As this description and title was entered by no-one other than DCI Phil Jones.. Who in a video recorded interview... described Dr Vincent Tabak as : (If I remember the exact words)... "A Very Placid Individual to deal with"....

Also I believe he didn't kill Joanna Yeates... So we differ on opinion.... And therefore I will continue to describe Dr Vincent Tabak as "The Placid Dutchman"...

Which CCU article are you refering too Nina ... There have been articles I have read that disappear....

Whether or not we know what took place inside court room 2 of The Old Bailey.... I do not believe that it was Dr Vincent Tabak whom spoke the words "Guilty".... Especially if what has been discovered about this case is anything to go by....

So I will sit on my perch..... Praying and hoping that some day soon... Someone out there is actually looking at this case with real clout... And I will see the day that Dr Vincent Tabak is proven to be Innocent of The Crime he has been Incarcerated for.... And know that Justice in this Country.... really does exist.....


Edit..... I think the interview where DCI Phil Jones Calls Dr Vincent Tabak.. A Placid Individual... Is The Judge Rinder Program... If memory serves me right....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: AerialHunter on July 03, 2017, 12:18:26 PM
Nine Agains point about the true perpetrator being protected is something that we are going to focus on for a while. It is highly likely that we have identified the individual and the conditions leading to his protected status, from our point of view he couldn't be better placed to avoid prosecution.

AH
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 12:51:57 PM
Okay Nine you go on calling a killer a placid person, the sort I assume you wouldn't mind having as a next door neighbour.

Nine can you please tell me how to add a link and to put one of your posts up before I reply. I just haven't had time and I'm pretty naff when it comes to computers but you seem to be able to do it all so please help me! I also think that your research into this is amazing you've obviously spent hours checking things.

AH sorry no disrespect, but I can't believe in the route you're taking. In one post you told me that Bristol had a 'rogue killer', now I'm sure that the good folk of Bristol would have noticed if people went missing or more bodies than is usual for this size city were found littering the Downs and the like. So no conspiracy or rouge killer theories for me.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 01:19:02 PM
Also how is the witness thing supposed to work. I mean if you are on trial for murder and your plea is guilty, can you produce `good character witnesses'?

If so how does it work? This is the first time I've murdered anyone....... so I'm a basically good person?

I am not being funny or trying to wind you up Nine, I would really like to know without having to trawl the internet again.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 02:29:52 PM
Okay Nine you go on calling a killer a placid person, the sort I assume you wouldn't mind having as a next door neighbour.

Nine can you please tell me how to add a link and to put one of your posts up before I reply. I just haven't had time and I'm pretty naff when it comes to computers but you seem to be able to do it all so please help me! I also think that your research into this is amazing you've obviously spent hours checking things.

AH sorry no disrespect, but I can't believe in the route you're taking. In one post you told me that Bristol had a 'rogue killer', now I'm sure that the good folk of Bristol would have noticed if people went missing or more bodies than is usual for this size city were found littering the Downs and the like. So no conspiracy or rouge killer theories for me.

to quote my posts just click quote on the right hand side of the post... otherwise if you want to add a quote you will need to write.. the word quote with [] either side of the word... and to close the quote... you will need to write quote quote [/] at either side of the word...

Sometimes Nina I don't know if people are simply taking the proverbial P***

Yes you may have noticed my posting style... You may or may not like it... It's a deliberate style... I do not profess to be legally minded or know anything in particular... I am merely here to try to find out what I can to prove Dr Vincent Tabak Innocent... as I have always believed him to be...   I battle through the legal jargon not always understanding... but I have no-one to verify if I am right or wrong... but it opens the floodgates to questions... And if other people have more questions than I have already posed.... Then that can only be good for Dr Vincent Tabak...

And if someone who is legally qualified can explain why Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at Court Room 2... also at the same time Court Room 1 on two different hearings at the same time and date.... Then that may go a little way into understanding the Justice system... But I cannot see in the life of me that.. The way they got Dr Vincent tabak to the Old Bailey and the methods they used is actually legal.....

This time I would like a legal person to stand up and be counted... Instead of what may make me look to be the Loony you didn't call me ....

It's highly frustrating Nina trying to work backwards on a case when you have no expertise in the field and no expert to help iron out anywhere you may go wrong.... But this case is Plain and Simply Wrong....
 which ever way you look at it.... And if like many have said before... the real problem is that Dr Vincent tabak made a Plea to his Guilt for manslaughter.... Something which is virtually Impossible to undo.... Then I believe that somewhere in Court Room 2 something untoward took place.... Somewhere ina special court room for terrorists and such cases should only appear... And not the likes of Dr Vincent Tabak.... The Placid Dutchman...Somewhere between his appearance that he was supposed to have made at Bristol Crown Court and his Videoed appearance at The Old Bailey in Court Room 2 ... Something happened.... And I am NOT talking about Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed Guilty Plea To Manslaughter"....


The hours I have spent on this case are more like years... But it wasn't until around 8/9 months ago that I made a concerted effort to bring back to the internet some of what had been removed and hopefully with the passing of time add new information to what was already known....

You have helped Nina... I thought originally you believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent... But maybe I was mistaken..... Takes me right back to Jixy... when I thought the same about her....

But whether or not you believe in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocent.. I can do little about... But I can get you and many other people to question everything that doesn't add up in this case....

Nina... take a look at the hundred question's thread.... It has expanded a little... try answering those questions please..  It may take you a little while ....  ?{)(**


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 02:37:40 PM
Also how is the witness thing supposed to work. I mean if you are on trial for murder and your plea is guilty, can you produce `good character witnesses'?

If so how does it work? This is the first time I've murdered anyone....... so I'm a basically good person?

I am not being funny or trying to wind you up Nine, I would really like to know without having to trawl the internet again.

I am not the font of all knowledge.... But apparently "The Prosecution believed that WIKI... Is a good way in which to expand your Knowledge and is a trusted source, the likes of which Dr Vincent Tabak... who is far more intellegent than myself a simple middle aged woman who hates injustice...... Used as reference to ask..(Apparently) The Dutch Wiki...  What % of grey cars were in the UK??

When of Course the Dutch wiki isn't going to give a flying fig as to What % of Grey Cars are in the UK... So why would he bother asking it such a ludicrous question?

Or the other question ... "Manslaughter"... Now don't put into google what the Dutch word for Manslaughter is... Because... google doing it's job for the English audience will actually give you the word "Doodslag"...

What you need is.... "The Dutch Wiki... and put the word 'Doodslag" in the search... Then you will get the translation of Doodslag... which will be listed as "Euthanasia"... Do you see the subtle difference....  %£&)**#

Well Apparently "Tanja Nickson"... didn't..... Did you Tanja Love !!!!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 02:54:20 PM
Firstly thanks for the help Nine, well appreciated.

I expect a lot of people may be taking the proverbial, because didn't you say at the beginning that about 10 people uk wide believed VT was innocent? I am not one, as I have said just because you believe in VT's innocence and I don't well so what? We can still talk about it all without getting personal or nasty, after all we don't know one another do we.

You see there are parts of VT's story that I do believe, the utter panic he felt when he realised she was actually dead. I can basically feel the fear he must have felt, weird because I've never been close to that sort of situation.
That I believe, but unfortunately there is a lot of the story that only has one author, Joanna being dead and not having a voice and so IMO we will never have the truth.

We were not there on the night, we will never know what went through VT's mind and all the rest of what happened in the flat we can only go on facts which unfortunately are all on the internet and we know how reliable that is.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 03:14:09 PM
Firstly thanks for the help Nine, well appreciated.

I expect a lot of people may be taking the proverbial, because didn't you say at the beginning that about 10 people uk wide believed VT was innocent? I am not one, as I have said just because you believe in VT's innocence and I don't well so what? We can still talk about it all without getting personal or nasty, after all we don't know one another do we.

You see there are parts of VT's story that I do believe, the utter panic he felt when he realised she was actually dead. I can basically feel the fear he must have felt, weird because I've never been close to that sort of situation.
That I believe, but unfortunately there is a lot of the story that only has one author, Joanna being dead and not having a voice and so IMO we will never have the truth.

We were not there on the night, we will never know what went through VT's mind and all the rest of what happened in the flat we can only go on facts which unfortunately are all on the internet and we know how reliable that is.

What about the parts of Dr Vincent Tabak's story that he was at home until 9:29pm... which the defence pointed out at trial... Or that he went to get the car and put it on the drive for 20 mins in readiness of picking Tanja up or his warming it up for his journey to ASDA..... Or that there was never any CCTV footage showing Dr Vincent Tabak's Journey to ASDA in Bedminster... which maybe he took the B4051 which would take him 23 minutes to get there as he was bored and wanting to waste time until his girlfriend arrived home from her Christmas party.... covering and giving him an alibi until he appears in ASDA at approx 10:13pm on Friday 17th December 2010.... Giving him no opportunity to even have pleasantries with his next door neighbour he didn't know from Adam.... Never mind behaving completely out of character and killing her...

I do not believe for one moment that he did kill her.... And the more trickery I find out that was used to convict This Placid Dutchman.... The more I and the 10 other people I do not know will keep on writing about it... Just like I do not know you Nina....

But at least you have read my arguments even if you do not agree with them....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 03:18:24 PM
Your posting style is yours and yours alone, don't believe I've ever commented on it. Mine is as if we were face to face. I'm posting as I think and talk.

You are the font of knowledge re: VT. (IMO)

I'm not going dutch until I have seen my dutch friend probably next Saturday, or until you and I have known each other longer!

Apart from the grey car % I can imagine that he could make the rest of the searches. As I said we were not in VT's head that day/night, thank god.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 03:34:30 PM
Hey lighten up a bit Nine.

So what about the parts of VT's story that he was home at 9.29, I mean could you say 'I was home this morning at 9.29 am', that is just not feasible. We would say around 9.20-25'ish something along those lines IMO

Car running for 20 mins to warm up, feasible IMO.

Back in 2010 there was funnily enough not any CCTV that could capture VT's journey from Canynge Rd to ASDA and from ASDA to L/Lane, funny that eh? It may of course have changed by now, Bristol being one of the most populated cities with CCTV and it still didn't manage to capture a shot of VT, apart from Park St if that car was his.

I also wouldn't take the times from A to B from Google maps as so, and an 'ish to every time.

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 03:46:59 PM
Your posting style is yours and yours alone, don't believe I've ever commented on it. Mine is as if we were face to face. I'm posting as I think and talk.

You are the font of knowledge re: VT. (IMO)

I'm not going dutch until I have seen my dutch friend probably next Saturday, or until you and I have known each other longer!

Apart from the grey car % I can imagine that he could make the rest of the searches. As I said we were not in VT's head that day/night, thank god.

You did make me laugh.... Good luck with your Dutch friend.....  8)--))

Well I suppose re Dr Vincent Tabak is a complement... But I'm sure there are other who know as much if not more than me....

And as far as the rest of the searches.... They could and I have applied them to CJ.... Because i do not believe the searches either personally....

Put Dr Vincent Tabak out of your mind for one moment.... And look at the searches that were done in what they say in relation to this case... And go back to 30th December 2010... When the world and his sheep dog were ready to string CJ up by the proverbials... And just as a little exercise... Put CJ's name in place of Dr Vincent Tabak name for the searches.... And you will find they actually fit him better with what they were saying about him at the time....

But I have apologised to CJ for my use of his name or should I say initials in this way.... Which again i will do...

Because between the 30th December 2010 and the 3rd January 2011... There are "NO" searches made... extremley odd for a Dutchman intent on following every aspect of this case ....   But for CJ who was in custody on the 30th December 2010 and then released at the begining of January 2011... You could also see how they would fit him quite nicely....

Melanine Hall... 1996... Dr Vincent Tabak was 18 years old living in Holland...

So I believe to make the searches fit Dr Vincent Tabak... they through in a little bit of Dutch.... To make it appear the searches were his... But of course they had too little Dutch in his searches and emails to friends in Holland... And No Translator in court to independantly verify the translation of the Dutch language .....

So NO... I do not believe that the searches were Dr Vincent Tabak's or CJ's... Or anyone else for that matter.... but that is just My Opinion....

If these searches were truly Dr Vincent Tabak's... lets get the Laptops independently analysed .... Oh No I forgot...

It's Tanja Love again... and not Dr Vincent Tabaks' girlfriend... Wee Tanja couldn't retrieve all of the data on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop's... could you Tanja Love.... So didn't you explain to the nice ladies and gentlemen sat as the Jury.. That your slideshow showed some of Dr Vincent Tabak's Internet searches ...But some of the searches could NOT be retrieved......

Now what button did you press there Tanja my love????? "Delete" ???? Or did you just get the blue screen of death .... It's a perfectly good question... I'd like a perfectly good answer please.... In fact you could pop around for a coffee and show me how you did it... I'd be so interested in seeing your technique....

Don't you just hate it when the blue screen of death appears when your in the middle of something... A bit like an itch that won't got away.... And I am not going away either.... So around around around we go... And hopefully this time I will see soon Dr Vincent Tabak's name all over the papers.... But this time it's because they will release him...


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 04:03:27 PM
Glad I made you laugh,  little humour can go a long way.

Okay so you don't believe that the searches were done by VT or CJ (who by the way I know, not as a friend but as one that says hello in the street and has a quick natter) Why bring Tanja into the mix? I realise why, she had use of the laptop but you are surely not suggesting that she had anything to do with Joanna's murder?

M Hall, don't know why you keep bringing this murder into a 2010 murder. Neither VT nor CJ had anything to do with this murder.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 04:33:45 PM
I've been reading some of Sally R's comments on this trial. Firstly she doesn't come across as a professional lawyer, member of ...... to me. It really is like reading something you or I would have written.

She also had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill (will have to look up the page). Don't know what day, just that he was on his bike and there was snow. Constitution Hill was used as the hill start in car tests many decades ago when I took mine. It's very narrow purely residential and winds as well as being a s*d of a steep hill.

It is also directly opposite the Hope & Anchor, the pub where Greg and Joanna had their last lunch together.

I'm not taking what this woman says as so, its like the McCann files, read what's not written. 
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 04:34:34 PM
Glad I made you laugh,  little humour can go a long way.

Okay so you don't believe that the searches were done by VT or CJ (who by the way I know, not as a friend but as one that says hello in the street and has a quick natter) Why bring Tanja into the mix? I realise why, she had use of the laptop but you are surely not suggesting that she had anything to do with Joanna's murder?

M Hall, don't know why you keep bringing this murder into a 2010 murder. Neither VT nor CJ had anything to do with this murder.

Firstly may I say... Say Hi to CJ... and ask him if he has a few moments to spare to come along and read this forum....

Tanja... who I am bringing into the Mix is ... Tanaj Nickson... The Computer Analyst... Or should I say... The Computer Pointer at a Slide show of the searches expert....

 And not to be mixed up wit Tanja Morson... Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend who had nothing do do with any of this ... But would have been an excellent witness in Court....

Ok... Melanie Hall.. Is deliberatly in the searches.... If as I asked you to imagine about applying such searches to a person who is old enough to be a serial killer... That is where the Police were trying to lead the public into believing.... (IMO).. That is why they made all sorts of suggestions in The media about opening up The Glenis Caruthers Case... Or implying such an event was happening...  Hence the appearance of DCI  Gareth Bevan... posing with a pizza... The very same DCI Gareth Bevan who is part of The Melanie Hall inquiry team...who apparently had nothing to do with the Joanna Yeates case.... yet took it upon himself to show the world the pizza that apparently was Missing from said Flat....

And yes... Nina... neither Dr Vincent Tabak or CJ had anything to do with the Melanie Hall murder.... But lets just put aside Dr Vincent Tabak ... And look at what they could have done to CJ if he hadn't had the help and assistance from his friends and lawyers....

I'm sure the world would have been saying exactly the same about CJ... and how the Police had caught a Serial Killer.... And I might be here writing about CJ and not Dr Vincent Tabak.... because which ever way you look at this... This case has more holes than a sieve...

And they cannot really prove that Joanna Yeates was killed in her Flat.... They cannot really prove when she died ....


But maybe that 'Full DNA Profile they never found a match to on Joanna Yeates will start to yield some answers... Because the answers to my questions are not really getting answered.... And.. Karen Thomas... Phil Jones and Ann Reddrop who is enjoying Channel Island life.... would love to come on here and start answering them....

Trouble is Ann.... Island are very small... especially the channel islands...  maybe you should perch yourself on Lihou
 now that could be your island of choice... But if I remember correctly... It only really becomes an Island when the tide comes in.... Maybe you could caution a few Gulls who happen to stop there on their way to Sark or even Herm... Now I'm sure you don't need a Lor's for that... But a few Guernsey Coppers may help you with your arrest... Or show you your way back to the main land..... Are you still in Jersey Ann?? The Islands are beautiful... 


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 05:09:29 PM
I did say that I was NOT a friend of Chris Jefferies just a stop in the street and have a chat with person. If you could see what this has done to this man ...... I knew the man in the papers, multi coloured hair etc., the papers called him weird. He loved the Clifton Village community and well the whole air of the place. I last talked to him in the autumn of 2010 when I signed a petition to stop junkies and drunks using a house opposite the Clifton Primary school.

Since this has all kicked off I raise my hand to him in an acknowledgement gesture and that's all. Why? Because you can see the walls come up before you even open your mouth. He only talks in the Village to ask for whatever he is buying. Shame on all concerned, he was what was called a Character in the Village, not any more though.

So sorry but no, I will not be asking him to take a look at this forum.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 05:14:41 PM
Thanks for putting me right on Tanja and Tanaj, I will try not to mix them up in future.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 05:25:42 PM
I did say that I was NOT a friend of Chris Jefferies just a stop in the street and have a chat with person. If you could see what this has done to this man ...... I knew the man in the papers, multi coloured hair etc., the papers called him weird. He loved the Clifton Village community and well the whole air of the place. I last talked to him in the autumn of 2010 when I signed a petition to stop junkies and drunks using a house opposite the Clifton Primary school.

Since this has all kicked off I raise my hand to him in an acknowledgement gesture and that's all. Why? Because you can see the walls come up before you even open your mouth. He only talks in the Village to ask for whatever he is buying. Shame on all concerned, he was what was called a Character in the Village, not any more though.

So sorry but no, I will not be asking him to take a look at this forum.


I can completely understand where you are coming from Nina... What happened to CJ was shocking... His life changed forever... His carefree existence gone... He's having to reform to what people call the Norm so that they would take him seriously, and not allowing for his diverse ways to be expressed without ridicule or confrontation...

It is shocking what the media can do to a person... And tell as many untruths as they want to without consequences..

Well Maybe not ask him.... I was being a but tongue in cheek actually... But I hadn't regarded what he might want to say or not... But I'm sure he had an opinion on Dr Vincent Tabak... And I bet it is nothing like what the media portrayed him as also....

I'm sure leonora would like to ask him a few question if it was an option....

So I plod back on with not having any People who were Witness's reading this forum or anyone who has the ability to change things and question just like I have done... And keep on typing away in the vain hope that someone's 'Alarm Bells" start ringing and they go...... "What a minute"... that didn't actually happen like that... And put their Two Penenth into our chats...  And hopefully reveal the Truth that should be out there for ALL... to see.....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 05:27:52 PM


So sorry but no, I will not be asking him to take a look at this forum.

I actually did ask him in a roundabout way... He knows I contacted him (I believe )... Maybe I peaked his Interest...  ?{)(**
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 05:47:56 PM
Hey lighten up a bit Nine.

So what about the parts of VT's story that he was home at 9.29, I mean could you say 'I was home this morning at 9.29 am', that is just not feasible. We would say around 9.20-25'ish something along those lines IMO

Car running for 20 mins to warm up, feasible IMO.

Back in 2010 there was funnily enough not any CCTV that could capture VT's journey from Canynge Rd to ASDA and from ASDA to L/Lane, funny that eh? It may of course have changed by now, Bristol being one of the most populated cities with CCTV and it still didn't manage to capture a shot of VT, apart from Park St if that car was his.

I also wouldn't take the times from A to B from Google maps as so, and an 'ish to every time.

It was the Defences timeline that Dr Vincent Tabak was in his Flat till 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010 ...

And I agree how funny it is that the CCTV's around Bristol and Surrounding area's struggled to capture Dr Vincent Tabak on Friday 17th December 2010... Even the ASDA CarPark didn't manage to capture his arrival or departure....

And apart from the image they say is him on Park Street on Saturday 18th December 2010... When I believe he is slightly lost on his way to Pick up Tanja Morson his girlfriend from her Christmas function... And not him trying to find a place to dump Joanna Yeates as has been implied in some of the media at the time....  There is No Footage on CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements.... Not even cycling up Constitutional Hill.... !!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 05:48:19 PM
That's okay Nine, quite honestly if I could get away with it I would love to ask him some questions too, but I can't invade another person's space, shame though!

Don't sound so dispondent though someone might hear you. If you really want to prove his innocence why not write to him? I know mrswuh has written but one more can't harm can it?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 05:58:48 PM
That's okay Nine, quite honestly if I could get away with it I would love to ask him some questions too, but I can't invade another person's space, shame though!

Don't sound so dispondent though someone might hear you. If you really want to prove his innocence why not write to him? I know mrswuh has written but one more can't harm can it?

Well mrswah... didn't get anywhere with that did she... So me writing to him is not going to make any difference if the Prison Location Service are playing Silly B***ers... and not even allowing anyone to know which Prison he is now located in..now is it....

As for CJ... I didn't invade his space... I just gave him a pointer and hoped he would look... Nothing to loose really for either of us.. I would say...  8)--))

And yes... I do get dispondent sometimes...  But another day and another avenue for me to check... And before you know it I think I have found the answer and feel like I may be getting somewhere...  So yes.... lets hope someone is looking at this... And maybe someone can hear me Shouting !!!!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 06:14:53 PM
Okay so maybe VT does not want to be contacted, not so much the PLS playing silly bu**ers. Would they tell people like mrswah that VT doesn't want contact?  How about asking the CPU to take another look, a million to one that they will even think about doing it I agree, but if you believe that much do something.

Chris Jefferies didn't return to his flat after being released though I do expect he will have had his mail forwarded.

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 06:21:04 PM
Okay so maybe VT does not want to be contacted, not so much the PLS playing silly bu**ers. Would they tell people like mrswah that VT doesn't want contact?  How about asking the CPU to take another look, a million to one that they will even think about doing it I agree, but if you believe that much do something.

Chris Jefferies didn't return to his flat after being released though I do expect he will have had his mail forwarded.

The CPU ???? Doesn't that stand for "Central Processing Unit" in Computers???  What have I missed ???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 06:21:53 PM
It was the Defences timeline that Dr Vincent Tabak was in his Flat till 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010 ...

And I agree how funny it is that the CCTV's around Bristol and Surrounding area's struggled to capture Dr Vincent Tabak on Friday 17th December 2010... Even the ASDA CarPark didn't manage to capture his arrival or departure....

And apart from the image they say is him on Park Street on Saturday 18th December 2010... When I believe he is slightly lost on his way to Pick up Tanja Morson his girlfriend from her Christmas function... And not him trying to find a place to dump Joanna Yeates as has been implied in some of the media at the time....  There is No Footage on CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements.... Not even cycling up Constitutional Hill.... !!


Park street is virtually a straight road so I don't think he was lost.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 06:23:49 PM
Sorry CPS.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 06:28:28 PM
Park street is virtually a straight road so I don't think he was lost.

No.... let me rephrase that.... On Park Street... he ended up taking a wrong turn according to his Trial testimony... And had to Ring up Tanja Morson his girlfriend with directions of where to pick her up I believe ....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 06:28:51 PM
 8)--))
Sorry CPS.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 06:35:52 PM
So he phoned his girlfriend up ........ so what are you saying?

Actually about 20 yrs ago I did exactly the same thing in Park St that VT claims he did. I was looking for Mark Lane and took a left hand `lane' ended up dead end and the back of some old houses. So in one way you can get lost in Park St, unless VT and me are a particular sort of idiot!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 06:40:01 PM
So he phoned his girlfriend up ........ so what are you saying?

Actually about 20 yrs ago I did exactly the same thing in Park St that VT claims he did. I was looking for Mark Lane and took a left hand `lane' ended up dead end and the back of some old houses. So in one way you can get lost in Park St, unless VT and me are a particular sort of idiot!


lol.... Well Maybe you do have something in common with Dr Vincent Tabak after all Nina ....  8)--)) Shame someone wasn't in court to explain to the Jury what he was saying was possible and true!!...  Think he also ended up in a dead end road too... Maybe it was "Mark Street" that he ended up in Nina...

Phone calls leave records... that is all.....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 06:53:31 PM
Okay I know as much about phones as I do computers. All I really know is that we leave a paper trail whatever we do.

So go on I'll be silly and ask you what time did VT phone his girlfriend and do mobile phone calls go through straight away? So if you say 9.29 that would have been the actual time he phoned his girlfriend. Are there sometimes little glitches where a signal can't be found and the call takes longer?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 07:22:09 PM
Okay I know as much about phones as I do computers. All I really know is that we leave a paper trail whatever we do.

So go on I'll be silly and ask you what time did VT phone his girlfriend and do mobile phone calls go through straight away? So if you say 9.29 that would have been the actual time he phoned his girlfriend. Are there sometimes little glitches where a signal can't be found and the call takes longer?

Towers are what phone signals bounce off.. So his phone could give an approximation of what area he is in at anyone time...  IE Near Longwood Lane...

He didn't phone his girlfriend at 9:29Pm on Friday the 17th December 2010 as far as I know... but he could have...

9:29pm is the time the defence put him at home on their Time- Line... But I do not know... If this was some of the work carried out by Paul Cook... or Cleggs lot....


Edit... come to think about it maybe he was on his landline at around that time... Because it wasn't just his mobile phone calls that were recorded...!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 07:23:29 PM
In Fact... I do not know what Paul Cook actually did for Dr Vincent Tabak.... apart from not getting him BAIL... Or even making a BAIL APPLICATION....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 07:40:09 PM
Okay so without blinding me with loads of tables, do you have a location timeline for VT on the evening of the 17th?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 07:42:05 PM
Please don't take us off piste now by changing the subject to Paul Cook and bail.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 07:51:15 PM
Please don't take us off piste now by changing the subject to Paul Cook and bail.

Well I'm not really off piste... As he was apart of Dr Vincent Tabak's original Defence...

So Nina... may I ask you what it used to look like inside The Bristol Ram 2010 ?? And where in relation to the toilets and the exit did Joanna Yeates sit...?? Is it a large pub??
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 03, 2017, 07:53:57 PM
lol Never been in the Bristol Ram.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 08:27:48 PM
Okay so without blinding me with loads of tables, do you have a location timeline for VT on the evening of the 17th?

I don't own loads of tables.....

Well a timetable of sorts... Because I cannot tell you exactly because I am not privey to Dr Vincent Tabak's statements..

So using the information I have managed to gather.. I only really need to cover between 8:50pm and 10:13pm on Friday 17th December 2010... As the Prosecution suggested that by the time Dr Vincent Tabak was at Asda he already had Joanna Yeates in the boot of his car.... Or between 9:00pm and 9:30pm depending on whether you go with the prosecution or The Defence.... Or... a combination of the two....


The Prosecution... Now I'm doing this from memory... or else I would need to trawl through all of my posts...

The Prosecution I believe have Joanna Yeates Killed between 9:00pm and 9:30pm on Friday the 17th December 2010... But... they also have Dr Vincent Tabak in his house for 1 hour approx before he went to Asda....

Many people have summised this is when he went back round to Joanna Yeates house to clean up....

Now The Defence... The Defence have Dr Vincent Tabak remaining in his Flat until 9:29pm... They have him seen at 10:13pm... And Asda is mentioned.... Now I have deduced that they only possible reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen at 10:13pm had to be on the ASDA CCTV Footage.... which of course they have blurred the timestamp from...

I say this is 10:13pm and ASDA CCTV... because if Dr Vincent Tabak had been picked up on any other CCTV Footage... It would have been played to the Court... And I'm sure the Prosecution would have objected if The Defence came up with a Time of 10:13pm that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen... when it could be proven... If it was a witness who saw Dr Vincent Tabak at 10:13pm... Then I'm sure they would have been called to court to verify this timeline.... And as NO-one was there to help Dr Vincent Tabak... I believe that I can deduce the TimeLine had to come from the ASDA CCTV Footage... (Which he entered on two occasions)..

So between 9:29pm and 10:13pm we have 44 minutes... 20 minutes warming up his car on the Drive... And approx 23 minutes to get to ASDA Via The B4051....

Another thing that needs to be remembered is the houses around the back that over look 44 Canygne Road... Now the Police have in some pictures...Of the outside lights on... And if the outside is lit up... And all the Screaming is going on that the witness's gave statements to... Do you not think it would be possible for some of these witness's to see what was going on just yards away.... And be of an even greater risk to moving a body on your own so many times...??

Dr Vincent Tabak... did not have the time to kill Joanna Yeates (IMO)...  And they all knew it and did nothing about it..... !!!!


So to summaries... If Dr Vincent Tabak was in the house for 1 hour before he went to Asda... According to The Prosecution.... we arrive around  his start time of 8:45pm to around 9:00pm before waiting 1 hour to go to ASDA depending on his Journey...

We then have The Defence putting Dr Vincent Tabak in his flat at 9:29pm... So logic has to dictate... That Dr Vincent Tabak did not leave his flat before 9:29pm and after starting his car engine remained in his flat until his journey to ASDA in Bedminster..... Which the Prosecution were happy to concede....

Both QC's now making it Impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have committed this crime.... (IMO)...




Edit.... This is where the tenants of 44 Canygne Road could have been useful to the Defence or Prosecution.... Surely they would have heard a Car engine running on the drive.... Surprised Neither Council called any of these tenants for verification..... !!


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 03, 2017, 10:51:15 PM
We've been sat here for months talking about this case and Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Plea of "Guilty to Manslaughter"...

Now... that has got me thinking ...

The offence of manslaughter

Quote
Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups. These are described as:
 voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of
murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and
 involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where
death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.

So which 'Manslaughter did Dr Vincent Tabak Plead Guilty too???

(A): Voluntary Manslaughter ??
or
(B): Involuntary Manslaughter ???

Looking at the description for "Manslaughter as a Plea.".. I am guessing.... And this is only because at the Trial The Defence stated that Dr Vincent Tabak "Did Not Intend to kill Joanna Yeates."....

Quote
He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury.

And from The Justice Gap

Quote
The only issue in the trial was intent and not sexual motive. That depended on the level of force and the time it would take to kill.

The Prosecution..

Quote
Mr Lickley said Tabak had intended to kill the landscape architect or cause her really serious harm because he gripped her throat for long enough and hard enough to end her life.

So looking again at The Old Bailey... which Manslaughter Plea did Dr Vincent Tabak enter into????

(A) Or (B)...

Or was it just your Common or Garden Manslaughter Plea...

Where you don't have any guarantee of an acceptance of your "Plea".. and put yourself at the Mercy of a Jury ready to find you guilty of a more serious charge .... Because The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit has you on her Radar and will not let you go to court for anything less than "Murder" and has never had any intention of accepting the "Manslaughter Plea" that you have just sat in her lap....... Whilst your own Council just looked around the room and said... Ok ..trial it is then.... (IMO).. Not securing any plea deal before The words "Guilty to Manslaughter".. were uttered

This is "WHY"  there were no Psychological assessment made and presented at Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial... (IMO)... They didn't need to as he never entered 'A Voluntary Manslaughter Plea ".... (Common or garden Variety was his choice apparently)

 So why waste good tax payers money for a Defence... when Dr Vincent Tabak was only entitled to receive a "Base Metal" Service????

He didn't plead "Guilty" To "Manslaughter" with diminished responsibilities... (Common or Garden variety was his choice apparently)...

Neither did he plead 'Guilt to "Involuntary" Manslaughter.... (Common or Garden Variety was his choice apparently)...  Although William Clegg was letting The Jury Know that this was possible by his description of what were supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's actions.... Leaving the Jury to wonder if that NVQ on "Manslaughter Law they thought they might gain ....would  be a good idea, if ever they were to be picked for jury service on a "Murder Trial"....it may come in handy......

No......He just went for  'Pot Luck "Manslaughter" on the ground that he thought that England had a fair Judicial System... And everyone would see straight through the fact that it was impossible for him to commit this "Murder"...

So my question must be.... How can you provide a Jury the opportunity to decide whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have committed " Voluntary Manslaughter verses "Involuntary Manslaughter.... "When The question of either type of "Manslaughter was never put to them... only a description of intent was ever provided .... I believe ...

And only a "Charge of Murder" was what the Jury had to decide upon...  How can a Jury Make an Informed Fair above board decision on "The Guilt" of A Defendant... when in reality... They were never aware of the type of "Manslaughter Plea Dr Vincent Tabak had entered into apparently.... ??

You are now in the realms of expecting a Jury to know `Law" and with their vast knowledge on the subject decide from amongst the EVIDENCE.. that was put before them... That Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates whether it was intentional or not.... Because apparently an NVQ in "Understand Law on "Manslaughter pleas before you become a juror are available to your left hand side....

Therefore giving you the legal knowledge you must need to  be at liberty to decide a Defendant fate when your only choice is "Guilty' to Murder.... And a little "manslaughter will be thrown in... Which you have all read about in the paper back in May 2011... But please don't let that influence you.. put that to one side and get ready with you NVQ's because we are about to test you on your knowledge of "Manslaughter In Law" without full direction or knowledge of whether the defendant pleaded Guilty to either catergory....... .(IMO)...

Do you know something.... I always thought that NVQ stood for "Not Very Qualified"....


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275776

http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 04, 2017, 06:50:15 AM
Nine Agains point about the true perpetrator being protected is something that we are going to focus on for a while. It is highly likely that we have identified the individual and the conditions leading to his protected status, from our point of view he couldn't be better placed to avoid prosecution.

AH

Now, this sounds interesting --------
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 04, 2017, 10:34:50 AM
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.

I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.

Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 12:16:19 PM
I am going to have to Do this in Parts... "Part 1".....

I remember ....Wikipedia... The font of all knowledge.... And Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent use of this tool for his understanding of virtually everything that was Law Related....

I was trying to understand how someone can apparently "Plead Guilt: to "Manslaughter"  and not be given any

(A): Reduction on sentence

(B): A plea bargain

(C): Enter the type of Manslaughter your pleading too...

(D): End up at trial with the jury making their minds up with two options only.... That been Guilty of "'Murder" or not...

I did mention this a while ago... I believed that something didn't appear quite right with that option being (D):...

The Law as I have found out is very difficult to comprehend... As I am finding out whilst writing posts...  So for Dr Vincent Tabak to apparently look at Wiki, the font of all knowledge for his get out clause ... On one day and have no clue as of English Law seems preposterous...

Lets start with Wiki's definition of "Manslaughter In English Law"..... which apparently was one of the searches done by Dr Vincent Tabak on the 22nd December 2010

Quote
n the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"). In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offence). The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.


There's a mind field already.... " Mens Rea "... Latin... I wonder how Dr Vincent Tabak's Latin is these days ???

Quote
Mens rea in criminal law is concerned with the state of mind of the defendant. Most true crimes will require proof of mens rea. Where mens rea is not required the offence is one of strict liability. There are three main levels of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence.

Was Dr Vincent Tabak's case "NOT" A True Crime ????

My post last night was concerned with the type of Manslaughter That Dr Vincent Tabak apprentley pled Guilty too...

(A): Voluntary Manslaughter

(B): Involuntary Manslaughter.

Or As I have discovered the type of Intent...

(C): Direct intent:

(D): Oblique intent:

Now I'm wishing I took that NVQ that was on the left hand side.... So my understand of "Manslaughter Charges" would make this a lot easier to write..!!!!

Quote
Direct intent:
 
The majority of cases will be quite straight forward and involve direct intent. Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. Eg D intends to kill his wife. To achieve that result he gets a knife from the kitchen, sharpens it and then stabs her, killing her. The conduct achieves the desired result.
 
 

And:..
Quote
Oblique intent:
 Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result. Eg D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
 

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have any Knowledge of English Law.. So how would looking at WIKI apparently equip him with anything??? WIKI is useless for such information... when you need Government Guidelines to quantify the information... (IMO).. And  not just Good Old Wiki's say so.....


One thing I will say about the wiki pages is they were edited in June 2017... I'm sure when I looked a while ago you couldn't find some of that information... I'm sure it wasn't worded that way.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 12:17:13 PM
Part 2.......

Back to the Intent.... Direct Or Oblique???

Quote
Oblique intent:
 
 Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result. Eg D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
 
 
The courts have struggled to find an appropriate test to apply in cases of oblique intent. In particular the questions which have vexed the courts are:
 
Should the test be subjective or objective?
What degree of probability is required before it can be said that the defendant intended the result?
Whether the degree of probability should be equal to intention or whether it is evidence of intention from which the jury may infer intention

Is this the reason that "Intent" was never used for Dr Vincent Tabak... Did they not included "Oblique Intent" in the eyes of the Jury??

If Lawyers have struggled on how to apply Oblique Intent... How would a Jury manage to comprehend such a concept??

Quote
Subjective or objective test
 
 
A subjective test is concerned with the defendant's perspective. In relation to oblique intent it would be concerned only with whether the defendant did foresee the degree of probability of the result occurring from his actions. An objective test looks at the perspective of a reasonable person. Ie Would a reasonable person have foreseen the degree of probability of the result occurring from the defendant's actions.
 
It is arguable, that since intention requires the highest degree of fault, it should be solely concerned with the defendant's perception. In addition, intention seems to be a concept which naturally requires a subjective inquiry. It seems somehow wrong to decide what the defendant's intention was by reference to what a reasonable person would have contemplated. However, originally an objective test was applied to decide oblique intent:

So subject or Object.. Well Dr Vincent Tabak did not use an Object unless you want to class his right hand as such... When I read about him using his right hand ..I wondered ff he was actually left handed ??? I digress..

Quote
Lord Bridge's test on oblique intent:

"First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence."
 

Well that a bit of a revelation... We at a "Murder Trial"... we have "The Defence" trying to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak did not 'Intentional" kill Joanna Yeates... That his action's were 'NOT" meant...

Then we have "The Prosecution"... Would say that he deliberately killed her... and that he must have known that his action would have caused the death of Joanna Yeates and The pain and suffering she went through....


I have "Two Problems Here ".... Firstly the Jury only had only a "Murder" charge to consider...Knowing that The Defendant had already pleaded Guilty to "Manslaughter"... They.. being the Jury "DID NOT" know what type of 'Manslaughter Dr Vincent Tabak actually pleaded Guilty to...

 Yet The Defence and The Prosecution appear to be using all the elements relating to A "Manslaughter " Charge... (IMO)...

Even as so far as to use what appears to me to be The 'Oblique" Intent... which not even Lawyers can agree on it use... So how on gods green earth are the jury going to be able to understand all of the legal talk happening in the court room...

And Clegg letting his client sit there without an Interpreter... Except apparently one for medical terms.... I just want to LOL at this point... It's OMG... How is Dr Vincent tabak supposed to understand English Law... If even English Lawyers cannot agree on 'Oblique Intent"????

Quote
Lord Lane CJ:

"the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."

Okie Dokie... That's a mine field... How can a jury infer anything ..if they are NOT of the Understanding what 'Oblique Intent Is"???  were the words "Oblique Intent" ever uttered in the Court Room at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.... I'll go with "NO"...(IMO)..

Quote
"Did you intend to kill her?" Clegg asked. "No definitely not," Tabak said.

He was then asked: "Did you intend to cause her serious harm?" "No, definitely not," he replied.

Why is "Clegg" talking about The Intention when "The Type of Intention" was never established or.. Explained to the Jury???


Then The Prosecution...
Quote
"You proceeded to strangle her, intending, in my judgment, to kill her.

And...
Quote
"On your own evidence, after an acquaintenceship of only a few minutes, you moved to kiss Joanna and I am quite satisfied that you did not intend to stop there and intended to go much further.

So.... The Prosecution... allow the jury to understand that Their expertise is far superior than the use of The Law'... I'll explain my reasoning...

"The Jury were only given The Prosecutions beliefs... which is not "Law"... If the Jury were not already aware of the types of "Intention" that could be applied to "A Manslaughter" case and should have been applied in this case ...(IMO)... because it had never been established what type of 'Manslaughter Plea" Dr Vincent Tabak had entered into... But the Jury were all too aware that he had apparently admitted to "Manslaughter"

The Jury are asked to make a decision on whether or not the Defendant Intended to Kill Joanna Yeates or Not...

Well how can that be ????

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tabak-guilty-of-joanna-yeates-murder-2377119.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/20/vincent-tabak-apologises-joanna-yeates-parents

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 12:18:09 PM
 Part 3.....

I still do not understand "HOW"..... How Dr Vincent Tabak could enter a "Guilty To Manslaughter Plea" at "The Old Bailey".. without any provision.... Without 'The Defence" bashing out a deal with 'The Prosecution"...

Dr Vincent Tabak whom up until he attended the very strange "Old Bailey Hearing"... Lets not forget .. The Very same 'Old Bailey hearing , that was listed twice on the same day at the same time at two different Court Rooms for Two different sorts of Hearing....  Which I don't know about anyone else i find this information Mind Blowing!!!

We Have an Intelligent Placid Dutchman" whom apparently went to read Wiki.. to give him the tools to be able to deal with this situation.... Now.. you would have though a "plea " agreement would be made... You would have thought that the Judge would have decided sentence.... You would have thought 'The Type Of Manslaughter" he was admitting too... would have been entered at 'The Old Bailey"....


But... The Old Bailey trial was highly unusual and Irregular... (IMO)...

But I know why "The Type of Manslaughter" was never entered into at the "Old Bailey....(IMO)..

It's because.... At that point in May 2011... no-one not even the defence had any idea of apparently  "HOW" Dr Vincent Tabak had Killed Joanna Yeates... You see it sort of makes sense now but "NOT QUITE"....!! This is Extremely Important... And I'm unsure legally where this would put... help Dr Vincent Tabak.... But I am hoping....


So they "The Defence were "NOT" ready for "Trial as they had indicated to Judge field in May 2011 as for him to be able to set a trial date.... The defence had  "NO" explantion on paper as to "HOW" Joanna Yeates met her death come to that point... neither did "The Prosecution"!!!

If we have .."The Defence" and "The Prosecution"... Not knowing "How" Dr Vincent Tabak actually managed to kill Joanna Yeates in May 2011... How was A trial date entered into.... How did ANN Reddrop state that they were never going to accept Dr Vincent Tabak's "Manslaughter Plea"... If Dr Vincent Tabak at this point had 'Not told them how he had killed Joanna Yeates ...'Intentionally Or Not"....


I think this is a Eureka moment leonora!!!!!

Think about people... How can The Complex Crime Unit Publicly State that 'They were this was always a "Murder Charge"

The quote below is Ann Redropp speaking 'Head of The Complex Crime Unit....

Quote
In May this year... Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter..But that was only part of the story.... The Crown's Case Is... And always has been... That it was a deliberate act... on his part.... And that is why we refused to accept his plea to 'Manslaughter"

Does that quote not make you go... eh???  It does me...

"If The Defence and The Prosecution" had NO Idea How Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates on 17th December 2010... How can 'The Prosecution" insist that this had 'Always" been a "Murder" and not "Manslaughter... How without knowing at The Old Bailey In May 2011... Could they happily tell the world that Dr Vincent Tabak would be facing 'A Murder Trial "

Lets quickly go back to the Two listings at 'The Old Bailey"....

The first listing I read was called  a "For Mention hearing... this apparently is where the Defence hasn't been given Instruction by The Defendant and a "Plea and Case management Hearing will be set...

Yet to our surprise... On the very same day at the very same court at the very same time... "A Plea And Management Case Hearing" was listed.... Which is mind boggling..... 

Again... problems arise.... If Dr Vincent Tabak had Not divulged how he had apparently killed Joanna Yeates... lets just split the two types of hearings a moment...

Without any instruction from Dr Vincent Tabak... we can all understand why "The"... "For Mention Hearing" would take place...  bringing with it A New Date and Time ... For The Plea And Case Management Case Hearing....

I'm hoping this is not too hard to follow....

Question again.... How would "The Prosecution have all there 'Witness's and all of their evidence in this case... Including The Statements from any Doctors on how long it would take for someone to die from strangulation... If The  Prosecution were not aware about "The "20" seconds Dr Vincent Tabak was apparently to have taken to kill her !!!!

If The Prosecution Or The Defence In May 2011 DID NOT KNOW it took "20" seconds for Dr Vincent tabk to kill Joanna Yeates... How could a trial date be set????  How could they "NOT" accept a 'Manslaughter Plea" when they DID NOT KNOW HOW SHE DIED!!!!!!

How DID THE JUDGE ALLOW THIS "MANSLAUGHTER PLEA" to be entered... when they none of The Councils Knew How Joanna Yeates died !!!!!

What is this saying!!!!!!!!!

HOW DID THE JUDGE ACCEPT THIS MANSLAUGHTER PLEA ... in a sense... So that when the came to trial the only charge facing Dr Vincent Tabak was "MURDER"????

How with absolutely "NO" Evidence... did "The Prosecution"...  have the manner of death of Joanna Yeates in their case notes in MAY 2011?? If The Defence did not know how their client apparently killed Joanna Yeates...

How did the DEFENCE... "DISCLOSE"... everything to "The Prosecution" in May 2011 as for all the Councils to be ready for a trial in October 2011... Not only that.... Knowing that this trial would last NO MORE than 4 weeks...... which I will come back too.......

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 12:21:20 PM
Part 4.....

How has 'The Judge... "The Defence.... "The Prosecution" All happily come to the conclusion that in May 2011.. Dr Vincent Tabak will face a "Murder Trial" in October 2011 that will last 4 weeks when... They had NO IDEA how he was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ??????

How did they know in MAY 2011... That "Manslaughter" would not be an option at trial... If they hadn't be given any details of how Joanna Yeates was apparently killed by Dr Vincent Tabak????

NONE of them could possibly KNOW..... (IMO).... Not only that... NONE of The Councils Could possibly had all of their witness statements in place... If the had NO IDEA ... how Dr Vincent Tabak actually killed Joanna Yeates....

He could have said he had assistance for ALL these LEGAL people knew... Therefore needed to interview a possible other suspect... He could have said anything.....

He could have said he was doing Handstands or Practicing Judo Moves .... He could have said anything.... Anything that goes to "PROVE" That ALL OF THE STATEMENTS COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN IN THE HAND OF EITHER THE DEFENCE OR PROSECUTION.....!!!!

Meaning how on earth Did the JUDGE manage to set a  trial date.. without knowing this !!!!!!!!! And a time schedule of 4 weeks ????

Because the 4 week time limit is extremely IMPORTANT.....

I will say again.... I believe that 'The Complex Case Unit..... needs to take a look at this case... and use your 21 Criteria to Prosecute those who need Prosecuting.. In This Case !!!!!

Was any of this legal ????

How were Dr Vincent Tabak's RIGHTS affected by this underhand use of Law??? .... (IMO)...

I keep going back to 22nd September 2011... where Dr Vincent Tabak signed s statement
 which out lined.. I believe how he killed Joanna Yeates.... Proving yet again... That in May 2011 neither The Defence Prosecution Or The Judge... knew how Dr Vincent Tabak had killed Joanna Yeates...  So inturn could "NOT" give a Trial date of 'October 2011" and a length of time it was scheduled to take... The Judge also could not decide That it was 'A Murder Case" and "A Murder Case " only that Dr Vincent Tabak would face... If he did not know the circumstances of Joanna Yeates Murder in May 2011...

Meaning he actively accepted a "Manslaughter Plea" in May 2011 without the "Intent" being Known... And not giving Dr Vincent Tabak the opportunity in October 2011 to to have the Jury decide between 'Murder" and Manslaughter" as "Murder' was the only 'Option" given to them......

And therefore not allowing any EVIDENCE to support whether "The Manslaughter" he'd apparently Pled to in "May 2011".. was either Voluntary..Or... Involuntary "Manslaughter"..And whether it was "Direct Intent" or "Oblique Intent"For it to be Voluntary Manslaughter.... Or Whether it was ..... "Diminished responsibilities" needing Two Doctors to give Dr Vincent Tabak a Psychologcal Evaluation.....

Can you ALL.... Honestly say That you believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is 'Guilty" after ready these posts???? Can you ALL say that 'The Prosecution had "ALL" The Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak.... when they could NOT have possibly have known how she came to die......

I'll say this Again and Again..... Dr Vincent Tabak was 'STICHED UP LIKE A KIPPER FOR THE MURDER OF JOANNA YEATES""... (IMO)... And I believe I can Prove with my posts how they did it.....

DURESS.... Didn't some of our old poster bring that up.... Was Dr Vincent Tabak under DURESS when he made his ADMISSION..... Well I would conclude .... YES!!!!!! (IMO)....

Smoke and Mirrors aye Jixy.... I do believe you were right with your little signature,... even if you didn't know what it referred too.... (Or maybe you did)...

And as it was said:...  'The Truth May never be known...... Well... I am going to have a DAMN good try at revealing it!!!!!!



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 01:16:23 PM
Part 5......

Here I'll look at The 4 weeks for the trial.....

Quote
]Complex cases
18. Complex cases that are likely to go to the Crown Court and last more than four weeks should be managed in accordance with the Protocol for the control and management of heavy fraud and other complex criminal cases link to external website4, which sets out best practice and gives guidance to investigators, prosecutors, defendants and judges.

Well... It had to be a "Complex Case" as Ann Redropp 'The Head of The Complex Case Unit" saw the Case through to the bitter end....

Quote
Management of cases from the Organised Crime Division of the CPS

6 March 2014 |Protocols|Criminal
23 November 2012

This guidance replaces the protocol of December 2008 which was agreed between the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (OCD) and Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS).

The OCD is responsible for prosecuting cases from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Typically, these cases involve more than one defendant, are voluminous and raise complex and specialised issues of law. It is recognised that if not closely managed, such cases have the potential to cost vast amounts of public money and take longer than necessary.

Now cost if we remember rightly... was paramount To The Defence.... As Kelcey had described in his interview in the  "Law Society Gazette'...

Quote
‘We can’t supply a platinum level of service with base metal rates of pay.’ He suggested that firms be open with clients about how much the government pays and explain the constraints this puts on them.


And as Dr Vincent tabak received legal aid... He must have received a "Base Metal Service"... (IMO)...

Quote
Introduction
1. This guidance replaces the protocol of December 2008 which was agreed
between the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (OCD)
and Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS).
2. The OCD is responsible for prosecuting cases from the Serious Organised
Crime Agency (SOCA). Typically, these cases involve more than one defendant,
are voluminous and raise complex and specialised issues of law. It is recognised
that if not closely managed, such cases have the potential to cost vast amounts
of public money and take longer than necessary.

Now If the OCD is Part of The Complex Crime Unit and Ann Redrrop is The Head of the Complex Crime unit... were Procedures followed ??

Quote
Procedure after charge
10. Within 24 hours of the laying of a charge, a representative of the OCD will
notify the Cluster Manager of the following information to enable an agreement
to be reached between the Cluster Manager and the reviewing CPS lawyer
before the first appearance as to the DCC to which the case should be sent or
committed:
a. The full name of each defendant and the name of his legal representatives, if
known;
b. The charges laid; and
c. The name and contact details of the Crown Prosecutor with responsibility for
the case.

So which representative of the OCD notified The Cluster Manager ??? You see this is 'After" The Charges are laid... Not before....


Not In December 2010 when "The CPS" went to The Head of The Complex Crime Unit"...asked "Ann Reddrop" for advice on Dr Vincent Tabak....  I can't find anything at the moment on before an arrest......

Who else was Involved in 'Who else decides ...  To Prosecute Dr Vincent Tabak with "Ann Reddropp "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit" at the helm of this "Simple Murder Trial"..????

Who else checks That this 'Simple Murder Case " is being Investiagted by "The Complex Crime Unit......

OMG... I have just had another thought.... That brain of mine needs locking up!!!

Ah.... I see light.... And I see Ann Reddrop.... Hanging herself.....


https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/criminal-protocol/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Protocols/OCD+protocol+November+2012+_updated+Jan+2014_.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 01:16:59 PM
Part 6......  Or.... "Upstairs for thinking... Downstairs for Dancing"....

Ann Reddrop (IMO)... Wasn't thinking.... She was blinded by greed... (IMO)... by the Fame.. she would receive in bring to Justice The 'Persons"... guilty of killing Joanna Yeates ....

OMG.... This Just goes to Prove ...(IMO)... Why she continued right up to trail and beyond....  She's stuck her NECK OUT!!! She said publiclly That The Complex Crime Unit... as she was The Head... Always believed that this was "A Murder Case".....

But what she forgot to tell all of you nice ladies and gentlemen.... Was that they always believed that there were more than one person who committed this crime..... What they also believed (IMO)... was that it could have been a Serial killer"... Making sense of The Complex Crime Units Insistance that it was .... Always A Murder Charge!!!(IMO)...

Just digest that a moment..... How could she categorically insist that The Complex Crime Unit had... and always had believed The death of Joanna Yeates was 'Murder" and 'Always was "Murder"... If they were not looking at was must have been "A Serial Killer"....

A Serial Killer is the ONLY... Possible Way.. In which Ann Reddrop to unequivically say that "The Complex Crime Unit "ALWAYS" knew that this Charge would be "A MURDER" Charge... And NO "Manslughter Plea" bargain or anything else would be entered into..... She... (IMO)... had been going with the possibility that it wasd "Multiple People... Whom had committed "Multiple Murders... (IMO)...

Which again... begs the question..... WHY Dr Vincent Tabak Faced A Murder Charge and a A Murder Charge only..... when he was known to be as clean as a "Whistle'... NOT EVEN A PARKING TICKET!!!!!

WHAT... Evidence did Ann Reddrop believe she had against Dr Vincent Tabak that could remotley suggest that he could be "A" SERIAL KILLER?????

You see.... They really wanted CJ.. to swing for this too..... (IMO)... CJ did say that The Police had always thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded...

Well... Ann.... "WHY" in May did you still vigorously pursue Dr Vincent Tabak on A MURDER CHARGE and NOT Accept his MANSLAUGHTER PLEA.... A Manslaughter Plea that was neither "Voluntary nor Involuntary.... Just 'Pot Luck Manslaughter.... because he had NOT given his statement to how this death had occurred..!!!!

How is Jersey Ann??? Lovely weather there .. beautiful beaches ....

Ann Reddrop... (IMO)... Should have stopped pursuing Dr Vincent Tabak with this "Murder Charge" as soon as CJ was let of Bail in March 2011....

Did she have someone else in mind whom apparently must have helped Dr Vincent Tabak??? For her to pursue Dr Vincent Tabak to the bitter end???? She is seen outside the Bristol Crown Court telling The world of her Intenstions.. In The pursuit of Dr Vincent Tabak... Yet as far as I can see... She had NO LEGAL Authority... To Continue with This "Murder Charge" against Dr Vincent Tabak ... when it did NOT come under The 21 Criteria set out in The Governments rules of The Complex Crime Unit .... (IMO)...

As we see here:...
Quote
Disclosure of material to the defendant should be made in an effective and time efficient manner. Only those documents that meet the test for disclosure (i.e. that assist the defence or undermine the prosecution) should be disclosed; the defence should not be swamped with all the documents the prosecution holds in relation to the case. Evidence schedules should also be prepared as early on as possible. The judge will engage in active case management to ensure that the process of disclosure does not cause the case to overrun;


I believe that all of the Disclosure should have been in The Hands Of "The Defence " and "The Prosecution" in May 2011... Which was an impossibility if Dr Vincent Tabak had not made /signed his statement until 22nd Sepetember 2011... So how was 'A Trial Date " set at "The Old Bailey by Judge Field for October 2011 in May 2011?????

All this seems highly irregular to me...  i think i'll give you time to digest these posts and I'll think a little more about them too and what they mean ......


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 04, 2017, 02:34:27 PM
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.

I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.

Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.

Hi Nina, good to hear from you.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to believe that there are one or more unapprehended killers around.  After all, there are plenty of unsolved murders, not only in the Bristol area, but all over the world. I have just returned from holiday, and only just before I went, I heard on the news that it was possible that the wrong person had been imprisoned for a murder some 30 years ago!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 04, 2017, 02:39:23 PM
As for "protecting" someone, well, I don't know, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility, in my opinion, of course.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 02:49:54 PM
Quote
In May this year... Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter..But that was only part of the story.... The Crown's Case Is... And always has been... That it was a deliberate act... on his part.... And that is why we refused to accept his plea to 'Manslaughter"


Ann... Answer me this..... How could you have always Known that it was a deliberate act???

You didn't know Dr Vincent Tabak's side of the story.....

So by this "STATEMENT ANN" are you conceding that you "Always knew That Joanna Yeates" ... "WAS DELIBERATLEY MURDERED"

How can you know this Ann ????

What else did you know ANN??

I keep looking at the video statemnet that ANN reads out at the end of trial.... And even then she has slipped up....

Shes' says and I again will quote..

Quote
Vincent Tabak, became the focus of their attention following the finding of DNA on Jo's body

I will quote the next bit,,, but I'm loving this bit.... I have quoted the whole transcrpit before... Again.... skim skim skim... we all so it even when watching a video.. not really paying attention ...

Now... How can Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA have been found on Joanna Yeates body before they took a DNA sample from him in Holland on 31st December 2010.. Not only that DCI Phil Jones states that it was around. "The 20th January 2011 that they got a match to Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA???? In the Judge Rinder Program ????

How can Dr Vincent Tabak become  the focus...

Again...
Quote
Vincent Tabak, became the focus of their attention following the finding of DNA on Jo's body

How can Dr Vincent Tabak become the focus of any investigation just because they have found DNA on Joanna Yeates body.... Ann doesn't say Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA... she just say's DNA... So How could Dr Vincent Tabak become 'The Focus" of any Investigation.....

What is ANN REDDROP actually admitting to here ?????

Quote
Late in December the Police asked for assistance and guidence from The Crown Prosecution Service... That assistance has come from The  South West Complex Case Work Unit based here in Bristol.. I reviewed the evidence.. Advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Jo's murder and began preparing the case for trial

Wow... Now Ann... If DCI Phil Jones did not recieve a match to Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA sample that was apparently taken on(31st December 2010) till around the 20th January 2011... How did you manage to review the case and how did DCI Phil Jones manage to bang up a Judge to get an arrest warrant for around 6:00am in the morning on 20th January 2011...???

It's not a difficult question.... But an answer would be appreciated..... Pretty Please.......ok... Pretty Please with A Cherry On Top....

We also have to remember that the 'Crime Watch' program told us it took "WEEKS" for this sample of DNA on Joanna Yeates body to be analysed... So again Ann...or DCI Phil Jones.... please tell me how Dr Vincent Tabak became the focus of your Investigation after you had matched his DNA around the 20th January 2011 and had an Arrest warrant issued on the 20th January And The Head of The Complex Crime Unit Reviewed this Information...  leaving you with only "6" hours of Investigation time available to conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed 'YOUR MAN"??? Not only that "6" Hours in which to

(A): Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak

(B): Have CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak

(C): Have interviewed Tanja Morson in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak's movement on 17th December 2010

(D): Had checked his phone records

(E): Had checked whether or not "His" car went over Clifton Suspension Bridge on the 18th December 2010

(F): Had got all the evidence you both would need to 'Charge Dr Vincent Tabak on the 20th January 2011

(G): Typed up you reports

(H): Sent a report 'TO' ANN REDDROP

(I): Ann Redropp Reading this complex report for this complex crime.... And then "Arresting Dr Vincent tabak in '6"
      Hours"

If this wasn't so serious it would be LAUGHABLE....!!!!

Now... That has to be a record by anyones standards....

Does Ann Reddrop's admission that Joanna Yeates being Murdered and they always... according to ANN Reddrop knew that this was the case.... Is it possible that the talk of Joanna Yeates being abducted was already in Ann Reddrop's Case file ???

WHY else would she be so adament???

She doesn't flinch... She doesn't waiver..... She is as far as I can tell 100% sure that Joanna Yeates was "Murdered"... (IMO).... She was 100% sure that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this MURDER.....

And how can that be possible... How can she be 100% sure on both counts.... When according to what DCI Phil Jones says in The Judge Rinder Program... They got matched components of Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA with Joanna Yeates DNA sample around the 20th January 2011??????...

Leaving him just 6 hours to Investigate, apply for a warrant to arrest... type up his report go and see Ann Reddrop with the report... her review The Case ... and finally turn up at Aberdeen Road in the wee hours of the morning of 20th January 2010???

Now unless DCI Phil Jones has the ability to time travel... And Police Boxes are indeed Tardis's... It is an IMPOSSIBILITY for him to have Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak after they had a supposed match to the DNA found on Joanna Yeates body....

Making it... They had been looking for a scapegoat... all along... (IMO)... And they set up Dr Vincent Tabak from start to finish....(IMO)... It is the only explanation I can see...


Meaning..... as I have always said.... DR VINCENT TABAK IS INNOCENT!!!!!  They Never had a case against Dr Vincent Tabak... (IMO)... They just made it up as they went along......  "The Manslaughter Plea " at the Old Bailey should be testament  to that.... (IMO)...

So Ann.... what did you actually know about Joanna Yeates Murder that Nobody else appeared to know ????

Again... we have to come back to someone being 'Protected"... And that definatley was NOT...

 Dr Vincent Tabak .."The Placid Dutchman !!!!! (IMO)...

 Dr Vincent Tabak "The Placid Dutchman" was SOMEONES!!!!....

 Get Out Of Jail Free Card!!!! (IMO)...


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037

Edit.... Is Ann Reddrop conceding that they already had the results of the DNA sample found on Joanna Yeates body by late December 2010... by her statement.... ?? And is that why you contacted the "Dutch Authorities" to interview Dr Vincent Tabak Ann????  So that Interview has to that of a "SUSPECT "Ann.... because realistically you would have NO need to Contact The Dutch Authorities in Relation to speaking to Dr Vincent Tabak.... Which again means he should of had his 'Right" read to him and cautioned.... (IMO)....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 03:04:47 PM
mrswah.... Beyonce isn't doing too bad is she.... Must be that NVQ she took in "Manslaughter Law".....  @)(++(*
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 04, 2017, 05:43:44 PM
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.

I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.

Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.

No..... you would have thought..... 

Quote
Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter during a brief hearing at the Old Bailey in London.

Then...

Quote
During the 30 minute hearing Tabak, who was wearing a shirt and tie, dark suit and glasses, spoke in a clear voice to confirm his name and say he was happy for the proceedings to go ahead without a translator.
He then pleaded not guilty to the first count of murder, but guilty to a second count of manslaughter.


No Type of Manslaughter is Mentioned !!!!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 05, 2017, 09:43:30 AM
Refering back to the 4 week trial..... which i posted about in (Part 5) Bare with me on this ... I do like a build up....

I have so many tabs open, i loose where i am... Any way back to why i brought The 4 weeks trial to the forefront..

Once it has been established that a trial is likely to take more than 4 weeks.. Council then need to apply for:

A Very High Cost Case

They are forms to fill... there are other people then involved in your case.... And I believe the Defence would definatly need to apply for a "VHCC".... as Dr Vincent Tabak was recieving a "Base Metal Service" having legal aid...

Quote
When you think a crime case is likely to last for 40 days or more at trial, fill in and send a VHCC notification request form (MS Word Document, 45.9KB) to the Criminal Cases Unit (CCU)

Do this within 5 working days of:

recognising the case as high cost
the Plea and Case Management Hearing

Well... If as we know all of the witness's we believe should have taken the stand... Then as sure as eggs is eggs, this trial would have come under the "VHCC"...

THis next part is of Interest:

How a VHCC works:

Quote
* once the case has been designated a very high cost case (VHCC), there is no opt-out for suppliers from the contracting system

 * where a case is designated as a VHCC, it will be conducted by accredited VHCC providers, apart from in exceptional circumstances

 * for each VHCC, the defence team (solicitor and advocate) will be assigned a dedicated case manager from the high cost crime team

 * it’s the case manager’s role to negotiate with solicitors and advocates what work they’ll do over the next 3 months

 * payment is made at the end of each 3 month period, as long as the work falls within the tasks and hours agreed in advance
 
* You might need further guidance on high cost case arrangements and contract documents for organisations and self-employed advocates. Further guidance on high cost case arrangements and contract documents for organisations and self-employed advocates is available.

 This Case should have been more than 4 weeks.. This case should have had tonns of witness's... It had many many written statements... And I believe it was designed to last 4 weeks... As to not have to apply for a "VHCC"... bringing into their case... A control they would loose.....

Part one of the quote...says:
Quote
once the case has been designated a very high cost case (VHCC), there is no opt-out for suppliers from the contracting system

So... they're stuck with that... But as we read further down on this web page we find out more information...

Fixed Fee Offer contracts

Quote
dvocates instructed in criminal Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) are currently paid in accordance with Interim Fixed Fee Offer contracts (IFFOs).

Once contracted as a VHCC the VHCC Case Managers in the Criminal Cases Unit will gather information about the type of case, volume of material and likely trial length from practitioners in the case and the prosecution if appropriate.

Once validated, the VHCC Case Managers are able to draft a VHCC Substantive IFFO contract for the advocate/s representing their defendant.

Upon receipt of a signed contract the Case Manager will pay the 1st Instalment. If the trial of the defendant(s) has not started within 6 months of the contract being signed, Counsel is entitled to claim an interim 2nd Instalment payment equating to 50% of the 2nd Instalment. When the trial commences, either the balance of the 2nd Instalment or the full 2nd Instalment can be paid. The 3rd Instalment becomes due at the conclusion of the trial.

So there would now be another body deciding on the "Legal Aid"

How to appeal a VHCC decision

Quote
LAA case manager and the defence team negotiate hours for each stage of the case in advance. If they can’t reach agreement on hours for a specific task, there’s a right of appeal.

The process and timescales are set out in section 6 of the VHCC specifications.

Appeals: crime high cost cases covers VHCC panel arrangements and decisions

The main reason i have introduced all of this Information... Is because we know about the trial in being a 4 week trial as early as "May 2011"

Quote
"Tabak has entered a plea to manslaughter however this has not been accepted by the Crown.
"Until this trial takes place it would be inappropriate and potentially prejudicial for us to comment further."
The trial is expected to last four weeks.

This information is hugely important I would say.... There is NO WAY that they should know as early as MAY 2011 that this trial would take 4 weeks.... (IMO)... Dr Vincent Tabak had not given his version of events to anyone at this time.... He didn't sign his statement until 22nd Setember 2011... So how by May 2011 would anyone know that this trial would last for 4 weeks... Not knowing what witness's Dr Vincent Tabak may need or want as part of his trial...

So maybe you can see why i have brought the 'VHCC" into this case.... "By The Defence applying for "VHCC" we then get brought into the mix a Criminal Case manager from the criminal Case Unit... Who no doubt would start to ask 'QUESTIONS"!!!!

Questions that "The head of The complex Case Unit would not want asking.... (IMO)...

(A): Why is The Complex Case Unit Involved in this "Simple Murder Case ??

(B): Where is The Evidence against The defendant???

(C): Why are you applying for VHCC when The defendant hasn't made an admission??

(D): Which witness's are going to be called ??

(E): Why has This man been arrested ??

(F): We like to poke around cases and made sure that it is a valid case to get funding... So far nothing you have
       shown us warrant's any funding as this case should be thrown out....

A bit of poetic licence on (F):... But you get my drift... There would have been other people who would have had a vested interest in how the money was spent and they would have overseen this case...

Well... The Head of The Complex Case Unit would not want that now would you Ann.... (IMO)..

Could you imagine that if someone independent actually looked over this case what they would have said about it.... Probably the same sort of things that I have been saying all along!!!! (IMO)...

This is why I believe another reason that The Head of The Complex Case Unit was involved in this case... It gave her control...It stopped people poking around this case and questioning it's validity... But it still begs the "MASSIVE QUESTION.......

How could they know in May 2011 that this trial would last only 4 weeks?? when Again I will say... they ALL had no idea of apparently how Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ????



So I am going to ask again.... WHO entered Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty Plea"??

When was it decided that he was Guilty of Manslaughter by The Councils...  They had NO information from Dr Vincent Tabak at this point,.... So how would "The Prosecution NO that "Longwood Lane" on a search was not done because Dr Vincent Tabak was possibly visiting friends in the area around that Christmas period...

I want to look at the searches again I think.... In the light of the information that I believe I have uncovered.... Because I believe the work on the searches was done at an early opportunity... And again The 1300 page document was ready in May... Which I believe casts an even bigger doubt... (IMO)..
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 05, 2017, 01:52:48 PM
Hi Nina, good to hear from you.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to believe that there are one or more unapprehended killers around.  After all, there are plenty of unsolved murders, not only in the Bristol area, but all over the world. I have just returned from holiday, and only just before I went, I heard on the news that it was possible that the wrong person had been imprisoned for a murder some 30 years ago!!

Hi mrswah, hope you had a good holiday. It was just that you seemed to be agreeing with AH's post which prompted my post to you. Probably misunderstood it.

You're right there are plenty of unsolved & MOJ and I expect that Bristol has its fair few. Never said that this was a wonderful crime free city to live in. Bristol certainly has its problems.

Did you see Catching a Killer 01/06 on ch.4? Amazing really in its likeness to the Joanna case. Missing for a full week-end then police notified. Turned out to be the husband, but Thames Valley Police allowed a certain amount of access so the procedure was very interesting I thought, although probably heavily edited.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 05, 2017, 01:59:49 PM
Hi mrswah, hope you had a good holiday. It was just that you seemed to be agreeing with AH's post which prompted my post to you. Probably misunderstood it.

You're right there are plenty of unsolved & MOJ and I expect that Bristol has its fair few. Never said that this was a wonderful crime free city to live in. Bristol certainly has its problems.

Did you see Catching a Killer 01/06 on ch.4? Amazing really in its likeness to the Joanna case. Missing for a full week-end then police notified. Turned out to be the husband, but Thames Valley Police allowed a certain amount of access so the procedure was very interesting I thought, although probably heavily edited.

No, I didn't see it Nina----but I will look out for it on "catch up", You Tube, etc. Might be too late now. I used to watch far more telly than I do these days----seem to fall asleep in the evenings. Old age!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 05, 2017, 02:48:28 PM
Another tv prog. that I found not only interesting but maybe a real MOJ and that is the Chillenden murders. The guy found guilty Michael Stone is not a very nice person to begin with, but if you watch The Chillenden Murders which was on BBC2 06/06 well it has certainly made me think twice.

This was the murder where mum Lin, daughter Megan and family dog died and Josie Russell survived the attack in a country lane.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 05, 2017, 02:51:47 PM
Did mean to add that Michael Stone has shouted his innocence from the beginning until now. Bet anyone could write to him and would get an answer.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 06, 2017, 11:06:49 PM
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"...

Quote
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 Responsible

SO... 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"!!!!


Quote
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....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 06, 2017, 11:07:52 PM
Part 2....


Quote
Agreement
Usually D1 and D2 have agreed to participate before the event. But agreement is not necessary in order to convict D2. D2 may just “pitch in” uninvited, for example, by spontaneously joining in with D1 who is attacking V, D1 causing the injury to V, D2 just “egging him on”.

You see to me it depends on how they informed Dr Vincent Tabak...  I know what your all thinking... It applies to terrorism etc.. But not if you apply it to a Forgien National who has NO IDEA OF ENGLISH LAW... Then he is an Accomplice... Who's sentence is minimal... "Being A Secondary Party".... (IMO)...

Who may or may not plead guilt to "Manslaughter "... How else can you manage to plead Guilt To Manslaughter.. without it being "Involuntary" or "Voluntary"...

This sentence would only come into affect if Dr Vincent Tabak is found "Not Guilty Of Murder"... Not needing to bring to court.... Any extra witness.. to Dr Vincent Tabak's Good Character or .. Doctors to make inference to his mental state...

Meaning there is NO NEED For A TYPE OF MANSLAUGHTER TO BE ENTERED INTO.......

Therefore ... No need for him to explain his role in the said event.... because he helped move a car off a drive... But come 22nd September when the penny drops... he's knackered and signs a statemnet that is "NOT" The full version of events... It is only at trial that Dr Vincent Tabak.. first reveals what happened ...

Quote
Tabak waited until the last possible moment – when he was in the witness box – to offer his version of events.

That he is well an truly scuppered.... And sobs uncontrolably at what has happened to himself.... Therefore unable to answer over 80 questions put before him... (IMO)...

Think about it... By the time he has admitted Guilt to a "Crime" he hasn't committed.... what is his best option by this point ???

There is NO get out clause... And the defences own diatribe of their client is testiment to that (IMO)...

This offering is "NO MORE RIDICULOUS... Than... 'The Head of The Complex Case Unit seeing through to the bitter end... The Prosecution of "A Simple Murder Trial..... (IMO)...

So now the big question is.... What did they originally charge Dr Vincent Tabak with?? And was The charge originally under Joint Enterprise or as An accomplice being a secondary party???


What we really need to consider..... Is... what sort of sentence did Dr Vincent Tabak believe he would receive if he were to plead "Guilty To Manslaughter" ????  As little as a few years... meaning he had been in prison for the best part of 10 months... Not only that had admitted his GUILT... which in effect should reduce the sentence...

Lets try a bit of maths.....

8 years as a Secondary Party.... Normally you do half.... Nearly a Year done already...  Half of your sentence gone for Pleading Guilty..  He would have a year left... Well wouldn't anyone being a Forgien National looking at a life sentence think that was be a good option... Seeing as they already showed you how "Joint Enterprise works ???... (IMO)...

You see.. The main problem has to be... 'What Type of Manslaughter" did Dr Vincent Tabak pled to.. If..... It was never established when he came to trial for "The Murder of Joanna Yeates"....
Leaving me with only one possible option.... unless someone who hasn't done an NVQ on "Manslaughter Law" and is actually qualified.... to explain to me... any other possible options.... Please ....



https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

https://www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk/features/Criminal-Liability-Secondary-Party

http://www.jsbni.com/Publications/sentencing-guidelines/Documents/Hart%20J%20Sentencing%20Manslaughter%20Att%20Murder.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 06, 2017, 11:14:43 PM
A Little apology to leonora... I'm not saying CJ's second witness statement isn't important... But there's no way I am ever going to see it... And as far as casting doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction... Unless CJ himself tells us what was in that statemnet.. It won't help me .. Or Dr Vincent Tabak...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 07, 2017, 08:33:55 AM
I was trying to determine what other charges Dr Vincent Tabak could face in relation to the death of Joanna Yeates..

And the two quotes below with what was called aggravating factors I believe hold the key...


Quote
The judge said there were no mitigating features in the case – only aggravating factors – and he proceeded to outline them. "There is a sexual element to the killing of Joanna Yeates," the judge said.


Quote
Mr Reardon, who was in court yesterday, remained silent as he heard the judge list the aggravating features of the case including the “sexual element”, the hiding of her body and “cynically implicating” his landlord for the killing.

Dr Vincent Tabak could have been completely blinded with English Law and what possible charges he could face...



Lets look at them as Individual Charges...

(1): The concealment of a body...

Offences Concerning the Coroner

Quote
Obstructing a Coroner - Preventing the Burial of a Body
Any disposal of a corpse with intent to obstruct or prevent a coroner's inquest, when there is a duty to hold one, is an offence. The offence is a common law offence, triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and/or a fine.

The offence of preventing the burial of a body (indictable only, unlimited imprisonment) is an alternative charge. Proof of this offence does not require proof of the specific intent required for obstructing a coroner.

The offences of obstructing a coroner and preventing the burial of a body may arise for example, when a person decides to conceal the innocent and unexpected death of a relative or friend or prevent his burial. Such cases inevitably raise sensitive public interest factors which must be carefully considered.

When the evidence supports a charge of involuntary manslaughter, it may be necessary to add a charge of obstructing a coroner or preventing a burial if the disposal of the body is more serious than the unlawful act which caused the death.

Obstructing a coroner may also amount to an offence of perverting the course of justice. Regard must be had to the factors outlined in General Charging Practice, above in this guidance and Charging Practice for Public Justice Offences, above in this guidance, which help to identify conduct too serious to charge as obstructing a coroner, when consideration should be given to a charge of perverting the course of justice.

Dr Vincent Tabak was told in court he hid Joanna Yeates Body

(2): Assisting an Offender

 Assisting an Offender - section 4(1) Criminal Law Act 1967

Quote
The offence of assisting an offender ("the principal offender") is committed when:

* the principal offender has committed an arrestable offence;

* the accused knows or believes that the principal offender has committed that or some other arrestable offence;

* the accused does any act with intent to impede the apprehension or prosecution of the principal offender; and

* the act is done without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Did Dr Vincent Tabak believe CJ could have commited the offence??

(3): Perjury

Perjury

Quote
By section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911, perjury is committed when:

 * a lawfully sworn witness or interpreter
 * in judicial proceedings
 * wilfully makes a false statement
 * which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, and
 * which is material in the proceedings.

The offence is triable only on indictment and carries a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and/or a fine.

They said That he had lied about his whereabouts on Friday the 17th December 2010.. They said he didn't first tell them he went to ASDA...

(4): Offences Concerning the Police

Offences Concerning the Police

Quote
The offence of obstructing a police officer is committed when a person:

wilfully obstructs
a constable in the execution of his duty, or
a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty.
It is a summary only offence carrying a maximum penalty of one month's imprisonment and/or a level 3 fine.

A person obstructs a constable if he prevents him from carrying out his duties or makes it more difficult for him to do so.

That's an easy one... Just don't answer question's... That is obstruction in itself..

(5): Sexual Assault:

Sexual Assault (section 3)

Quote
The elements of the offence of sexual assault are:

A person (A) intentionally touches another person (B)
the touching is sexual
(B) does not consent to the touching, and
(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.

Key Factor

Quote

 * The meaning of sexual, consent (See Rape and Sexual Offences: Chapter 3), reasonable belief and evidential and conclusive presumptions apply to this offence.


* Touching is widely defined and includes with any part of the body, or with anything else, and can be through clothing. In R v H (Karl Anthony) [2005] 2 Cr. App. R. 9, the Court of Appeal held that the touching of an individual's

 * clothing was sufficient to amount to 'touching' for the purposes of section 3. Where touching was not automatically by its nature sexual, it was possible to ascertain whether the touching had been sexual by determining whether by its nature it might have been sexual and if so whether in the circumstances the purpose had in fact been sexual.
 * Touching includes touching amounting to penetration e.g. kissing. Where there is sufficient evidence, penile penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth should be charged as rape and penetration of the vagina or anus with any part of a person's body or other object should be charged as assault by penetration.

Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent try to Kiss Joanna Yeates

The Judge used these potentially chargeable offences and turned them into aggravating Factors... (IMO)

If Dr Vincent Tabak is faced with a list of possible charges coupled with Joint Enterprise... What would you expect him to do??

If I was in Dr Vincent Tabak's position...  The "Guilty" To "Manslaughter"   Is the cheapest option available ... Thnk I may go with that as 'A Foreign National Personally...(IMO)..




http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/soa_2003_and_soa_1956/

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_justice_offences_incorporating_the_charging_standard/#a12

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/280447/Shame-Vincent-Tabak-cannot-hang-for-Jo-Yeates-murder-say-parents

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-guilty-joanna-yeates-murder
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 07, 2017, 08:49:22 AM
I myself had a little run in with a Policeman Recently... But I was actually trying to help..

They called around to my house looking for a young woman... Whom had just popped in my house with my eldest..I let the police in...I said she had left and would ring the person who was with her and let the Police Officer speak to them... I didn't know this woman at all... Thought I was being helpful..

The Police said she had been reported "Missing"... which she obviously wasn't as I had seen her and as an adult she could do as she pleased... Her Father had actually dropped her off at my house... It was another relative whom had made the report...

But this Police Officer wasn't happy with my suggestion... He wanted the telephone Number of the person I was calling... I polietly told him I couldn't give out someone number without their consent but I would ring them and he could talk with them..

The Police Officer became very annoyed.. And then told me that I could be 'Charged with Obstructing A Police Officer"....

Well I am not a Placid Dutchman... Or A Forgein National....I was furious.... And promptly told him to leave my home, because I did not want to be dealing with his bullying tactic's when I was trying to be a helpful citizen...

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 07, 2017, 10:21:11 AM
Quote
As he sent the jury away to consider its verdict, the judge said the central point to consider was whether Tabak had intended to kill or seriously harm Yeates. If the jurors were sure of that, they would return a verdict of guilty.

Tabak had admitted manslaughter but denied murder.


This is the quote from Judge Field.....

Now again... this is WRONG.... (IMO)...

If the only charge available to the Jury is "Murder"... how does intention come into this... when they do not have aa "Manslaughter " option available to them??

We are back to:Mens rea - Intention

When Intention was not brought to the Jurys attention in law i believe... Then how does the Judge ask the Jury to decide on "This Murder Charge".. by telling the Jury 'Whether Tabak had Intended to Kill or cause serious harm"???

We go back to :

Direct Intent  Oblique Intent

 
Quote
The current test of oblique intent:
"Where the charge is murder and in the rare cases where the simple direction is not enough, the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to find the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."


So with that definition where the Jury directed to Oblique Intent

And again without any evidence supporting Dr Vincent Tabak in a Medical Sense... There was not any instruction as to what the outcome would be...

How is this a fair trial... If Manslaughter was not entered into by being either :Voluntary or Involuntary ???

Normally at trial where a defendant wouldn't plea 5 months before the trial is to take place... Leaving just the "Murder Charge on the table... Giving the prosecution another possible option..

Alternative Counts

Quote
n 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:

 * If the alternative is added, and the jury cannot reach a verdict in relation to the first count (murder), but return a verdict of guilty in relation to the alternative count (manslaughter), then the prosecution should not seek a retrial on the first count (murder).

 * If no alternative is included on the indictment, the prosecution must decide when the jury retire to consider their verdict on murder whether to seek a re-trial if the jury cannot agree, or whether it would be prepared to accept the alternative (manslaughter). Note that the prosecution may be directed to consider the alternative in any event (R v Coutts [2006] UKHL 39). The reason the prosecution should give prior consideration to this question is because even though manslaughter is not on the indictment, the jury may indicate that it has reached a verdict of guilty on the offence of manslaughter.  The prosecution must then decide whether it will ask the judge to accept the verdict of manslaughter from the jury or discharge them from returning such a verdict.
 
 * If the prosecution submits that the judge should accept the verdict of manslaughter, then it will be accepting that it will not be proceeding to a retrial on the charge of murder.
If the prosecution submits that the judge should not accept the verdict of manslaughter, and therefore seeks a retrial on the charge of murder, then the judge may agree to accede to this, discharge the jury and order a retrial on the charge of murder.

 * If, despite representations to the contrary, the judge accepts the verdict of manslaughter because it meets the justice of the case, then the prosecution will not be able to seek a retrial on the charge of murder even if there is no abuse of process (R v JB [2013] EWCA Crim 356).

The last point in that quote is Interesting.... Having already secured a "Guilty To Manslaughter Plea " from Dr Vincent Tabak.... No retrial would have taken place.... as far as I can see... And no-one would have had the opportunity to test the evidence properly...

Which is funny really... And not in a humorous sense... Wasn't the with-holding of the "Porn" from trial supposed to stop a Re-Trial taking place also???? Catch 22 springs to mind... Major  Major!!

Basically Dr Vincent Tabak was up "The Creek without a paddle... "  He was going to "Prison" whatever the out come... But we still have the issues of "Voluntary or Involuntary" which were never addressed at trial... Only the constant reminder that it had been Dr Vincent Tabak's Intention to kill Joanna Yeates... Without Mens rea Really being applied in the correct way ...(IMO)...

Every Defendant has a basic right in Law to Defend Him/Herself.... Well Dr Vincent Tabak did not receive that right as the "Manslaughter Plea" was not entered into as a "Defence"... as to whether it was ... "Voluntary or Involuntary Manslaughter .... (IMO)...



http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-guilty-joanna-yeates-murder

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 07, 2017, 11:24:37 AM
Would be it classed as Professional Misconduct... The way in which it appears Dr Vincent Tabak, not only didn't recieve suitable assistance from Council... (With all the name calling also)...

But the special measures that were taken (IMO)... To have his plea heard at 'The Old Bailey" Court Room 2....

For what essentially is A Simple Murder Trial???  Which did not need the intervention of "The Head of The Complex Case Unit Prosecuting!!

Where 2 different Hearings were being held at 2 Different Court Room on The Same day at the same time...

That being a "For Mention Hearing in one court room and A Plea And Management Case Hearig in another...

Is it unpresidented to use the Old Bailey in this way??? If not it should be ...

I have always believed that someone is looking at this case... And at first it was because that they too believed that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent.. But they and anyone I ask never agree that they think Dr Vincent Tabak Innocent...

Which could leave us with the alternative... The Prosecution for Professional Misconduct....


Now if this were to possibly happen.. Those who believe In Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt may feel that he would be released on a technicality and Not on evidence...

Two things I say to that.... Firstly and Most Importantly..... The Correct use of the law is all important... And if it hasn't been used approperately to convict ANYONE... Let alone Dr Vincent Tabak... It Is then squarely on their shoulders the release of any convict.... (IMO)...

But I hope that I have gone along way into casting doubt on the safety of Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction...

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 07, 2017, 02:21:42 PM
Because i had mentioned about "Lor's I thought I would add a copy of such rules to my signature so it would be easy to find....

It outlines the assitance Not only the 'Police" but "The Head of The Complex Crime Unit would need to do (IMO).. to gain access to Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in Holland

International Inquiries

Quote
The ILO will provide advice and guidance on conducting international enquiries, and act as the force central contact point for NCA, Europol and INTERPOL. In addition, they should:

* work with investigators to understand expectations and realities when conducting international investigations or
   enquiries
 
* request conviction histories for all prisoners
 
* disseminate relevant material and guidance throughout the force

* identify specific crime scene marks and liaise with foreign law enforcement agencies to establish identification

* identify details relating to wanted and missing persons

 * carry out proactive enquiries in line with force priorities and developing issues

 * liaise with divisional intelligence teams to help identify future concerns

 * continually review their role to monitor further positive interaction with internal departments and outside agencies

 * assist with missing persons enquiries with an international link

* assist with the completion of risk assessments

* on occasion work with foreign law enforcement community officers who may be able to pass on urgent
  disseminations to their country when the NCA/INTERPOL channels may not be swift enough. These are police and
  customs officers posted to the various embassies in the UK and are an invaluable source of support and assistance.


National Police Coordination Centre

Quote
In a complex investigation requiring a nationally coordinated response, the senior officer in charge should consider liaising with NPoCC as soon as possible.

NPoCC can advise on national policing responses and provide access to the ACPO president, who will be able to arrange any multi-agency involvement where necessary.

Did the Senior Officer In charge liaise  With The National Police Coordination Centre?????


https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 13, 2017, 06:30:33 AM
The drawing showing Vincent Tabak with an interpreter beside him was published in an account of his first court appearance, namely, at Bristol Magistrates Court. She does indeed look strikingly like Lyndsey Farmery, apart from the latter parting her hair left of centre. How amazing! Avon & Somerset Constabulary paid out £3468 in interpreter fees and expenses during the course of "Operation Braid". This hints that Detective Constable Karen Thomas took her own interpreter with her when she travelled to Schiphol on 31st December 2010 to interview Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, possibily as suspects. The supposition that Lyndsey Farmery was the colleague who accompanied DC Thomas is intriguing. Was Vincent Tabak questioned in Dutch, to ensure that his human rights were not compromised? If he were, the jury was certainly not told. Nor did judge Field ask the witness if this were so.


Ok leonora.... This information is really important.... I let it slide by... I skimmed..

There are more than one question there...... 

£3468.... That is one hell of a lot of money for an Interpreter... I wondered what the cost of an Interpreter would be... and realistically.. They do not get paid huge sums of money... But I have worked out where maybe it was actually spent...

Lets start with some basics... The court Interpreter is for the defendant...So would come from his costs (IMO)... If i'm wrong put me straight...

We have to think why????  Why did they conduct the Interview at Schiphol and the simple answer to that could be.... This is where the Interpreter is....

Again leonora... A Eureka moment...  They had to know that they where going to ask Dr Vincent Tabak several questions to need the services of an INTERPRETER!!!! (IMO)..

It was no coincidence that they interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours ... which as we have established is the length of time allowed to Interview a "SUSPECT" in Dutch Law..

So more Evidence to support the fact that they went over to Holland prepared to Interview Dr Vincent tabak as a "SUSPECT"...

Costs:

Quote
Translators’ and interpreters’ fees
Fees for translation and interpreting are set by the Ministry of Justice:
Interpreters are paid a rate of EUR 43.89 per hour. Additionally court interpreters are paid a one-off fee of EUR 20.23 to compensate travelling and waiting time (fixed fee). Travel costs are reimbursed at the rate of EUR 1,55 per kilometre.

Interviewing at The Airport saves on travel costs.... So we really need to find what the money was spent on.... And I believe I have found it.......

Quote
Translations from or into French, German and English are remunerated at a rate of EUR 0.79 per line. A rate of EUR 0.14 per word (target language) applies to other languages and of EUR 0.28 per character applies to oriental languages.

I believe the £3468 was spent on 'Translating" The Dutch Writings of The Placid Dutchman"

There are many Translator Services online.... Which make a hefty cost when translating languages..

Going back to why Schiphol

There's another possibility why they used The airport... To me The Airport is an odd place to "Interview" anyone....  But not if they used "KMAR"...

 Royal Netherlands Military Police, KMAR is specialized in financial crime and is mainly active in the Schiphol airport district. But.....

Quote
The KMAR falls under the Ministry of Defense; however, it performs most of its policing tasks
under the responsibility of other ministries, principally Justice and the Interior. The Military Constabulary

is divided into six districts in the Netherlands. It also operates abroad, protecting embassies and other
buildings and accompanying Dutch service personnel on peace missions. The Military Constabulary is a
police force operating in both military and civilian spheres. It serves as a police force for the Navy, Army,
and Air Force. It also performs police and security tasks at Dutch airports, where it combats drug
smuggling together with the fiscal investigation services. In addition, it is sometimes deployed to help
civilian police forces maintain public order (for instance, in riot squads) and to investigate offenses. The
Military Constabulary is responsible for guarding members of the Royal House and the Prime Minister’s
official residence. It also escorts armored transports for DNB.


Quite simply KMAR could have easily assisted Avon and Somerset Police as :
Quote
The Military Constabulary is a
police force operating in both military and civilian spheres. It serves as a police force for the Navy, Army,
and Air Force. It also performs police and security tasks at Dutch airports, where it combats drug
smuggling together with the fiscal investigation services. In addition, it is sometimes deployed to help
civilian police forces

They assist Civillian police forces....

We also have to remember that we have The head of The Complex Crime Unit.. Ann Reddrop at The Helm

Which may not be too far fetched getting KMAR Involved.... Making complete sense of why this Interview took place at Schiphol Airport... where KMAR are stationed... (IMO)..

If I stick with KMAR helping Avon and Somerset Police... Then the £3468 was more than likely spent on translating Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop and other devices....(IMO)...



Maybe the Interview in "HOLLAND" is the Important one.....

So Mr Clegg.... why didn't you investigate this Interview ???


https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2011/cr1192.pdf

https://www.strakertranslations.com/translation-pricing/

https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_costs_of_proceedings-37-nl-en.do?member=1
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 13, 2017, 06:42:55 AM
We know you love a bit of WIKI....

Quote


Logo of the KMar
The RNLM performs the following duties:

assistance to and replacement of the police
escorting and protection of NATO convoys
fighting illegal immigration
fighting international crime
guarding the national borders
guarding the royal palaces and the Catshuis, the official residence of the Prime Minister
military police functions for the Dutch Armed Forces
riot control and protection
security and police work at all civilian airports, notably Schiphol Airport
VIP close protection including the Royal Family and high-ranking government officials
Special Protection Assignments Brigade (BSB), special forces for arrests, surveillance and protection
KMOO, the Military Police Service

Two KMar guards protecting the Dutch Crown jewels placed on the Credence table at the inauguration of king Willem-Alexander
The first four units are territorial, other two have national rather than regional responsibilities. The Marechaussee also provides general policing at Schiphol airport and its surrounding area -known as 'Schiphol-Rijk', in addition to border control duty at the airport itself.


fighting international crime "Complex Crime Unit"??

security and police work at all civilian airports, notably Schiphol Airport

Wiki does have the answer ....lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_Netherlands
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 13, 2017, 07:17:18 AM
leonora.... whereabouts was Dr Vincent Tabak staying in Holland with his family?? To travel to the Airport for the interview???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 13, 2017, 07:32:50 AM
If he was in UDEN then that is over an hours drive to 'Schiphol Airport"....

I'm sure he had to drive for that Interview... making it even more suspicious that the Interview was held at Schiphol Airport

Making this Interview more likely to bet that of a "SUSPECT"....  OMG.. IS DC Karen Thomas around to answer these questions ????

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need to travel anywhere if as DC Karen Thomas says... They had gone over to Holland to Interview him as a witness???

Surely she would go to where he was staying...

And again the only reason i can come up with for the Interview being at the airport was that Avon and Somerset Police had KMAR's help... Therefore proving Dr Vincent tabak was always seen as a suspect... And was never cautioned... breaching his human rights .... (IMO)...



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 13, 2017, 07:57:21 AM
leonora.... whereabouts was Dr Vincent Tabak staying in Holland with his family?? To travel to the Airport for the interview???
His family rented two chalets (cottages) in a leisure complex for the New Year holiday in the Netherlands. The location wasn't mentioned in any of the British media, nor any of the Dutch newspapers that I saw online. I don't rule out that it was mentioned in one of the Dutch TV reports and printed media.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 13, 2017, 07:58:03 AM
Another thing I find odd... Is that DC Karen Thomas says that the interview was at a Hotel....

Does she really mean a Hotel or did they use the facilities at The Detention Centre Schiphol... which oddly enough get outsourced to private companies... G4S being one of them

Quote
Privatisation and outsourcing. The provision of security and medical care at detention centres is outsourced to private companies. G4S, one of a growing number of multinational companies involved in immigration detention, provides security at all detention centres, while medical care is provided by various companies.[34] According to Dutch sources, the Schiphol and Rotterdam centres were set up and are operated as public-private partnerships, although these sources do not make clear who all the private partners are.

Anything in this case is possible... I have found ....

https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/netherlands


Edit:.....
Quote
The world’s largest private security company G4S, which operates three facilities in the UK and another at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, told this website it would expand its detention centre contracts should more opportunities appear in mainland Europe.


Next Question.... Did G4S transport Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison van ???


https://euobserver.com/priv-immigration/121454
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 13, 2017, 08:09:14 AM
His family rented two chalets (cottages) in a leisure complex for the New Year holiday in the Netherlands. The location wasn't mentioned in any of the British media, nor any of the Dutch newspapers that I saw online. I don't rule out that it was mentioned in one of the Dutch TV reports and printed media.

The nearest lesiure complex to Schiphol I could find where you rent chalets is

https://www.homeaway.com.au/holiday-rental/p6036321

which is 77 kilometeres away from the Airport.....

Still keep asking the question ...Why interview Dr Vincent Tabak at Schiphol Airport if he was "ONLY" supposed to be a "Witness" ???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 13, 2017, 02:09:29 PM
Well.... The Prosecution did a number with their 1300 page document.... They followed procedure....Well sort of.... They took what they required from "Procedure" and applied it to the case against Dr Vincent Tabak...... (IMO)..

Quote
(vi)Electronic presentation of evidence

 * Electronic presentation of evidence (EPE) has the potential to save huge amounts of time in fraud and other complex criminal trials and should be used more widely.

 * HMCS is providing facilities for the easier use of EPE with a standard audio visual facility. Effectively managed, the savings in court time achieved by EPE more than justify the cost.

 * There should still be a core bundle of those documents to which frequent reference will be made during the trial.

* The jury may wish to mark that bundle or to refer back to particular pages as the evidence progresses. EPE can be used for presenting all documents not contained in the core bundle.
Greater use of other modern forms of graphical presentations should be made wherever possible.


So realistically the EPE... should be used in:
Quote
Electronic presentation of evidence (EPE) has the potential to save huge amounts of time in fraud and other complex criminal trials and should be used more widely.

But... The prosecution twisted that and used "The Searches".. as their EPE... My God!!! When it's use is for fraud...


And just to take the absolute pisk.....

Quote
The jury may wish to mark that bundle or to refer back to particular pages as the evidence progresses. EPE can be used for presenting all documents not contained in the core bundle.

They actually get them to do this at trial........ Is this some sort of JOKE!!!!

Quote
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
‘definition’ before the words ‘sexual conduct’. The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.

Arrrrrggggggg........

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/pd-protocol/pd_protocol
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 14, 2017, 03:44:55 PM
I'm going to review that post....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 15, 2017, 07:36:00 PM
I've been reading some of Sally R's comments on this trial. Firstly she doesn't come across as a professional lawyer, member of ...... to me. It really is like reading something you or I would have written.

She also had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill (will have to look up the page). Don't know what day, just that he was on his bike and there was snow. Constitution Hill was used as the hill start in car tests many decades ago when I took mine. It's very narrow purely residential and winds as well as being a s*d of a steep hill.

It is also directly opposite the Hope & Anchor, the pub where Greg and Joanna had their last lunch together.

I'm not taking what this woman says as so, its like the McCann files, read what's not written.

Ok... Nina... back to your Constitution Hill.... And Yes... How did he do it???

Quote
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.

Now this Hill is Big..... No way in the cold or even warm is he cycling up that hill...... It's a 1 in 6 gradient climb...

Quote
Why Park Street? It's the way to Cliftonwood, of course -and the hills there, starting with the one in six gradient climb that is Constitution Hill, and exploring a few more between the harbour and Clifton. Finally: up Bridge Valley Road to finish at the Downs,

I cannot see how Dr Vincent Tabak rode up Constitution Hill full stop.... never mind get back home just after 7:00 pm....from the start of that ride...  6:54pm.... Have you seen how steep that Hill is??? Maybe get home after 7:00 if he was driving.....  It take 4 minutes by car to drive from Constitution Hill to Canygne Road... Now way on God's earth did he cycle this route..... (IMO)...

Just after 7:00pm suggests a minute or two... well that would happen if the traffic is bad and the weather when driving.... Cycling..... Not Happening....

So yes Nina.... I don't believe he cycled to work never... never mind Constitution Hill..... The only sort of Bike that would get up Constitution Hill that fast is a "Motorbike".... Which gave me a flashback... of one of his work colleagues saying that he came to work in a leather fringed Jacket... (Wish I could find that article)..


http://bristolbybike.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/b........-hills-of-north-bristol.html

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

http://veloviewer.com/segment/994926/Constitution+Hill,+Bristol

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 15, 2017, 10:21:47 PM
So, Nine--Again and Nina, how do you think VT got back from work on Friday 17th, just as a matter of interest?

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 15, 2017, 10:38:27 PM
So, Nine--Again and Nina, how do you think VT got back from work on Friday 17th, just as a matter of interest?


mrswah... I am not sure.... There's a number of possibilities...  I need to think about....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 15, 2017, 10:43:59 PM
So, Nine--Again and Nina, how do you think VT got back from work on Friday 17th, just as a matter of interest?



I think he cycled. Temple Meads station has a shed for bikes and as Chris Jefferies has said VT cycled to work in all weathers. VT seems to have been an incredibly fit person IMO, so I suppose riding back using the route he seems to have used he could have been home within half an hour IMO.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 15, 2017, 11:11:22 PM
I think he cycled. Temple Meads station has a shed for bikes and as Chris Jefferies has said VT cycled to work in all weathers. VT seems to have been an incredibly fit person IMO, so I suppose riding back using the route he seems to have used he could have been home within half an hour IMO.

But you mentioned Constitution Hill... The Dutch don't like Hills.... My brother inlaw doesn't like to walk up a hill...

We have things that imply that Dr Vincent Tabak cycled to the station... But nothing definate ... We have the Stereotypical Dutchman...We have The mention of the 'cycle bag"... and ... Cycling basically mentioned in court.... But was it accurate????

Quote
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.

Now how do "The Defence " know that as a time ????? Is it a rough guess.... Or was The car seen by traffic Cams near that area ???? All Dr Vincent Tabaks' timings are done through "texts".. emails... internet use (apparently)..  And he being caught on some sort of CCTV....

So on that evidence he was in a car.... (IMO).... (I might change my mind)...

Quote
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.

Here we have Tanja's Lift share.... I knew i had read that before !!!!!

Then.....
Quote
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December:
Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41

It's the defence saying he cycled to work.... But did he ???

Quote
Defence Counsel: What time do you leave for work?
Tabak: 9.00 am.

I'm changing my mind... maybe he walked....  Train from Temple Meade  leaves at 9:25am arriving at 9:42am

He walked !!Being picked up on CCTV from a business on Jacob Wells Road which runs at the bottom... I believe of Constitution Hill....  A business like "The Hope and Anchor" which is at 38, Jacob's Well Road !!

They have to have CCTV images of Dr Vincent Tabak to put him anywhere near Constitution Hill... And all of there other CCTV images come from pubs and shops!!!


He walked.... and probably in his leather Jacket.....




http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 15, 2017, 11:30:03 PM
Here you go.... A Google Map image showing how close The Hope and Anchor Pub is to the bottom of Constitution Hill.....


Also picture of Hope And Anchor with CCTV camera above main window ....

But even if the defence say he cycled ... which I cannot see.... why go the route via Constitution Hill????

Image 3 is a direct route for a journey from the station to Canygne Road....

Why are they putting Dr Vincent Tabak in the Vacinity of a Pub that Joanna Yeates went to at lunch time on that day????  That is weird !!!!!!!

Quote
Friday December 17, 12.50pm: Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon, who both work for design consultancy BDP in Bristol, have lunch together at the Hope and Anchor near their offices. Joanna eats cheesy chips. Sadly it turns out to be her last meal.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-timeline-of-events-2377178.html


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 15, 2017, 11:39:56 PM
Quote
Friday December 17, 12.50pm: Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon, who both work for design consultancy BDP in Bristol, have lunch together at the Hope and Anchor near their offices. Joanna eats cheesy chips. Sadly it turns out to be her last meal.


Hope and Anchor.... Jacob Well's Road Is no where near their Office !

Hang on a minute.... How did they have time for lunch ???? were they working that day ???? It's miles away! Apparently they walked to work that morning....

Edit... I believe the map is inaccurate sorry...  Just discovered that this morning....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-timeline-of-events-2377178.html

http://www.bdp.com/globalassets/_documents/studio-directions/bristol.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 15, 2017, 11:42:18 PM
If he walked fast, it would take him nearly 45 minutes, at medium pace nearly an hour. I don't believe it! Even he could not do that walk in 25 minutes: it is a long way.

Why would he need to lie about cycling?  Had he been caught on CCTV on foot, that would, I assume, have been pointed out by somebody.

The police would have checked the time he texted Tanja to say he had just got home.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 15, 2017, 11:47:29 PM
I think he cycled. Temple Meads station has a shed for bikes and as Chris Jefferies has said VT cycled to work in all weathers. VT seems to have been an incredibly fit person IMO, so I suppose riding back using the route he seems to have used he could have been home within half an hour IMO.

I would agree.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 15, 2017, 11:51:48 PM
If he walked fast, it would take him nearly 45 minutes, at medium pace nearly an hour. I don't believe it! Even he could not do that walk in 25 minutes: it is a long way.

Why would he need to lie about cycling?  Had he been caught on CCTV on foot, that would, I assume, have been pointed out by somebody.

The police would have checked the time he texted Tanja to say he had just got home.

Fair point.... But I'm now puzzled why Joanna Yeates went to The Hope and Anchor for her lunch... when it's a long way away from her Office ....!!!

Maybe Vincent Tabak Car shared.... Maybe he drove.....


ok... he leaves work at 6:00pm gets the 18:07pm or 18:16pm being the fast train... both get him to bristol at 6:30 ish...  Going to the bottom of Jacob Wells Road... by car can take anything up to 14 mins....

So CCTV image is of the car!!... possibly...

But why is Joanna Yeates at Jacob Wells Road at lunch Time .... ????

Where are any images of Dr Vincent Tabak riding his bicycle on the 17th December 2010 !!!!!!!

We are deciding he leaves work straight away.... we don't know this .... There is a later train at 18:30 getting into temple mead at 18:44pm... giving him 11 mins to get to Constitution Hill... which is timed at 6:54pm...


Edit.... Which also may lend to the fact that the car was on the road and not the drive... Knowing he would be leaving later on to collect Tanja from the party...

Double Edit.... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak.. either Drive or Cycle via Constitution Hill???? Doesn't make sense to me !!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 16, 2017, 12:27:19 AM
Sticking with Hope and Anchor:


31st December 2010 Reported:

Quote
Miss Yeates had had lunch with Mr Reardon on the day she vanished.
They had met at the Hope and Anchor, a mile from their home

This report again 31st December 2010.

Quote
The 25-year-old and her boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, dined on cheesy chips and cola drinks at their local pub, the Hope and Anchor, before he left to visit his half-brother, Francis, in Sheffield on December 17.

The landlord of The pub says :

Quote
Barman Jack Carrington, 23, who was working at the pub which is just a mile from the flat the couple rented in Bristol, said: “Joanna came in at about 12.30pm with her boyfriend.

He further states :
Quote
“It was really busy as we had a lot of Christmas parties in, so they sat in the corner on a small table. They only stayed about 20 minutes.


And then contradicts himself when he says ....
Quote
“I didn’t see them leave because it was so busy – but when I looked over later they were gone. I don’t think I spoke to her because it was so busy.

Again in the next breath he says:
Quote
“She comes in a lot – especially with her boyfriend – on Friday afternoons. We make conversation with her and she always seems happy – most of the staff recognise her. They are polite but keep themselves to themselves.’’
Friday afternoons... suggests a later time than "Lunch"... ...

So what time did they go to The Hope and Anchor????



https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/220303/Joanna-Yeates-last-meal-with-boyfriend-at-favourite-local-pub

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8232412/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Christopher-Jefferies-let-himself-into-tenants-flat.html
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 16, 2017, 01:06:37 AM
Ok... This is bugging me..... Why is "The Hope And Anchor"... mentioned in the papers on the 31st December 2010...???

Not only that... Information as to what Joanna Yeates Ate.....

If I think about that info being leaked so early on.... Then "WHY" isn't Colin Port having A Giraffe at The Leveson Inquiry about the media releasing sensitive information.... He does about other leaks !!!

What is significant about 31st December 2010... to release that info!!!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 16, 2017, 07:58:06 AM
Apologies for my inaccuracy... I'm not sure which is correct... Google maps did not assist me on that post... Putting Hope and Anchor some 22 mins away....

Got another image from a map... says its a ten minute walk...  Don't understand what happened with the map last night ...

So ... apologies......

Edit..... I see where I went wrong... I just put Hill Street and Jacobs Well Road... It gave me the other map... oopsie....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 09:04:08 AM
But you mentioned Constitution Hill... The Dutch don't like Hills.... My brother inlaw doesn't like to walk up a hill...

We have things that imply that Dr Vincent Tabak cycled to the station... But nothing definate ... We have the Stereotypical Dutchman...We have The mention of the 'cycle bag"... and ... Cycling basically mentioned in court.... But was it accurate????

Now how do "The Defence " know that as a time ????? Is it a rough guess.... Or was The car seen by traffic Cams near that area ???? All Dr Vincent Tabaks' timings are done through "texts".. emails... internet use (apparently)..  And he being caught on some sort of CCTV....

So on that evidence he was in a car.... (IMO).... (I might change my mind)...

Here we have Tanja's Lift share.... I knew i had read that before !!!!!

Then.....
It's the defence saying he cycled to work.... But did he ???

I'm changing my mind... maybe he walked....  Train from Temple Meade  leaves at 9:25am arriving at 9:42am

He walked !!Being picked up on CCTV from a business on Jacob Wells Road which runs at the bottom... I believe of Constitution Hill....  A business like "The Hope and Anchor" which is at 38, Jacob's Well Road !!

They have to have CCTV images of Dr Vincent Tabak to put him anywhere near Constitution Hill... And all of there other CCTV images come from pubs and shops!!!

He walked.... and probably in his leather Jacket.....

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


Does anyone have links from CCTV showing VT walking?

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 09:31:22 AM
Gosh that's a bit of a sweeping statement "the Dutch don't like hills". I don't like hills either and I'm not Dutch!

It's quite interesting that the Hope & Anchor is approx. halfway between Canynge Rd and where Joanna and Greg worked. Back in 2010 it was a very popular pub, super food, so I would take the walk up Park St, round and down via Jacobs Wells Rd and there's your pub.

Constitution Hill. Well I can imagine that someone who was physically fit would choose this route to and from the station in a normal winter. It would be hard work but quick. VT was probably timing himself as well, a lot of people who cycle in Bristol do that.  But 2010 and on the 17th December where there was black ice everywhere. It would be dangerous just trying to walk down Constitution Hill, so I really have had my doubts as to whether he used that route, on that day. He could have cycled on that day by the main roads.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 09:42:17 AM
Just a thought, VT might have taken the bus. There are the buses 8 and 9 that go to Temple Meads station before turning round and coming back to Clifton. The bus stops are at Christchurch at the end of Canynge Rd.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 10:06:06 AM
Did anybody see VT coming home from work on the 17th? I presume not because if they had we would know whether he was cycling or not.

I'm assuming that VT put himself at Constitution Hill at 7.45 in his interview with the police. No one else saw him there? I just find it pretty weird that he would chose that route on that day. Ah well it must be a `man thing' all these dangerous sports!

Nine have you investigated the buses or do you think it's out of the question.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 10:10:12 AM
Ok... This is bugging me..... Why is "The Hope And Anchor"... mentioned in the papers on the 31st December 2010...???

Not only that... Information as to what Joanna Yeates Ate.....

If I think about that info being leaked so early on.... Then "WHY" isn't Colin Port having A Giraffe at The Leveson Inquiry about the media releasing sensitive information.... He does about other leaks !!!

What is significant about 31st December 2010... to release that info!!!

What constitutes a leak? Joanna had been missing since the 17th, was found on the 25th so by the 31st surely this was just news not a leak. Where she went and ate is not very important in the grand scheme of things is it?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 16, 2017, 12:01:13 PM
Did anybody see VT coming home from work on the 17th? I presume not because if they had we would know whether he was cycling or not.

I'm assuming that VT put himself at Constitution Hill at 7.45 in his interview with the police. No one else saw him there? I just find it pretty weird that he would chose that route on that day. Ah well it must be a `man thing' all these dangerous sports!

Nine have you investigated the buses or do you think it's out of the question.

If anyone did, it would probably have been CJ, or one of the other neighbours. I don't recall any reports of him being seen on CCTV.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 12:32:08 PM
If anyone did, it would probably have been CJ, or one of the other neighbours. I don't recall any reports of him being seen on CCTV.

I've got the impression somewhere along the line that there must have CCTV in Canynge Rd. Didn't Sally R say something about a visitor/s being captured on CCTV going to a friends house?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 16, 2017, 12:58:39 PM
I've got the impression somewhere along the line that there must have CCTV in Canynge Rd. Didn't Sally R say something about a visitor/s being captured on CCTV going to a friends house?

I believe the owner of a nearby house in Canynge Road had CCTV recordings, which he handed over to the police, but the recordings for the relevant night had been deleted: apparently, the recordings delete themselves after a few days, and I think the man handed them over too late. At least, that is what I read--------------but then, one can't believe everything one reads in the papers!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 01:40:46 PM
I believe the owner of a nearby house in Canynge Road had CCTV recordings, which he handed over to the police, but the recordings for the relevant night had been deleted: apparently, the recordings delete themselves after a few days, and I think the man handed them over too late. At least, that is what I read--------------but then, one can't believe everything one reads in the papers!

Thanks Mrswah, what a shame, to late, so much of the comings and goings that day could have been told.

You are totally right, I never believe the media, in fact in what I don't read that's more interesting to me.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 16, 2017, 02:07:40 PM
I believe the owner of a nearby house in Canynge Road had CCTV recordings, which he handed over to the police, but the recordings for the relevant night had been deleted: apparently, the recordings delete themselves after a few days, and I think the man handed them over too late. At least, that is what I read--------------but then, one can't believe everything one reads in the papers!


It was handed in ok....mrswah.... They just let us think that was the case that it had been deleted ....... That is all.. Because.....
DS Mark Saunders did see CCTV footage of Canygne Road for the evening of 17th December 2010 as he remarked on how busy the road was ....

Quote
Detectives probing the disappearance of the architect Joanna Yeates have obtained private CCTV footage of activity in her street on the night she went missing. Meanwhile, her parents prepared to make a fresh appeal for information today.

And...

Quote
Detective Superintendent Mark Saunders said: “We had someone contact us who had some private CCTV which actually shows Canynge Road [where the flat is located] and the thing for me is that you can see lots of people walking up and down and vehicles driving up and down on Friday night and the early hours of Saturday morning.

So there is footage !!!!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/detectives-scour-cctv-for-missing-architect-clues-r2j57r8l633

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 02:43:28 PM

It was handed in ok....mrswah.... They just let us think that was the case that it had been deleted ....... That is all.. Because.....
DS Mark Saunders did see CCTV footage of Canygne Road for the evening of 17th December 2010 as he remarked on how busy the road was ....

So there is footage !!!!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/detectives-scour-cctv-for-missing-architect-clues-r2j57r8l633


Yeah !! So all you/we gotta do is find it !!

That would be amazing wouldn't it?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 16, 2017, 03:14:32 PM
Yeah !! So all you/we gotta do is find it !!

That would be amazing wouldn't it?


 *&*%£

Yer ... like the Avon and Somerset Police are just going to hand it over .....  I'll take that as a NO.....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 16, 2017, 05:28:50 PM

 *&*%£

Yer ... like the Avon and Somerset Police are just going to hand it over .....  I'll take that as a NO.....

Reckon you have that bang on Nine !!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 16, 2017, 05:55:08 PM
Absolutely!!

I wonder what was on it---but then, I am not supposed to speculate-----------
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 16, 2017, 09:41:14 PM
Moving The Renault Megane over to this topic..... The picture on Park Street:/Queens Road

The date on the Image is ... 18th December 2010......

Now I am even questioning that!....  We are supposing it has to be at around 1:40am to 1:45am in the morning on an extremely cold might ... The night if we remember all the snow fell..... And when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to meet Tanja...

Well this image didn't come to us until after the trial......  And looking at the image the date could have been changed.... Why Not.. The Tesco video time and date stamp have been tampered with... we can tell...

So reasons for me to believe this is Not at around 1:40am on the 18th December 2010...

(A):  Lack of Snow...

(B): Lots of people crossing the road.... (don't know if that's normal)

(C): Guy wearing white shorts and bear legs.....??? why would you???

This image could be at anytime of the year when it is dark quite honestly....  We don't know ...

But I think it's about time we questioned the only image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving a Renault Megane on Park Street/Queens Road on the 18th December 2010...(IMO)

Quote
Defence Counsel: We can see the journey to collect her. We can see you turn right at
Park Street into a lane that does not lead anywhere. Two minutes later- you came out.
Why did you go there?
Tabak: I was not paying attention to where I was going- so I took a wrong turning and
then to Park Street.
Defence Counsel: We can see the video of you going out of Park Street. Then you made a
call to Tanja. That was to ask her directions as to where to collect her?

He takes a wrong turn... Doesn't mean he drove a wrong turn... could be walking ... 


Question... If they cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on Park Street /Queens Road.. How can they see him making a phone call??? Is he on foot?? and it's has to be another CCTV Image ??

Quote
Defence Counsel: We can see that you travelled to a burger bar. Why did you go there?
Tabak: Tanja was hungry- she wanted something to eat.
Defence Counsel: Was it eaten there or in the car?
Tabak: In the car.

The CCTV has to be of him on foot...(IMO).. It describes him at the burger bar and not at the car.. by asking if he ate it there or in his car... Which to me implies that he is on foot.....

The Car and The Burger Bar are seperate.... Just like the Frozen Ground and Joanna Yeates being frozen.... (IMO)...

One other thing... Renault Meganes are not a young girls car (IMO).. It might have suited A Man like Dr Vincent Tabak... I can't envisage Tanja behind the wheel some how .... But that's just me ....

Ok... Say they owned a Car.... Was it a Renault Megane ????

To me it's a Practical sort of car... And if you just need something for nipping here and there seems and odd  choice.... She car shares apparently to get to work.... So when does she use it????? And he apparently cycles everywhere .... So when does this Car get used ??


Ok... Maybe I was slightly incorrect...(An Understatement on my part!!) as The building which I believed to be the Cathederal.. where we see The Car on the CCTV image is actually Bristol University or part of Bristol University.... (why hasn't anyone said??)...  So literally if the image is of the car outside that building then the road name on google is Queens Road.... Which as you drive down it becomes Park Street on turning slightly right....

Which in turn tells me the images the jury saw were of Dr Vincent tabak walking on park Street... (IMO)..

Was this image meant for CJ when they arrested him??? giving tenuous connections of a man in a silver car driving past a building that says Bristol `university on the 18th December 2010... when they suspected CJ of this crime??

CJ.. please accept my apologises... I'm seeing what the Police could make appear an image to be.... And not that the image is you... I am saying that the image was suggestive and they could apply it to you if they chose to...

I wish CJ was on here..... I would ask him if they showed him that image and said he was seen driving around with Joanna Yeates when they had him in custody...  I'm sure CJ would have laughed in their faces ..... !!

Literally... It's a silver looking car.... and that is it!!!

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


Edit... I take full responsibility for Originally saying the image of the car is Park Street... Because of my earlier understanding of The Defence talking about him coming out of Park street... And the two roads become one and I failed to emphasise that...


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 16, 2017, 11:15:57 PM
I have attached an image of  the CCTV Image of what has been said on Dr Vincent Tabak driving around with Joanna Yeates...  Which is not correct but bare with me...

Before I have looked at the time stamps on the only CCTV Footage with a time stamp and date .. being the Tesco's video... where It is obvious the tampering that has taken place... So I thought I would look at the Traffic Cam info....

Info it gives..

(A): Local

(B): E:\RECORDER  13\CAME

(C): 03: BRISTOL.99

(D): 18/12/2010


(B):  Looks like a location file on a computer where the information is kept....  "The Directory"...  And not the information you may find on a traffic camera CCTV Image...

Why would it give you a Directory Location???

This is on someones computer and I do not think it is the 'Traffic Cameras" original footage .....  Those  4 details have been added or are another program it is running through...(IMO)...

The other reason I would add... Is normally if a system is running a CCTV camera system that I am aware of... The Location and Directory Information would be in the address bar... when using a particular program...

But for traffic Information... I cannot see that The Directory would be visible on the image of any car passing by... (IMO)...

You see before at first I was happy that if it was Dr Vincent Tabak's car he couldn't have Joanna yeates in the boot.... as the date said the 18th December 2010... And never really came back to the information upon the image....

But knowing that there are many many CCTV images that we haven't been made aware of.... And the ones that we are aware of have all been tampered with in one way or another ...

(1): Joanna Yeates in Tesco's.... This image should have the information running on a windows program.. The Date
      Time  would be in smaller writing at the bottom ,I believe of the image and would not have the word play
      or frames per second visible on the image...(IMO)

(2): Dr Vincent Tabak in ASDA.... The time is Missing... has been blurred out....

(3): Waitrose .... Again NO Date No Time Stamp

(4): Bargain Booze... No Date No  Time stamp

(5): The Bristol Ram.... No Time Stamp

(6): Joanna Yeates walking past Nero Cafe... never shown...

(7): Image of Joanna Yeates passing Hophouse pub... No date or time stamp... date and timestamp of two people
      walking past Hophouse pub is shown..

Making the CCTV of the another image that needs to be questioned....

Honestly do you believe that "Bristol Council keep all of their CCTV images of traffic in a "Directory" marked E:\RECORDER  13\CAME... I don't think so... 

To get access to CCTV Camera footage we the public need to go via a Government Website... https://www.bristol.gov.uk/crime-emergencies/cctv-in-bristol 

So... do you still think it's kept in a Folder marked... E:\RECORDER  13\CAME ??

Because I don't believe that it is ....(IMO)....

Even (A):.. which says  "local"... to me means local directory of a computer .... (IMO)


Edit:.....

Oh yes I nearly forgot... The Time Stamp is Missing!!...


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 12:00:09 AM
Just adding to my above post.....

Is The directory the Polices ??  I found a video with similar information upon it.. of a shooting  in 2011 and in the Corner it has a time stamp... which is clearly visible.... The Timer counts in hundreths of seconds.... Which I have never seen on a Traffic Camera CCTV

And the same E:\    directory is used ????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFuG3ksgcuE

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 09:00:15 AM
It's definately a Directory on a Police Computer....

This next Image I have attached is of DJ Derek Missing.... (From Avon and Somerset Police )..The same yellow writing on black boxes ....

The Info on this clip says:

(A):Local

(B): D:\DJ DEREK\9.Brun

(C):01:BRISTOL.81

(D):10/07/2015   23:38:12.193


(B),s Information clearly shows us that it is on the directory of a Police Computer and not any CCTV Camera Time Stamp and Date....


Supporting what I have been saying about the Car Image that we have been lead to believe is Dr Vincent Tabak driving around Bristol..

So Now... No CCTV Video's that are available to view on The Joanna Yeates Case have the Original Information upon them.... They all have had something done to them....

CCTV Footage is massively important when proving someones whereabout and time they were at said location....

I am still questioning the image of The Car on Queens Road/Park Street on 18th December 2010..

The removing of the timestamp is even more important with this image... As I have said... It could be at any time of the evening as soon as it goes dark...  That could be 9:00pm at night for all we know ...

Which makes me believe that any Image they had of Dr Vincent Tabak on Park Street or anywhere else was when he is walking... There is NO CCTV Footage anywhere of Dr Vincent Tabak..

(1): Cycling

(2): Driving

(3): In ASDA Carpark

(4): Driving On any roads anywhere on the 17th December 2010

Which begs the question... How did he drive to ASDA... How did he Drive to Longwood Lane .... Was that Renault Megane REG Number RY51 RDU registered to Tanja Morson?? or did they have a "KA" type Car that would be too small to put someones body in without being noticed... Or did they own a Car at all????

If the cars not theirs... The supposed blood evidence in the boot is shot to S***... (IMO)...

Establishing ownership of that car is massive... And Footage of that Car driving around Bristol and Bedminster on the 17th December 2010 is one of the most important pieces of Evidence that is needed... Because how else was Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to get a body from A to B ????





[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 17, 2017, 09:20:54 AM
www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-killed-by-neighbour-who-sent-text-saying-bored-6451788.html


If you scroll down the above link, you will find reference to Vincent and Tanja being seen on CCTV "walking arm in arm".  This is the CCTV I remember seeing, but which is no longer available. This was probably when they bought their burgers.

There IS a reason why they would have needed a big car-----they used it to travel to Holland , and, I dare say to many other places too. Tanja would also have needed a car for work. They were a sporty pair, and no doubt would have used the  car for carrying their sports equipment . I believe the car belonged to Tanja, not Vincent.

BTW, I, too mistook the university building at the top of Park Street for a Cathedral !
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 09:42:09 AM
I have found some more info about car RY51 RDU:

Quote
2002 Renault Megane

RY51RDU Car information

Get a full check
This 2002 Renault Megane Fidji on numberplate RY51 RDU was first registered on Friday 18th of January 2002 near Reading. At an estimated 139,036 miles, this car has done a lower than average number of miles for it's age. This car had 2 previous owners before the current keeper acquired it.

Who is the current keeper ???

According to this the last Registered owner registered this car on :   Registered owner changed
25th June 2005


So Did Tanja Morson buy this car or own this car on 25th June 2005 ???

Because I don't believe Tanja Morson is the registered owner now... Considering the terrible crime it is attached too!!

Tanja started working at Dyson in Malmesbury in June 2005.. But also had just finished her job in Peterborough in June 2005


https://cazana.com/uk/car/RY51RDU
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 09:54:14 AM
www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-killed-by-neighbour-who-sent-text-saying-bored-6451788.html


If you scroll down the above link, you will find reference to Vincent and Tanja being seen on CCTV "walking arm in arm".  This is the CCTV I remember seeing, but which is no longer available. This was probably when they bought their burgers.

There IS a reason why they would have needed a big car-----they used it to travel to Holland , and, I dare say to many other places too. Tanja would also have needed a car for work. They were a sporty pair, and no doubt would have used the  car for carrying their sports equipment . I believe the car belonged to Tanja, not Vincent.

BTW, I, too mistook the university building at the top of Park Street for a Cathedral !


Yes mrswah... I'll quote from that page..

Quote
Vincent Tabak stole one of her socks then threw her body in the boot of his car and drove off to buy beer and crisps at Asda, the jury heard.
That night he dumped her body beside a remote country lane and was later seen on CCTV walking arm in arm with girlfriend Tanja Morson.

So were is any footage of Dr Vincent Tabak drving that car ????

They may have owned a car mrswah I don't know ... But was it that one ??? And if it was the car RY51 RDU.. Then where is ANY CCTV Footage of this car driving around Bristol or Bedminster on Friday 17th December 2010 ???

Why not show the jury images of Dr Vincent Tabak aimlessly driving around trying to decided where to dump Joanna Yeates body ???

Why not show the jury images of this car "Parked " in ASDA Car Park in Bedminster ???

Why not show the Jury The CCTV Footage DS Mark Saunders viewed of Canygne Road with Dr Vincent Tabak leaving with Joanna Yeates in the boot of that car on Friday 17th December 2010??

Why so little physical evidence for this crime .... ???


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-killed-by-neighbour-who-sent-text-saying-bored-6451788.html

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 11:03:15 AM
Quote
About one hour after the killing, Tabak texted his girlfriend Miss Morson: "missing you loads. It's boring here without you. V xx."

That should take the time to 9:45pm on Friday 17th December 2010
But I'm sure that text to Tanja was at around 9:30 pm on Friday 17th December 2010... Making an hour before the killing.. 8:30pm on Friday the 17th December 2010... Joanna Yeates was NOT home at this time .... (apparently) in fact she was talking on the phone to Rebecca Scott at 8:30pm on Friday 17th December 2010...

Quote
Another hour later he left the flat and drove his silver-grey Renault Megane hatchback - probably with Miss Yeates's body in the boot - to a branch of Asda, the court heard.

According to The Prosecution that should take the time to 10:45pm on Friday 17th December 2010... The timings are terrible and no- one has taken any notice of them....

Now he apparently is at ASDA at approx 10:13pm according to the defence .....

Quote
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.

The Defence are already saying Joanna Yeates was at home at 8:37pm on Friday 17th December 2010... when the Offical time of 8:37 pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. Joanna Yeates is buying a Pizza in Tesco's ....

That is him getting back to the flat... He only gets back to Joanna Yeates flat apparently after he has killed her ...

So with that... Clegg is saying that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates between 8:30 pm and 8:37pm on Friday 17th December 2010

Again a reminder that Rebecca Scott spoke to Joanna Yeates from 8:30pm for anything between 7 and 15 minutes.. Making it impossible for her to be killed at this time ..

The defence need some kind of footage to put Dr Vincent Tabak either leaving Canygne Road at 10:13 pm or it's ASDA's own CCTV footage ...

Here vagueness from the Defence:...
Quote
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.

Clegg knows the time of those texts!!


But Something has brought me back to the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed.... The Defence must have seen it...(IMO)...

Because:...
Quote
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.

What CCTV could pick him up in 5 minutes ????  Ah... if the image I have taken with google... which show a house on the corner of Canygne Road and the Junction of Clifton Park has always had a CCTV Camera on the wall.. Then it's possible the CCTV Footage is from that house.. because I cannot see any CCTV cameras around Clifton for motorists..

Did the Police have CCTV Footage from this premises ???

It's the way in which The Defence say he was seen past The Flat... Was he walking or cycling????

Would it take him 5 minutes to cycle to the end of Canygne Road ??? Probably NOT... (IMO).... walking pace maybe ...

It wouldn't take 5 minutes walking time to get to Mr Kingman's CCTV either...

Past The Flat... that sound like it's not too far away.... In 5 minutes how far could you cycle ????? Apparently he is a keen cyclist... Runs... so... going on the info that they have given about Dr Vincent Tabak... He should be a far distance cycling in 5 minutes .... (IMO)...

Again his cycling prowess shows he apparently can far shift it.....

Quote
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.

So it takes him around say... In The words of The Defence ... 7 mins to do Constitution Hill and arrive home... Yet it take 5 minutes to be spotted just past the flat....

This is why I believe he walked to be honest.... Constitution Hill to Canygne Road is a 5 minutes Car Journey.. so he didn't cycle it in that time ....

But looking for this travel... I have just seen something else of interest.....  The Bus Journey Time is about  13 minutes... But the most interesting fact is If I caught the next one it says on my google image... 10:56 am....at Jacob's Well Road..

Now doesn't that make more sense of why they knew he was at  Constitution Hill at 6:54pm.. looks like he was on the bus to me ..... (IMO)...

Again...
Quote
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?
Tabak: In a state of despair; panic; unbelief at what had happened.

What time is timeline 113??  because his journey back from ASDA I believe is Timeline 108 to 111

Quote
]Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?
Tabak: Yes.

So Timeline 113 has to be when he goes to collect Tanja... and is seen on CCTV at 1:38am on Saturday 18th December 2010..

What is "Your Car".... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't own a Car we know it is supposed to belong to Tanja....

I so wish i could see this CCTV....

Back to timeline 113... The Defence make it sound like he has drive and stopped for 20 mins at Clifton Down... But they are two seperate events...

Take after a period of 20 mins  How did you feel .. That could be about anything.... It's not supported with what he is feeling about.. It could be about his favourite football team being knocked out of a cup final.. for all we know ... It's not clear....

But The Defence Have the two statements together .. giving the impression he got to Clifton Down and sat there for 20 minutes while feeling in despair... Which is not the case ....(IMO)...

So.... How many "Private " CCTV Camera's did the Police access and have to get evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements??

Because these should have been shown in court... Never mind writing timelines... support them with physical evidence....

Are you still sure Dr Vincent Tabak rode a bike to work ????... Because I am not convinced 100%... (IMO)




http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-killed-by-neighbour-who-sent-text-saying-bored-6451788.html

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf




[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 11:25:54 AM
Moving The Renault Megane over to this topic..... The picture on Park Street:/Queens Road

The date on the Image is ... 18th December 2010......

Now I am even questioning that!....  We are supposing it has to be at around 1:40am to 1:45am in the morning on an extremely cold might ... The night if we remember all the snow fell..... And when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to meet Tanja...

Well this image didn't come to us until after the trial......  And looking at the image the date could have been changed.... Why Not.. The Tesco video time and date stamp have been tampered with... we can tell...

So reasons for me to believe this is Not at around 1:40am on the 18th December 2010...

(A):  Lack of Snow...

(B): Lots of people crossing the road.... (don't know if that's normal)

(C): Guy wearing white shorts and bear legs.....??? why would you???

This image could be at anytime of the year when it is dark quite honestly....  We don't know ...

But I think it's about time we questioned the only image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving a Renault Megane on Park Street/Queens Road on the 18th December 2010...(IMO)

He takes a wrong turn... Doesn't mean he drove a wrong turn... could be walking ... 


Question... If they cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on Park Street /Queens Road.. How can they see him making a phone call??? Is he on foot?? and it's has to be another CCTV Image ??

The CCTV has to be of him on foot...(IMO).. It describes him at the burger bar and not at the car.. by asking if he ate it there or in his car... Which to me implies that he is on foot.....

The Car and The Burger Bar are seperate.... Just like the Frozen Ground and Joanna Yeates being frozen.... (IMO)...

One other thing... Renault Meganes are not a young girls car (IMO).. It might have suited A Man like Dr Vincent Tabak... I can't envisage Tanja behind the wheel some how .... But that's just me ....

Ok... Say they owned a Car.... Was it a Renault Megane ????

To me it's a Practical sort of car... And if you just need something for nipping here and there seems and odd  choice.... She car shares apparently to get to work.... So when does she use it????? And he apparently cycles everywhere .... So when does this Car get used ??


Ok... Maybe I was slightly incorrect...(An Understatement on my part!!) as The building which I believed to be the Cathederal.. where we see The Car on the CCTV image is actually Bristol University or part of Bristol University.... (why hasn't anyone said??)...  So literally if the image is of the car outside that building then the road name on google is Queens Road.... Which as you drive down it becomes Park Street on turning slightly right....

Which in turn tells me the images the jury saw were of Dr Vincent tabak walking on park Street... (IMO)..

Was this image meant for CJ when they arrested him??? giving tenuous connections of a man in a silver car driving past a building that says Bristol `university on the 18th December 2010... when they suspected CJ of this crime??

CJ.. please accept my apologises... I'm seeing what the Police could make appear an image to be.... And not that the image is you... I am saying that the image was suggestive and they could apply it to you if they chose to...

I wish CJ was on here..... I would ask him if they showed him that image and said he was seen driving around with Joanna Yeates when they had him in custody...  I'm sure CJ would have laughed in their faces ..... !!

Literally... It's a silver looking car.... and that is it!!!

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


Edit... I take full responsibility for Originally saying the image of the car is Park Street... Because of my earlier understanding of The Defence talking about him coming out of Park street... And the two roads become one and I failed to emphasise that...

Well that building is at the top of Park St next to the museum. I believe it belongs to the University, they have graduation day in there and the like.

If VT took a right turn into a dead end in Park St, well heaven knows where he ended up, but he was out in 2 mins. I took a left all those years ago and ended up in a dead end off of Park St.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 11:29:45 AM
Moving The Renault Megane over to this topic..... The picture on Park Street:/Queens Road

The date on the Image is ... 18th December 2010......

Now I am even questioning that!....  We are supposing it has to be at around 1:40am to 1:45am in the morning on an extremely cold might ... The night if we remember all the snow fell..... And when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to meet Tanja...

Well this image didn't come to us until after the trial......  And looking at the image the date could have been changed.... Why Not.. The Tesco video time and date stamp have been tampered with... we can tell...

So reasons for me to believe this is Not at around 1:40am on the 18th December 2010...

(A):  Lack of Snow...

(B): Lots of people crossing the road.... (don't know if that's normal)

(C): Guy wearing white shorts and bear legs.....??? why would you???

This image could be at anytime of the year when it is dark quite honestly....  We don't know ...

But I think it's about time we questioned the only image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving a Renault Megane on Park Street/Queens Road on the 18th December 2010...(IMO)

He takes a wrong turn... Doesn't mean he drove a wrong turn... could be walking ... 


Question... If they cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on Park Street /Queens Road.. How can they see him making a phone call??? Is he on foot?? and it's has to be another CCTV Image ??

The CCTV has to be of him on foot...(IMO).. It describes him at the burger bar and not at the car.. by asking if he ate it there or in his car... Which to me implies that he is on foot.....

The Car and The Burger Bar are seperate.... Just like the Frozen Ground and Joanna Yeates being frozen.... (IMO)...

One other thing... Renault Meganes are not a young girls car (IMO).. It might have suited A Man like Dr Vincent Tabak... I can't envisage Tanja behind the wheel some how .... But that's just me ....

Ok... Say they owned a Car.... Was it a Renault Megane ????

To me it's a Practical sort of car... And if you just need something for nipping here and there seems and odd  choice.... She car shares apparently to get to work.... So when does she use it????? And he apparently cycles everywhere .... So when does this Car get used ??


Ok... Maybe I was slightly incorrect...(An Understatement on my part!!) as The building which I believed to be the Cathederal.. where we see The Car on the CCTV image is actually Bristol University or part of Bristol University.... (why hasn't anyone said??)...  So literally if the image is of the car outside that building then the road name on google is Queens Road.... Which as you drive down it becomes Park Street on turning slightly right....

Which in turn tells me the images the jury saw were of Dr Vincent tabak walking on park Street... (IMO)..

Was this image meant for CJ when they arrested him??? giving tenuous connections of a man in a silver car driving past a building that says Bristol `university on the 18th December 2010... when they suspected CJ of this crime??

CJ.. please accept my apologises... I'm seeing what the Police could make appear an image to be.... And not that the image is you... I am saying that the image was suggestive and they could apply it to you if they chose to...

I wish CJ was on here..... I would ask him if they showed him that image and said he was seen driving around with Joanna Yeates when they had him in custody...  I'm sure CJ would have laughed in their faces ..... !!

Literally... It's a silver looking car.... and that is it!!!

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


Edit... I take full responsibility for Originally saying the image of the car is Park Street... Because of my earlier understanding of The Defence talking about him coming out of Park street... And the two roads become one and I failed to emphasise that...

(A)  is the one thing that Bristol Council gets right, they grit and clear snow from MAIN roads inside town 24/24. So
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 11:35:17 AM
I'm going to use these two quotes... to try establish how Dr Vincent Tabak travelled to work..


Quote
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’

So this cannot be too far away from 44 Canygne Road


Quote
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December:
Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41

He arrives at Bath at 9:41 am on Friday 17th December 2010...

To get to bath at that time he would need to catch the 9:30 am train from Bristol Mead...

Now its taken he 5 minutes to cycle a matter of yards...  leaving him 25 minutes to cycle to Temple Mead station... Maybe put his train in a Bike Stand....  Get to the correct platform and catch the 9:30 am train...

It is physically possible taking some 15 minutes to cycle... But for some reason he seems slow cycling on this morning taking 5 minutes to get to either Mr Kingham's CCTV or the possible CCTV on the house at the corner of Canygne Road and Clifton Park..

So is he slow ... Or fast like when he cycles Constitution Hill ???

Where are the CCTV images on the train of Dr Vincent Tabak catching it at Temple mead Station ???

There's CCTV on trains... there's CCTV at Stations... Where is Dr Vincent Tabak at the station ???

Maybe he was carrying his infamous laptop... A brief case perhaps... He had only gotten back from America on the 14th December 2010 so Friday 17th December 2010 was possibly his first day back at work after his trip...

Wouldn't he need to bring to work anything he had done abroad ???

Did Dr Vincent Tabak have Panniers on his bike for carrying his work stuff??? Maybe he had a rucksack ???

How did Dr Vincent Tabak take anything to work???

Or did he just catch the Bus ????

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 11:39:24 AM
(A)  is the one thing that Bristol Council gets right, they grit and clear snow from MAIN roads inside town 24/24. So

So..... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need to go all the way to ASDA in Bedminster to buy "Rock Salt" as has been suggested one of his purchases on Friday 17th December 2010 ...

When he simply could have walked several yards to the nearest Grit Box ... like the one located at Clifton Downs ??

And why therefore look for this ridiculous search:

Quote
At Line 225 (sic)
Tabak searched using the words
‘Joanna Yeates’
‘Salt supplies in the Netherlands’

Pointless... Useless rubbish.... (IMO)... Looks good to a Jury though !!!!

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 11:44:20 AM
Moving The Renault Megane over to this topic..... The picture on Park Street:/Queens Road

The date on the Image is ... 18th December 2010......

Now I am even questioning that!....  We are supposing it has to be at around 1:40am to 1:45am in the morning on an extremely cold might ... The night if we remember all the snow fell..... And when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to meet Tanja...

Well this image didn't come to us until after the trial......  And looking at the image the date could have been changed.... Why Not.. The Tesco video time and date stamp have been tampered with... we can tell...

So reasons for me to believe this is Not at around 1:40am on the 18th December 2010...

(A):  Lack of Snow...

(B): Lots of people crossing the road.... (don't know if that's normal)

(C): Guy wearing white shorts and bear legs.....??? why would you???

This image could be at anytime of the year when it is dark quite honestly....  We don't know ...

But I think it's about time we questioned the only image of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving a Renault Megane on Park Street/Queens Road on the 18th December 2010...(IMO)

He takes a wrong turn... Doesn't mean he drove a wrong turn... could be walking ... 


Question... If they cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak in his car on Park Street /Queens Road.. How can they see him making a phone call??? Is he on foot?? and it's has to be another CCTV Image ??

The CCTV has to be of him on foot...(IMO).. It describes him at the burger bar and not at the car.. by asking if he ate it there or in his car... Which to me implies that he is on foot.....

The Car and The Burger Bar are seperate.... Just like the Frozen Ground and Joanna Yeates being frozen.... (IMO)...

One other thing... Renault Meganes are not a young girls car (IMO).. It might have suited A Man like Dr Vincent Tabak... I can't envisage Tanja behind the wheel some how .... But that's just me ....

Ok... Say they owned a Car.... Was it a Renault Megane ????

To me it's a Practical sort of car... And if you just need something for nipping here and there seems and odd  choice.... She car shares apparently to get to work.... So when does she use it????? And he apparently cycles everywhere .... So when does this Car get used ??


Ok... Maybe I was slightly incorrect...(An Understatement on my part!!) as The building which I believed to be the Cathederal.. where we see The Car on the CCTV image is actually Bristol University or part of Bristol University.... (why hasn't anyone said??)...  So literally if the image is of the car outside that building then the road name on google is Queens Road.... Which as you drive down it becomes Park Street on turning slightly right....

Which in turn tells me the images the jury saw were of Dr Vincent tabak walking on park Street... (IMO)..

Was this image meant for CJ when they arrested him??? giving tenuous connections of a man in a silver car driving past a building that says Bristol `university on the 18th December 2010... when they suspected CJ of this crime??

CJ.. please accept my apologises... I'm seeing what the Police could make appear an image to be.... And not that the image is you... I am saying that the image was suggestive and they could apply it to you if they chose to...

I wish CJ was on here..... I would ask him if they showed him that image and said he was seen driving around with Joanna Yeates when they had him in custody...  I'm sure CJ would have laughed in their faces ..... !!

Literally... It's a silver looking car.... and that is it!!!

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


Edit... I take full responsibility for Originally saying the image of the car is Park Street... Because of my earlier understanding of The Defence talking about him coming out of Park street... And the two roads become one and I failed to emphasise that...

(A) Lack of Snow: it's the one thing that Bristol Council get right, they clear and grit the MAIN roads within Bristol 24hrs daily.
(B) Lots of people: Behave Nine!! There are four people at the most.
(C) Guy in shorts: Mad people in Bristol? I think it's either a short haired woman in a skirt or a man dressed up as a woman or something going to a party perhaps. The guy in front of him looks a bit `bright'.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 17, 2017, 12:35:27 PM
Referring back to the car, it has probably been scrapped by now, and I would imagine Jo's car has too. Both would be pretty ancient by now!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 12:40:57 PM
I'm going to use these two quotes... to try establish how Dr Vincent Tabak travelled to work..


So this cannot be too far away from 44 Canygne Road


He arrives at Bath at 9:41 am on Friday 17th December 2010...

To get to bath at that time he would need to catch the 9:30 am train from Bristol Mead...

Now its taken he 5 minutes to cycle a matter of yards...  leaving him 25 minutes to cycle to Temple Mead station... Maybe put his train in a Bike Stand....  Get to the correct platform and catch the 9:30 am train...

It is physically possible taking some 15 minutes to cycle... But for some reason he seems slow cycling on this morning taking 5 minutes to get to either Mr Kingham's CCTV or the possible CCTV on the house at the corner of Canygne Road and Clifton Park..

So is he slow ... Or fast like when he cycles Constitution Hill ???

Where are the CCTV images on the train of Dr Vincent Tabak catching it at Temple mead Station ???

There's CCTV on trains... there's CCTV at Stations... Where is Dr Vincent Tabak at the station ???

Maybe he was carrying his infamous laptop... A brief case perhaps... He had only gotten back from America on the 14th December 2010 so Friday 17th December 2010 was possibly his first day back at work after his trip...

Wouldn't he need to bring to work anything he had done abroad ???

Did Dr Vincent Tabak have Panniers on his bike for carrying his work stuff??? Maybe he had a rucksack ???

How did Dr Vincent Tabak take anything to work???

Or did he just catch the Bus ????



VT puts himself at the bottom? of Constitution Hill at 6.54 & not 6.45 as I must have read it.

If indeed he was as the bottom of Constitution Hill at nearly five to seven I'm sorry but IMO there is no way he got home "just after 7pm'. It's physically impossible !!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 12:48:11 PM
VT puts himself at the bottom? of Constitution Hill at 6.54 & not 6.45 as I must have read it.

If indeed he was as the bottom of Constitution Hill at nearly five to seven I'm sorry but IMO there is no way he got home "just after 7pm'. It's physically impossible !!


Quote
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.


From the trial.... It the Defences Timeline..... Who says Dr Vincent Tabak put himself at "Constitution Hill"????

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 12:49:46 PM
VT puts himself at the bottom? of Constitution Hill at 6.54 & not 6.45 as I must have read it.

If indeed he was as the bottom of Constitution Hill at nearly five to seven I'm sorry but IMO there is no way he got home "just after 7pm'. It's physically impossible !!


So if it's physically impossible Nina... How did he get from Constitution Hill to Canygne Road for Just after 7:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 ??

How did Dr Vincent Tabak Travel ????

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:05:06 PM


From the trial.... It the Defences Timeline..... Who says Dr Vincent Tabak put himself at "Constitution Hill"????

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

Sally R paper : Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after 7pm.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:09:29 PM

So if it's physically impossible Nina... How did he get from Constitution Hill to Canygne Road for Just after 7:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 ??

How did Dr Vincent Tabak Travel ????
I don't know !
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:12:53 PM
Sally R paper : Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after 7pm.

Yes Nina I know that I have seen that ...What am I missing ????... Have I written the time wrong somewhere ???? If that is the case please point me to my post so I can correct it.....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:14:53 PM
If he did take the bus that day the bus certainly didn't come up Constitution Hill. Which in it's own way proves that VT was on his BIKE that day.

See what you've done to me Nine, I'm now even using capitals !!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:19:58 PM
Yes Nina I know that I have seen that ...What am I missing ????... Have I written the time wrong somewhere ???? If that is the case please point me to my post so I can correct it.....
Dunno know if you've written times wrong. I just know that I read it wrongly and when reading Sally R I realised it was 6.54 which does make a huge difference in the time of getting home from C/Hill, Regent St, Christchurch turn left Canynge Rd.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 17, 2017, 01:22:58 PM
If he did take the bus that day the bus certainly didn't come up Constitution Hill. Which in it's own way proves that VT was on his BIKE that day.

See what you've done to me Nine, I'm now even using capitals !!



I tend to agree with you on this particular point---I, too, think Vincent was on his bike.  I think the timings we have are probably not accurate.

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:31:45 PM
What constitutes a leak? Joanna had been missing since the 17th, was found on the 25th so by the 31st surely this was just news not a leak. Where she went and ate is not very important in the grand scheme of things is it?

Colin Port was explaining at "The Leveson Inquiry" how information must have leaked from somewhere for the Newspapers to know about "The Missing Sock"... That is apparently why they went with "The Missing Sock Police Conference ".....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:32:49 PM


I tend to agree with you on this particular point---I, too, think Vincent was on his bike.  I think the timings we have are probably not accurate.

mrswah... Dr Vincent Tabak could well have rode a bike.....  where is the CCTV footage of this ?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:37:32 PM
I think that you're dead right Mrswah, the timings seem to be out by at least (IMO) 10 mins. Having said that I suppose that `just after 7pm' could mean about 7.10pm?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:40:37 PM


I tend to agree with you on this particular point---I, too, think Vincent was on his bike.  I think the timings we have are probably not accurate.

Well that represents a huge Problem then doesn't it mrswah....

I am pointlessly trying to work timings out with no accurate information..... So all the timings I have used from The Sally Ramage papers are not accurate ????

And of course Newspapers get things wrong as well....

Shame I don't have the transcript in my hands....

I don't really know what to say now or do.....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:41:07 PM
mrswah... Dr Vincent Tabak could well have rode a bike.....  where is the CCTV footage of this ?
You know very well there is no CCTV for this, just VT's account of the events.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:43:45 PM
Well that represents a huge Problem then doesn't it mrswah....

I am pointlessly trying to work timings out with no accurate information..... So all the timings I have used from The Sally Ramage papers are not accurate ????

And of course Newspapers get things wrong as well....

Shame I don't have the transcript in my hands....

I don't really know what to say now or do.....
You not speaking to me Nine?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:44:43 PM
You not speaking to me Nine?

What do you mean Nina ??? When did I say I was not speaking to you???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:46:32 PM
You know very well there is no CCTV for this, just VT's account of the events.

Is is written down by Dr Vincent Tabak... that he was at "Constitution Hill".... or is it something different??

As I say... "The Defences version of Events... ???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:54:16 PM
I'm getting lost again. We both appear to be reading from the same page, Sally R's paper "The Defences version of Events". So we both have read that VT was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm and not 6.45pm as I had originally read it as. I don't think that anything is different.

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 01:55:56 PM
What do you mean Nina ??? When did I say I was not speaking to you???

Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:56:05 PM
I think that you're dead right Mrswah, the timings seem to be out by at least (IMO) 10 mins. Having said that I suppose that `just after 7pm' could mean about 7.10pm?


OK..... "We all seem to know something".. that I don't !!..as you must have the information In front of you to see that "Constitution Hill.. Timeline is written Incorrectly"...

Go on let me in on the joke.....  My heads been mashed enough over this last 8 months .... !!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:56:59 PM
Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!

Nina I have replied to your posts... Not all true....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 01:57:35 PM
Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!


Question Nina.... why are you directing your posts at me ?????????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 02:07:49 PM

Question Nina.... why are you directing your posts at me ?????????
'Cause you're the one asking questions.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:09:33 PM
I'm getting lost again. We both appear to be reading from the same page, Sally R's paper "The Defences version of Events". So we both have read that VT was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm and not 6.45pm as I had originally read it as. I don't think that anything is different.

The thing is Nina... I can see how someone can actually put the number 5 before the number 4 when typing... and Yes... maybe it should read 6:45pm...

But my problem is ..either you know Sally Ramage or are Sally Ramage or know why this is incorrectly written... or you have some other information to hand which you would like to share so I can correct any errors I may have made ...... thank you

Because .. unless someone confirms to me what is written wrong in the document of Sally Ramages... I am at a loss at what to do.... And helping the Placid Dutchman will become even more difficult... (IMO)...



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:09:57 PM
'Cause you're the one asking questions.

Poetic...  ?{)(**
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:11:43 PM
The thing is Nina... I can see how someone can actually put the number 5 before the number 4 when typing... and Yes... maybe it should read 6:45pm...

But my problem is ..either you know Sally Ramage or are Sally Ramage or know why this is incorrectly written... or you have some other information to hand which you would like to share so I can correct any errors I may have made ...... thank you

Because .. unless someone confirms to me what is written wrong in the document of Sally Ramages... I am at a loss at what to do.... And helping the Placid Dutchman will become even more difficult... (IMO)...


I would really like it if Sally Ramage came on the forum... Maybe I could get to see some more of that transcript!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 02:12:12 PM

OK..... "We all seem to know something".. that I don't !!..as you must have the information In front of you to see that "Constitution Hill.. Timeline is written Incorrectly"...

Go on let me in on the joke.....  My heads been mashed enough over this last 8 months .... !!
Nine I don't know anything that you don't know. All I have that you don't have is a knowledge of the area.

All I was saying was that initially I misread Sally R's paper and put VT at C/Hill at 6.45pm and it was 6.54pm. Now this as I have said makes a huge difference to the getting home time. I asked whether 7.10pm could count as `just after 7pm'?

No jokes I'm afraid.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 02:13:50 PM
You want those undisclosed 300 pages don't you? lol
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:16:57 PM
You want those undisclosed 300 pages don't you? lol

 *&*%£

Now we Know it was supposed to be 1300 pages of Documents .... Is that an error too.... Yes I would love those Documents ..

The timelines should reveal plenty....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 17, 2017, 02:18:17 PM
mrswah... Dr Vincent Tabak could well have rode a bike.....  where is the CCTV footage of this ?

There either isn't any, or it hasn't been made public.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 02:18:33 PM
The thing is Nina... I can see how someone can actually put the number 5 before the number 4 when typing... and Yes... maybe it should read 6:45pm...

But my problem is ..either you know Sally Ramage or are Sally Ramage or know why this is incorrectly written... or you have some other information to hand which you would like to share so I can correct any errors I may have made ...... thank you

Because .. unless someone confirms to me what is written wrong in the document of Sally Ramages... I am at a loss at what to do.... And helping the Placid Dutchman will become even more difficult... (IMO)...
Sorry never met the woman and am certainly not her. I am just going by the fact that I know some of the characters involved on the peripheral and I live in the area.

Why are you trying to alter the time in those papers? It definitely says VT says he was there 6.54pm, what's wrong about that?

I'm obviously missing something.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:18:39 PM
Nine I don't know anything that you don't know. All I have that you don't have is a knowledge of the area.

All I was saying was that initially I misread Sally R's paper and put VT at C/Hill at 6.45pm and it was 6.54pm. Now this as I have said makes a huge difference to the getting home time. I asked whether 7.10pm could count as `just after 7pm'?

No jokes I'm afraid.


Quote
author=mrswah link=topic=8060.msg417413#msg417413 date=1500294178]


I tend to agree with you on this particular point---I, too, think Vincent was on his bike.  I think the timings we have are probably not accurate.

Now I have 2 of you whom believe this is incorrect... and probably not accurate... But how we know this piece of information is beyond me .....

Well I could speculate !
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:21:17 PM
Sorry never met the woman and am certainly not her. I am just going by the fact that I know some of the characters involved on the peripheral and I live in the area.

Why are you trying to alter the time in those papers? It definitely says VT says he was there 6.54pm, what's wrong about that?

I'm obviously missing something.

I'm not altering any time.... Oh Man... I give up.... 

So come on Nina.... who else do you know in the area ???
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 02:22:39 PM

Now I have 2 of you whom believe this is incorrect... and probably not accurate... But how we know this piece of information is beyond me .....

Well I could speculate !
What's incorrect? I need a strong cuppa tea, will be back later when I have my sanity back and hopefully Nine has worked things out.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:29:46 PM
What's incorrect? I need a strong cuppa tea, will be back later when I have my sanity back and hopefully Nine has worked things out.


I have been trying to work out whats going on for a long time....  Unless someone gives me the thumbs up I don't know if I am correct...

So... Back to Your TV Program like the Investigator Nina ....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:30:56 PM

I have been trying to work out whats going on for a long time....  Unless someone gives me the thumbs up I don't know if I am correct...

So... Back to Your TV Program like the Investigator Nina ....

Safest way to verify that Nina is to get MWT to tweet me a message ... He had me as a contact...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 02:45:46 PM
What's incorrect? I need a strong cuppa tea, will be back later when I have my sanity back and hopefully Nine has worked things out.

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 04:02:28 PM
(A): We are (excluding me ).. all the same person

(B): We are Sally Ramage (Excluding me)

(C): We are An Investigator Tv Program (excluding me )

(D): We are MTW (excluding me )

(E): We are Solicitor looking into the Case ..(Excluding me )

(F): We are The Innocence Project in Bristol (Excludingme )

(G): We are related to Dr Vincent Tabak.... (Excluding me )..

(H): We are Dr Vincent Tabak.... (excluding me )

(I): We are the Morson family (excluding me )

(J); We are the Yeates Family (excluding me )..

(K):We are the Tabak Family (excluding me )..

(L):We are reviewing the case (excluding me )

(M): We are from The Complex Crime Unit (Excluding me )...

I could keep going ... I need more information to go on ....

Edit........

(Z): We are pulling my donkeys dangler..... again.... (excluding me )....


Double Edit.... Oh yes whilst I play this guessing game I then get banned for trying to reveal someones Identity.... Slap on the back all round...

If you don't tell me I can''t guess....   Simple Maths really !

Wish I picked up that NVQ on Guessing what is going on.... Next to The NVQ on Manslaughter Law and all the other NVQ's I passed by .... On the left hand side ....
Honest to god Nine I don't know what you're on about.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 04:04:55 PM
Nine if you could ask someone who worked in Tesco a question what would that question be?

Not a long question.

I have a friend who has worked there since it opened.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 04:05:36 PM
Honest to god Nine I don't know what you're on about.

(Z): It is then.....   
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 04:06:15 PM
Safest way to verify that Nina is to get MWT to tweet me a message ... He had me as a contact...
I don't do twitter I'm not a bird.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 04:08:24 PM
(Z): It is then.....   
Again either you or me are on a different planet, don't know what you're on about.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 04:08:28 PM
Nine if you could ask someone who worked in Tesco a question what would that question be?

Not a long question.

I have a friend who has worked there since it opened.

What day did Joanna Yeates buy the Pizza and what time...  oh know that 2 questions...

To be honest Nina... I think your taking the Mick.. But hey Ho .... what do I know !!!  (Zero)!!!

Time for me to turn of my Mac i think ....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 04:10:02 PM
What day did Joanna Yeates buy the Pizza and what time...  oh know that 2 questions...

To be honest Nina... I think your taking the Mick.. But hey Ho .... what do I know !!!  (Zero)!!!

Time for me to turn of my Mac i think ....
Seriously you think I'm taking the Mick, why? What's made you think that?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 17, 2017, 04:50:43 PM
What is going on here???

I started this thread on the forum because I suspected (no, I didn't know, and still don't) that Vincent Tabak's conviction was dodgy.

I don't really have much more to say on the subject, to be honest----but I would love the thread to be preserved on here, so that people can read it.

I don't understand why posters are arguing with each other, and I don't believe any of us are anyone other than who we say we are.

If the moderators read all this, they will take the whole thread  down, and I wouldn't blame them, to be honest. . This is all getting very silly, and it was not what I intended when I started the thread nearly a year ago.

We have had a lot of useful, constructive discussion, so why spoil it?

As they say on "Dragon's Den", if we cannot have a reasonable discussion with all kinds of people with all kinds of views, i'm out.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 05:01:39 PM
Quite honestly Mrswah I don't know. I wasn't arguing, but Nine seemed I don't know to get the wrong idea. Seems to think that I am Sally R et al.

Posting to you, I was trying to work out if 7.10pm could be counted as `just after 7pm' and all hell broke loose
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 17, 2017, 05:05:20 PM
Actually I shall retire from this Joanna Yeates murder thread.

When I am accused of being other people its just not worth it.

I shall read though.

Bye
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 06:06:35 PM
 I came hear for one reason only... !
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 17, 2017, 06:09:20 PM
What is going on here???

I started this thread on the forum because I suspected (no, I didn't know, and still don't) that Vincent Tabak's conviction was dodgy.

I don't really have much more to say on the subject, to be honest----but I would love the thread to be preserved on here, so that people can read it.

I don't understand why posters are arguing with each other, and I don't believe any of us are anyone other than who we say we are.

If the moderators read all this, they will take the whole thread  down, and I wouldn't blame them, to be honest. . This is all getting very silly, and it was not what I intended when I started the thread nearly a year ago.

We have had a lot of useful, constructive discussion, so why spoil it?

As they say on "Dragon's Den", if we cannot have a reasonable discussion with all kinds of people with all kinds of views, i'm out.

?

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 04:04:51 PM
I'm just going to start with this twitter quote:

Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Richard Barnston now called to give evidence #TabakTrial

2:48 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Barnston carried out tape recorded interview with #Tabak following his arrest. Transcripts run to 200 pages.


And this ......
Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Paul Derrick in the witness box. He denies there was tension between him and the duty solicitor acting for Tabak.

Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Derrick asked if he thought Tabak's first lawyer was "out of her depth" . He replied "No"

3:26 PM - 18 Oct 2011

Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
No more evidence today in #TabakTrial. Prosecution case expected to be completed in the morning. Trial resumes at 1030.

Ok... I'll need these people for a future post... just establishing their part in trial...  Interesting that there were 200 pages of "Transcript" that DC Richard Barnston says statements /interview runs too...

Now where the Jury given access to these 200 pages of Transcript?? Did DC Barnston bring these 200 pages of Transcript to court ????

DC Richard Barston called to give evidence at 2:48pm 18th October 2011 (Rough Time he is in court)

Court retires for the day at 3:26pm 18th October 2011 according to the tweet..  We also in this time have DC Paul Derrick give his evidence ....

We have not even 1 hour of testimony from DC Richard Barnston... who apparently has over 200 pages of  transcript... What happened there ????

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=2
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 04:38:52 PM
Part 1....  Three different types of witness .....


I have been trying to establish what witness's actually appeared in court, and what witness's just had their statements read out:  So starting with a list of people who appeared in court and gave evidence themselves...

Witness's who appeared in court

(1): * Darragh Bewell  (Friend of Joanna Yeates)

(2): * Andrew Mott      (Forensic Officer )

(3): * Lyndsey Lennen (Forensic Specialist)

(4): * DC Mark Luther  (Officer In charge of Case )

(5): * Tanja Nickson   (Wall Analyist)

(6): * Lindsey Farmery ( IT Power Point Expert)

(7): * Dr Delaney  (Pathologist)

(8): * Dr Carey (Pathologist)

(9): * Greg Reardon (Joanna Yeates boyfriend)

(10) * DC Karen Thomas ( Holland Interview)

(11) * Father Henwood (Dog walker who met Joanna Yeates )

(12) * Brotheron (Asummed role of Chaplain)

(13) * DC Geofrey Colvin (Arrested Dr Vincent Tabak)

(14) * Rebecca Scott (Joanna Yeates friend )

(15) * Harry Walker ( neighbour who heard screams )

(16) * Florian Lehman (Neighbour who heard Screams )

(17) * Zoe Lehman (neighbour who heard screams )

(18) * Dr Jennifer Miller ( Examined Joanna Yeates stomach contents )

(19) * DC Richard Barnston ( 200 page  transcript?? Interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak)

(20) * DC Paul Derrick ( asked about Dr Vincent Tabak's first lawyer ).


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 04:40:12 PM
Part 2...  2nd Type of Witness....

 There is another type of physical witness....  and they are those who appeared but just read out their statements

(21)  * Karl Harrison (Forensic Archeologist)

(22)  * Maria Brown (Held the Party on Canygne Road)

(23) * Peter Brown (Held Party on Canygne Road)


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 05:17:19 PM
Part 3..... 3rd Type of Witness

The list below are witness's who had their statements read to the jury and didn't appear in Court

(24) * Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )

(25) * Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)

(26) * Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )

(27) * Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )

(28) * Sarah Maddox (At Dinner  Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )

(29) * PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )

(30: * Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )

(31) * Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)

(32) * Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )

(33) * Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)

(34) *  Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )

(35) * Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).

(36) * Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )

(37) * Peter Lindsell  ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )

(38) * Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )

(39) * Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)


Don't think I have missed anybody... But these 'Part Posts"  will help with 'Part 4'.....

Edit...
(40): Micheal Breen... Not sure where to put him

(41): PC Martin Faithful
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 06:21:03 PM
Part 4 ..... What did the "Read Out in Court Witness Statements".. say

These witness statements were many.... many statements making many claims.... On either Joanna Yeates or Dr Vincent Tabak... The helped form the basis of The Prosecution Case.... Without these statements "The Jury" would not know quite a lot of information....

Take Daniel Birch for instance... He and his wife Rebecca.. apparently found Joanna Yeates Body... I'll say apparently for 2 reasons... I believe Dr Delaney has already explained it was the Officers who put Joanna Yeates on the Verge (Roadside)... And Daniel Birch wasn't in court to verify his claim ...... And this is where I am taking you...

Definition of Statement

Quote
A 'statement' is defined as "any representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means"; and it includes a representation made in a sketch, photo fit or other pictorial form.

Matter stated: implied insertions

A 'matter stated' is one where the purpose or one of the purposes of the person making the statement appears to have been to cause another person to believe the matter or to cause another person to act or a machine to operate on the basis that the matter is as stated  (section 115).

Definition of Hearsay

Quote
Hearsay" in criminal proceedings is "a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated" (section 114 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003).


Matter stated: implied insertions

The effect of this definition of statement is to enable evidence to be admitted of 'implied assertions'. This reverses the decision made in R v Kearley (1992) 2 AC 228 in which police answered telephone calls and personal calls to the defendant's home from people asking about drugs that the defendant had for sale. The prosecution wished to adduce the evidence to prove that the intended recipient of the calls was a dealer in drugs, without evidence from the callers themselves. The House of Lords decided that, as evidence of the fact that the defendant dealt in drugs, the caller's words were hearsay and thus inadmissible.

I'm trying to understand how all those people in "Part 3... of my post on this matter.... evidence was allowed in court.... because realistically I believe it could be hearsay....  And some of the statements had other people brought into these statements.. (eg: Daniel Birch mentions his wife)..

So are the read out statements classed  as "Matter Stated" Or are they classed as Hearsay ???

Admissibility of hearsay evidence

Quote
(1)In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if—
(a)any provision of this Chapter or any other statutory provision makes it admissible,
(b)any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible,
(c)all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible, or
(d)the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
(2)In deciding whether a statement not made in oral evidence should be admitted under subsection (1)(d), the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
(a)how much probative value the statement has (assuming it to be true) in relation to a matter in issue in the proceedings, or how valuable it is for the understanding of other evidence in the case;
(b) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a);
(c) how important the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a) is in the context of the case as a whole;
(d) the circumstances in which the statement was made;
(e) how reliable the maker of the statement appears to be;
(f) how reliable the evidence of the making of the statement appears to be;
(g) whether oral evidence of the matter stated can be given and, if not, why it cannot;
(h) the amount of difficulty involved in challenging the statement;
(i) the extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it.
(3) Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence of a statement on grounds other than the fact that it is a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings.

So are all the statement in Part 3.. classed as hearsay... not having anything to establish

(A): Their Truth

(B): Their Validaty

(C): Their Accuracy

(D): The extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it.

Realistically I do not believe that The Witness's who's statements where read out in court should have been admissible (IMO)... as they prejudiced the Jury as to Dr Vincent Tabak's .. Mental State... Conversation's he may or may no have had .... Conversations people say they had with Joanna Yeates that cannot be verified ... Parties attended as to screams  heard ...  Injuries Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have had on arrest... Irrelevant..(IMO)..

How can so many witness's give statements that basically are hearsay as far as I can tell....

With so many statements telling us how Joanna Yeates mood was in The Ram Pub differing... How can that be  accepted as true and accurate in these written statements ??

PC Martin Faithful (I believe he didn't appear) is described as a Forensic's Officer... his statement make claims To Joanna Yeates thawing... Yet PC Martin Faithful is a Beat Bobby.... How can what he say be accepted??

People who attended parties with Dr Vincent Tabak making assertions as to his mood and what he was supposed to have said ... Hearsay... They are NOT in COURT to makes such statement that could be challenged ...

You have 16 written statements read out in court without these peoples attendance... And 3 statements read out without challenge..

So 19 statements that make all kinds of claims that are unsubstantiated by anyone ..... Martin Faithful supports that Joanna Yeates jeans pocket was visible.... as Daniel Birch had claimed.... Both are statements that are read out How is that evidence ???

You basically have the evidence of a Beat bobby who is not there as far as I am aware backing the statement of a witness that wasn't at court also!!!  That can't be right !!!!

Is it normal to have So many witness statements read out at a "Murder Trial" ??????

As far as I am concerned... their statement mean nothing... How trustworthy are these people ?? we know nothing about these people whatsoever.... Yet they all star in The Trial Of The Year..... And everything they have seen or heard has been accepted as Gospel... without anything to prove what they have stated as being True

Is this what our justice system has come to... Filling the court time with unsupported witness statements, to imply whatever they like, just by simply making such a statement and the prosecution using these statements to convict somebody..

So if we get rid of 19 pointless witness's ..... who have not really added to anything proving that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates... We can then look at what the Live witness's actually gave to this trial (IMO)....


Edit... I nearly forgot... Geoffrey Hardyman... The Defences only apparent witness for Dr Vincent Tabak ..(excluding Dr Carey)..... Who says absolutley NOTHING.... Apart from not being able to hear anything and Joanna Yeates had a Cat .... Well that written witness statement really put paid to the Prosecutions case... NOT!!!!

Pointless.... Pointless statement not saying anything..... (IMO)....


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/114

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 07:16:09 PM
Part 5..... The live witnesses...who witnessed nothing...

Looking at the live witnesses and what they added to this trial...

Darragh Bewell...

Well he says he's with Joanna Yeates... there's CCTV of them in the Pub... But what has he witnessed ?????? Nothing)... (IMO)... He hasn't witnessed anything to do with her disappearance or anything in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak....

Greg Reardon 

Again... what did he witness....  A Cat that needed feeding ??? He witnessed Nothing.... He didn't speak to Joanna Yeates from when he left for Sheffield... he cannot add to anything as far as Dr Vincent Tabak is concerned because he didn't know him and wasn't there on Friday 17th December 2010..

Harry Walker

He witness nothing also.... He witnessed a party and heard screams that could have been anyones ...

Florian Leham

He also witnessed Nothing... He witnessed a party and screams were heard ... He didn't see anything..

Zoe Lehman

Again witnessed a party and heard screams.... she witnessed "Nothing"...

Father Henwood

He witnessed a woman on the Friday 17th December 2010... it could have been Joanna Yeates it may not have been .... So what did he actually witness ???? Nothing !! (IMO)..

Rebecca Scott Had a telephone conversation with Joanna Yeates .... What did she witness... Nothing....


So out of the 20 live witnesses at court 7 of those witness's... Witnessed "Nothing" that would add in the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak... Having not either arrested him... Collected and tested Forensics.... Been at the Second Scene of Crime .... Seen the Murder .... Or Interviewed him....

None of the above witnesses witnessed anything in relation to Joanna Yeates disappearance... as they weren't even there ... Not of them saw her or Dr Vincent Tabak over that weekend...

So we have 13 witness's left.....

I may sound like I am being harsh... But witness's should witness events that happen.. eg:..

(A): An arguement that lead to an assault

(B): Seeing someone stab someone else

(C):Being an accomplice

(D): Being at the scene of crime as the offence is committed

(E): Someone who videoed the incident

These examples are witness's... they witnessed an event....

So the above witness's I have listed didn't witness anything at all in this crime.... They were simply used to establish that Joanna Yeates was alive on Friday 17th December 2010...

Which makes me question why Dr Vincent Tabak was charged between Thursday 16th December 2010 and Sunday 19th December 2010....

I will say again... these people witnessed "Nothing"...(IMO)..


Which leaves us with 13 witness's !! (NEXT).....


Edit:... I started with 39 witness's I have 13 left....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 18, 2017, 08:04:40 PM

Greg Reardon 

Again... what did he witness....  A Cat that needed feeding ??? He witnessed Nothing.... He didn't speak to Joanna Yeates from when he left for Sheffield... he cannot add to anything as far as Dr Vincent Tabak is concerned because he didn't know him and wasn't there on Friday 17th December 2010..
While the tendency of your posts is 100 percent correct, you are quite mistaken in dismissing Greg's testimony. It was crucial in securing the guilty verdict. The boyfriend testified to "strange movements in the flat", which he tidied up before Joanna's parents arrived. He described these in detail, and the jury, as you and I would have done, took them to signify that a struggle had occurred. When Vincent Tabak declared "there was no struggle", the jury, understandably, did not believe him.

So I think you are unfair on Greg. I think he was a good witness, and I prefer to believe that there WAS a struggle - though he could also have invented these strange movements, without fear of being proved a liar. It is just that Vincent Tabak, as we on this forum can now see with some confidence, was not party to that struggle at all. It may have been the real killer who struggled with Joanna in the flat - or Greg himself - or all three of them.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 08:37:27 PM
Part 6...... Witness's with Evidence ....

Andrew Mott

A Forensics Officer who didn't say where Joanna Yeates was ...... A Forensic Officer who witnessed a body thawing and tried to stop this body thawing... A Forensics Officer who by his statement of said thawing body.... backs up another witness statement of a PC Martin Faithful, who didn't appear in court either, I believe ...  PC Martin Faithful in turn backed up the statement of The Birches, who didn't appear in court who found Joanna Yeates ....

Andrew Mott doesn't ever explain The Fire Services help in the recovery of Joanna Yeates and is evasive in his reply as to why there are NO Photographs of Joanna Yeates been recovered using straps and Broom Handles...

Peter Brotherton

A man who assumes the role of Chaplain... A man whom I believe to be a Prison Officer .. A man that could not substanciate any claims he made about the defendant Dr Vincent Tabak.... A man who first suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak confessed to him that he had killed Joanna Yeates ... A man that had absolutley NO PROOF that this conversation took place...

DCI Mark Luther

The DCI in charge of this case whom I had never heard of and had been made to think that it was DCI Phil Jones who was in Charge of the Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation.... DCI Phil Jones Never appears in court !!!

DS Karen Thomas

The very same Karen Thomas who interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland... knowing that the Complex Crime Unit where putting a case against Dr Vincent Tabak and therefore should have cautioned him as a suspect... Her statement only adds to what they did to Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland and nothing more ....

Tanya Nickson

Who found blood evidence apparently on the wall above the verge... We do not know if this blood on the wall was deposited as they brought her from behind the wall as I believe she was already placed.. Dr Delaneys testimony suggests that she was brought from one place by Officers and then placed by the roadside (VERGE).. The very same Tanja Nickson who had no business showing the Jury photographs of The Dead Joanna Yeates whilst Joanna Yeates parents were in court... They had avoided court earlier in the week because they knew these images were going to be shown... This was a stunt on Tanya Nicksons Part.... to gain a reaction from the jury...(IMO)

Lyndsey Lennen

The Forensics Analyst who always knew that the DNA evidence was partial...1000/1 yet she allowed the jury to think that there could be NO OTHER CONTRIBUTER other than Dr Vincent Tabak...

Lyndsey Farmery

Officially The IT Expert.... But a Power Point Pointer.... Showing the jury "Pointless slides of presumed searches that Dr Vincent Tabak was alledge to have made on various home and work computers... Evidence that should not have been allowed in court ...(IMO)...

DCI Geoffrey Colvin

Arresting Officer...  Only witnessed Dr Vincent Tabak' shock at being arrested ...

DC Richard Barnston

And his 200 page transcript of Interviews with Dr Vincent Tabak that didn't say anything.... Notice no videoed Interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak were shown to the Jury... when in most murder trials they are ...

DC Paul Derrick

Who's soul purpose was to make reference to Dr Vincent Tabaks first lawyer who was female ... adding Nothing to this case ....

Leaving me with 3 witness's .. I appear to have lost one... Think is PC Steve Archer... add no value... was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested.

Dr Delaney An accredited pathologist whom preformed Joanna Yeates Autopsy... whom has allowed us to learn from his testimony... that Joanna Yeates clothes were different than what she wore in the Ram.. And explained how 2 Officer... who more than likely were Fire Officers... Manovered Joanna Yeates and placed her on the 'Roadside ...

Dr Carey Another accredited Professional who carried out the second post mortem... And was the Defences medical expert...

Dr Jennifer Miller Another accredited medical professional who analysed Joanna Yeates stomach contents... These contents were sent to Scotland to be analysed by her ... (Odd) (IMO)....

"So out of 39 witness's you have 3 whom can make constructive factual evidence as to what happened to Joanna Yeates ..

So what were the other witness's ????? Flim Flam ??? they did nothing they did nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates ...

There evidence only added to the "Written Statement" Dr Vincent Tabak signed in September 2011...

No-one other than Dr Vincent Tabak supports "HIM" actually killing Joanna Yeates ... It is 'The Manslaughter Plea at the Old Bailey".. That seals his fate...

A manslaughter Plea that was never entered into as being "voluntary" or Involuntary" Manslaughter... Intent that was never established as to it being "Direct Intent" or "Oblique Intent"..

A whole Case built on Nothing...(IMO)... Nothing Physical putting Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna Yeates Flat... Nothing Physical putting Joanna Yeates In Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....

No CCTV Footage of Dr Vincent Tabak driving around with Joanna Yeates supposidly in the boot of his car... No Physical Witness who saw Dr Vincent Tabak commit this Crime...

And no exact time of death established by the Medical professional.... As Joanna Yeates death ranges between Dates

So we have what.... A Media Circus ????  Because I cannot see how these witness's proved that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates.... As there was NO Evidence to support this ...(IMO)...


EDIT:... We actually have 4 Medical professional.... One just slipped under the radar... Have posted about it further down....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 08:39:18 PM
While the tendency of your posts is 100 percent correct, you are quite mistaken in dismissing Greg's testimony. It was crucial in securing the guilty verdict. The boyfriend testified to "strange movements in the flat", which he tidied up before Joanna's parents arrived. He described these in detail, and the jury, as you and I would have done, took them to signify that a struggle had occurred. When Vincent Tabak declared "there was no struggle", the jury, understandably, did not believe him.

So I think you are unfair on Greg. I think he was a good witness, and I prefer to believe that there WAS a struggle - though he could also have invented these strange movements, without fear of being proved a liar. It is just that Vincent Tabak, as we on this forum can now see with some confidence, was not party to that struggle at all. It may have been the real killer who struggled with Joanna in the flat - or Greg himself - or all three of them.

leonora... All I am establishing is that (IMO)... These people should not have given evidence ...as they witnessed nothing (IMO)..

Gregs statement establishes what Greg did and Nothing else ....


All of the witness statements were crucial in returning a guilty verdict... Greg's just held more weight...

I was pointing out that virtually all the witness statements where there for the reason you say Gregs statement was therefore.... To Secure a Conviction against Dr Vincent Tabak... They proved nothing..... (IMO)...


Edit:.... Greg's statement doesn't prove if a fight happened in the Flat.. If he saw blood when he got home....

Nothing in Greg's statement tells us if something happened to Joanna Yeates in Flat 1... Because he tidied up and the flat was already contaminated with the people who had been in and out of it.. When they said that Joanna Yeates was Missing.... Adding to the fact he saw nothing.... So literally he is a useless witness.... (IMO)...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 18, 2017, 09:24:00 PM
I have found my last witness... and it wasn't PC Steve Archer who was one of the 20 witness's who had statements read...

* Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )

She informed the court as to the fact that Greg Reardon had rung at about 1:00am on Monday the 20th December 2010 to report Joanna Yeates as a Missing Person.....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 08:08:17 AM
Just to add.... their could be 20 read out statements:.... I amended my post because i had named someone twice... But on reflection I may have to go back and change it back to 20.. Statements that were read out...


The other person that was in this collection of invisible witness.... Was a Person by the name of Dr White... All I know about Dr White was that he/she was in attendance at an autopsy... So on saying that a statement must have been read out at court, to include Dr White as a witness....


OMG... I have read it wrong.... Dr White did an Autopsy... So where was Dr White in court???

Quote
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

Dr Delaney watches Dr White Do an autopsy on the 17th January 2011....

So before anyone has been charged... They perform an Autopsy on Joanna Yeates for what I believe must be an Autopsy for "The Defence"..

Aren't they jumping the gun a little..... This is horrendous.... 3 days before they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak they have another Dr Performing an Autopsy on Joanna Yeates which can only be described as an Autopsy for a defendant...(IMO)....

This is extremely important.... Where was this Dr White In Court ??? Why wasn't Dr White in court, is more to the point....

They managed to slip that one in nearly unnoticed.... "Lord have mercy"!...

The 20 statements that are read out in court... are bad enough...
But one particular persons statement amongst all of the statements should have attended court.. (IMO)

And that is Dr White !!!!!


http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2

These live update pages take a while to load .....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 09:02:26 AM
Now after my excitement... I have thought of the other possible reason Dr White performs an AUTOPSY...

Is Dr White The Coronor ??? The Inquest that started but didn't finish ????

Or the inquest that could be closed by the 22nd January 2011 once someone had been charged ..???

So is Dr white A defences expert or is Dr white The Coronor ??

Still meaning that the said Dr White should have attended court at the trial ....(IMO)
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 09:21:53 AM
Again..... 3 days before they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak if Dr White is the Coronor... why has he started this Private Inquest so soon after she is Autopsied by Dr Delaney... None of the details are there for the Coronor ...

Quote
The coroner will open the inquest in order to issue a burial order or cremation certificate (if not already issued immediately after the post-mortem examination)  as well as hearing evidence confirming the identity of the deceased. The inquest will then be adjourned to be resumed at a later date. When the coroner's investigations are complete, a date for the inquest is set and the people who need to know will be told. Inquests are open to the public and journalists are usually present.
  It's not until apparently the Chaplain hears the imaginary confession of Dr Vincent Tabak, does Joanna yeates body get released for burial...

Which brings more questions ....

Well... When was the burial order issued ??

What evidence did Dr White hear ?? (if Dr White is indeed the Coronor )

What later date was set ???

So Dr White are you the Coronor ???

https://bereavementadvice.org/topics/death-certificate-and-coroners-inquest/coroners-inquests
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 09:28:52 AM
Dr White Is this you ??????

Quote
3.4 A meeting was called for 3
rd
January at Flax Bourton to discuss the mortuary plans with the
architect and the build co-ordinator. Before the meeting started the architect and build co-ordinator
stated that they had not been aware that any hospital cases were to be performed at the mortuary. A
Forensic Pathologist (Dr Hugh White) who has been heavily involved with the project also stated
that he thought Bath cases were excluded “as it would be a logistical nightmare.’ He was told that
the decision had already been taken.

If this is you... I know it says "Forensic Pathologist"... but are you The Coronor ???

https://democracy.bathnes.gov.uk/Data/Health%20and%20Social%20Services%20Overview%20&%20Scrutiny%20Panel/20070202/Agenda/07zAppendix1.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 09:32:45 AM
Now if I'm correct in assuming that you are "Thee" Dr White ... I think I can prove that you are indeed a Coroner...

But.... I have this also...
Quote
Pathologist Dr Hugh White said the toxic level of drugs combined with the large amount of alcohol had lead to Ms Cronin's death.

So if we are on the correct Dr White..... Why didn't he do the toxicology report for Joanna Yeates ... instead of it being sent all the way to Scotland ??????

He obviously does both.... Now interesting that bit of information... Why wouldn't he do the Toxicology ???

EDIT......

Quote
Name   :   Dr Hugh White
Address   :   Southmead Hospital
Southmead Road
    Gloucestershire
Post Code   :   BS10 5NB
Country   :   England
Telephone   :   0117 959 5623
Expertise   :   Accidental / unnatural death (Pathology)
Pathology / Coroners
Pathology Of Trauma / Death
Cases   :   Louis Corbett (2011-06-07)
Liam Cunliffe (2011-06-07)
 

So Joanna Yeates is NOT listed as one of his cases.... So was he the Coronor for The Joanna Yeates Case... or Was he supposed to be a defendants witness ????

This Dr White is a Home Office Forensic pathologist...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/6588959.stm

http://www.thelawpages.com/legal-directory/Dr-Hugh-White-6549-5.law
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 20, 2017, 09:57:20 AM
Congratulations on tracking down Dr. Hugh White! We know the names of the Coroner and the acting Coroner and the Deputy Assistant Coroner. These are all lawyers. Dr. White is a hands-on medical doctor.

I don't believe Dr White was working "for" the defence at all - quite the contrary. The timing of his "examination", two days before it was announced publicly that Joanna had not eaten the pizza, suggests that his task was to remove the contents of her digestive system and send these to Glasgow for analysis by Dr Jennifer Miller. Why was the latter so circumspect in court about her own role? - Presumably because the object of this grisly circus was to prevent the defence's hands-on pathologist, when he was appointed, from gaining legal access to evidence that Joanna had eaten the pizza, or whatever else she had eaten that would show she was still alive at the weekend.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 10:01:40 AM
Congratulations on tracking down Dr. Hugh White! We know the names of the Coroner and the acting Coroner and the Deputy Assistant Coroner. These are all lawyers. Dr. White is a hands-on medical doctor.

I don't believe Dr White was working "for" the defence at all - quite the contrary. The timing of his "examination", two days before it was announced publicly that Joanna had not eaten the pizza, suggests that his task was to remove the contents of her digestive system and send these to Glasgow for analysis by Dr Jennifer Miller. Why was the latter so circumspect in court about her own role? - Presumably because the object of this grisly circus was to prevent the defence's hands-on pathologist, when he was appointed, from gaining legal access to evidence that Joanna had eaten the pizza, or whatever else she had eaten that would show she was still alive at the weekend.


Dr White Should still have been in court to testify to what he did.....(IMO)...!!!  I don't believe that leonora... the stomach content would have been removed by Dr Delaney... (IMO)... I don't believe that Dr White Performed this task... Why would you leave someones stomach contents in them for 23 days ??


Dr Delaney would have emptied the stomach contents as late as Boxing Day... otherwise he would have not been able to perform The Autopsy... He needs to examine her stomach also.... As with the rest of her body....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 10:30:24 AM
But then I found this .....

Quote
Few people know about or understand the reasons behind the sacking, in February 2011, of Avon Coroner Paul Forrest

He was sacked but re-instated..... Then obviously sacked again.....

28th Sepetember 2010:
Quote
A coroner who was sacked after a dispute with Bristol City Council has been reinstated.

So who was the Coronor for Joanna Yeates ???? Was it  Dr White or was it Dr Forrest who was still working at Flax Bourton in January 2011.... Then sacked again in February 2011 ?? (or where ever this Inquest was opened ??)
 
If it was Dr Forrest who started Joanna Yeates Inquest... Is this the reason that the Inquest was never completed.... because they sacked him??

Either way Dr white has some explaining to do.... (IMO)

https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494517.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-11427227
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 10:43:46 AM
Really thinking about this Dr White... He can't have been the Coronor if Dr Forrest was still working...

So why is Dr White mentioned at The trial of Joanna Yeates ... ????? was he like I first thought??

He was going to be the Defences medical expert ?????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 10:49:23 AM
If he is the defences medical expert.... Then how was that possible before Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested ???

This autopsy was carried out .. 2 days before The Sobbing Girl calls ...3 days before Dr Vincent tabak's arrest ....  And this autopsy is carried out the day before The Yeates family appeal for information.... Which prompts the Sobbing Girl to Call Police about Dr Vincent Tabak..

How would they know that they need a Medical expert for the Defence before someone is charged??? If Dr Forrest was the Official Coronor at that time ???

Edit:.... If Dr white is The defences medical expert,, because Dr Forrest is still working as Coronor in January 2011..

What evidence did they have against Dr Vincent Tabak to arrest him... ??? If 3 days before his arrest they are performing autopsies ??

 Repeating myself... which is One day before The Yeates Emotional appeal... prompting the sobbing Girl to call ... which leads to Dr Vincent Tabaks arrest !!

So what was Dr White ?????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 10:57:33 AM
This gets weirder .....

Quote
gagging clauses were included in the severence agreement with Forrest and other staff sacked from their jobs in the Avon Coroners' Office in Flax Bourton.

So there was a gagging order in place when they sacked Dr Forrest... Why would that be ??? I wonder ???


Edit.... Just another thought... If Dr Forrest was under a gagging order... did Dr White actually attend the "Autopsy" on the 17th January 2011??

Or did they substitute in court ... Dr White for Dr Forrest because he had a gagging order in place ????

What did "Dr White" actually do???


https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2012/04/494517.html
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 20, 2017, 11:27:47 AM
You are very stubborn, nor do you pay attention, Nine. You are right, however, about Coroner Paul Forrest, who lost his case in the High Court against Bristol. There is a can of worms there, in full public view. During his suspension, Maria E. Voisin was acting as the Coroner for Avon & Somerset. Hers is the name on Joanna's death certificate. Her deputy assistant coroner was Terry Moore, who also rated a mention in connection with the release of the body.

Dr. Hugh White's CV,which you yourself found, describes him as a forensic pathologist. He gave evidence in several other grisly cases that were quoted in the news media and can be found online. He is not on the Home Office's register of pathologists, and therefore has to include on his CV that he does work for coroners.

Why leave the contents of the stomach in situ for 23 days? Presumably while Anne Reddrop negotiated with Dr White, Jennifer Miller and other hands-on professionals about keeping them out of the hands of the defence pathologist. It was important to make public that Joanna had not eaten the pizza just before Vincent Tabak was arrested. The crying girl had nothing to do with this.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 11:44:45 AM
You are very stubborn, nor do you pay attention, Nine. You are right, however, about Coroner Paul Forrest, who lost his case in the High Court against Bristol. There is a can of worms there, in full public view. During his suspension, Maria E. Voisin was acting as the Coroner for Avon & Somerset. Hers is the name on Joanna's death certificate. Her deputy assistant coroner was Terry Moore, who also rated a mention in connection with the release of the body.

Dr. Hugh White's CV,which you yourself found, describes him as a forensic pathologist. He gave evidence in several other grisly cases that were quoted in the news media and can be found online. He is not on the Home Office's register of pathologists, and therefore has to include on his CV that he does work for coroners.

Why leave the contents of the stomach in situ for 23 days? Presumably while Anne Reddrop negotiated with Dr White, Jennifer Miller and other hands-on professionals about keeping them out of the hands of the defence pathologist. It was important to make public that Joanna had not eaten the pizza just before Vincent Tabak was arrested. The crying girl had nothing to do with this.


That brings us back to Dr White.... What autopsy was Dr White carrying out on the 17th January 2011 with Dr Delaney in attendance ????


The crying girl does... If they are doing an Autopsy for a defendant who hasn't yet been arrested... or even had a Sobbing Girl call before said defendants autopsy is needed for evidence in court ....(IMO)...

Maria E. Voisin name may have been on the Coronors report... But did she perform the Coronors Autopsy... ??? Dr Forrest still could have done the Autopsy before he was sacked... leaving Maria E. Voisin who was acting Coroner to sign Joanna Yeates certificate .....

Ah... So February 11th  2011 Dr Forrest is sacked.... Maria E.Voisin then signs the death certificate... allowing for the burial of Joanna Yeates on the 14th February 2011 I believe...

So Dr Forrest could still have started The Inquest.... (IMO)... still leaving the unanswered question of what role did Dr White play in this trial???

If he isn't mentioned in court because he was 'A Coronor"... as you have pointed out Maria E. Voisin signed off on that.... Why was Dr White performing another Autopsy on Joanna Yeates on the 17th January 2011 ????

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 11:58:27 AM
So why wasn't the Coronor the first to see Joanna Yeates ????

leonora... If you believe it was Maria E.Voisin  who was the Coronor and not Dr Forrest Then is it possible that the lady in the purple coat,who is there, when they find Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane is Maria E.Voisin and the guy with her in the red coat could be Terry Moore,..
I was always under the presumption that the Coronor attended the Scene of Crime


Edit... But it couldn't be that if they didn't know on the 25th December 2010 how Joanna Yeates had died ...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 12:14:09 PM
OMG.... Talking about Marie E.Voisin possibly being the lady in the purple coat.... Then it dawned on me ....

Quote
   25 DEC 2010     UK
Police searching for missing architect find female body
Image attached ....

Why are the Police as early as 25th December 2010.... carrying out a finger tip search if at this point if they did not know that Joanna Yeates was Murdered ????

No Autopsy...has been performed she is supposed to be frozen...  How do they know at this point she died of strangulation and not Hypothermia ??????


Notice the "Forensic Tent" that is erected.... !!!!!


https://www.channel4.com/news/police-searching-for-missing-architect-find-female-body

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 12:40:01 PM
Hang on a minute......

Again why the full on Police Force... Forensics etc... When they find Joanna Yeates if all she was .... was "A Missing Person:???

We have No photgraphs inside the flat that show a struggle....(The flat is pristeen ).... So how did they decide that 'Longwood lane " was the second Scene of Crime???? Or did they believe that it was "The First Scene of Crime ??? meaning they knew more about her death than they are telling us .... So did they know she was dead before they found her at Longwood Lane ????

Still making me question how they knew to bring out the Cavalary... for a "Missing Person"... who is found dead in The Foetal Position... Frozen apparently in this position... Who was there for 8 days apparently...

How could they immediately treat this as a "Murder " Investigation... If Dr Delaney hadn't completed his Autopsy???

Until the next day... to tell the world that Joanna Yeates had been strangled ?????

Edit..... This was always a "Murder Inquiry"... (IMO)...they treated it as such from The day DS Mark Saunders makes his appeal... So did they already have Joanna Yeates body ???? Or was someone sending them information on where to find her ????

Is that what they meant when they said: "We have a sample of you handwriting".... ?? When refering to The "Pizza and the Note that was sent to the pub"??

Something is very strange here .....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 12:45:36 PM
.

Dr. Hugh White's CV,which you yourself found, . He is not on the Home Office's register of pathologists, and therefore has to include on his CV that he does work for coroners.


So why does it say he is... here then?? : And that was in 2008!

Quote
Dr Hugh White, the Home Office forensic pathologist who was asked to carry out a second post-mortem on her body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/3452599/Receptionist-died-after-having-a-facelift.html

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 20, 2017, 04:25:10 PM
A coroner is a lawyer. He/she does NOT perform an autopsy or a post-mortem, nor even go near the body. There is no reason for a coroner to visit the scene of the crime. His/her task is to hold an inquest and examine witnesses in a coroner's court and issue a verdict on whether a suspicious death was a result of natural causes, an accident, or the result of the actions of third parties who should be prosecuted. These witnesses will normally include the pathologist(s) who performed the post-mortem examinations.

Paul Forrest, the suspended coroner, is not a doctor. He is a lawyer. As far as I recall, you posted some worthwhile source material some time ago on the function of coroners' inquests and the official excuses for adjourning them.

Maria Voisin did not "sign" Joanna's death certificate. She is, however, the designated "informant". The identity of the physician who certified the cause of death ("Compression of the neck") is not stated on the certificate. The registrar is named as S. L. Thomas.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 20, 2017, 04:31:39 PM
So why does it say he is... here then?? : And that was in 2008!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/3452599/Receptionist-died-after-having-a-facelift.html
Presumably he was taken off the Home Office's panel after 2008. Perhaps that is why Dr. White could be persuaded to take part in a complicated arrangement with Dr Russell Delaney and Jennifer Miller whose purpose seems to have been to mislead the public and the jury about the fate of the pizza. What other conclusion can we draw, since he did not himself testify to the nature of the work he carried out on Joanna's body, and Dr Delaney was extremely furtive about Dr White's role? Had he been associated with the defence, as you so stubbornly believe, then it would have been the defence pathologist Dr Nat Cary who mentioned him in court, not prosecution witness Dr Delaney.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 20, 2017, 06:14:19 PM
Maria Voisin did not "sign" Joanna's death certificate. She is, however, the designated "informant". The identity of the physician who certified the cause of death ("Compression of the neck") is not stated on the certificate. The registrar is named as S. L. Thomas.

Quote
author=Leonora link=topic=8060.msg417753#msg417753 date=1500546467]
You are very stubborn, nor do you pay attention, Nine. You are right, however, about Coroner Paul Forrest, who lost his case in the High Court against Bristol. There is a can of worms there, in full public view. During his suspension, Maria E. Voisin was acting as the Coroner for Avon & Somerset. Hers is the name on Joanna's death certificate. Her deputy assistant coroner was Terry Moore, who also rated a mention in connection with the release of the body.


I misunderstood your previous quote obviously.....


Doesn't that strike you as odd.... That who ever pronounced her dead is not on the death certificate ??? There must be two certificate then leonora....


have you seen this certificate leonora??/ because right up until the 11th February 2011... Dr Forrest was still the Coroner .....

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 21, 2017, 09:30:43 AM
I think I have found what has been staring us in the face all this time ..


I just found this in an article, which got me thinking:....

Quote
Another neighbour, Liz Lowman, said: ‘He said he saw two to three people leave the communal basement flat entrance talking in mild quiet tones. He does not remember what sex they are or what they look like.’

Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... None of us know what it really looks like inside..... and we are all very much aware of the Front Door of Dr Vincent Tabak... But then when I read that comment... I started to think about it.....

And why maybe CJ... second witness statement is so hush hush..... CJ did see something on the night he came home... what or who he saw is a different matter all together.... But more to the point is where he saw them....

The Basement flats we know something about... But I believe after reading that statement... That It's quite possible that there is another exit from Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... That leads directly to the Communal front door...

I started to think how, before they where turned into basement flat you would have accessed those basements.... And quite simply there has to be a way to access them from inside the building.... There no two ways about it....(IMO).. Yes you can now access them from outside.... But I am almost positive you can still access Dr Vincent Tabaks flat from inside as well.....

In the corner of Dr Vincent Tabak's flat is an area that I have marked on the image I have attached... I believe that this is the area where there would be access to the Communal front door that we see CJ.. coming in and out of....

So Yes... Dr Vincent Tabak could have used the little gate... But not by going past Joanna Yeates flat... But By coming through 44 Canygne Roads front door and going diagonally across the grass.. as The Yeates had said they had seen a couple going diagnoally across the grass in an interview ....

 Why else would they do that just to get to their glass plated door? why wouldn't they just walk straight up the path and walk past Joanna Yeates flat to get to there's....There has to be a reason they walked diagonally across the grass... And I believe it is so they can reach the communal front door...

There has to be internal steps from Dr Vincent Tabaks flat to the main front door.... All basements in those Victorian houses have internal access... It's just like cellar access.... No-one is going to go outside to get to their cellar now are they??

So the same has to apply to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... (IMO)... It's the internals of the building you need to consider.. And really we don't see loads of Police going in and out of Dr vincent Tabak's flat do we ... No.. we see them always use the Communal front door.... !! We just assumed it was because of CJ... And not one  of us stopped to think that maybe thats how they had gained access to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat...

So maybe Dr Vincent Tabak did come out of the communal front door.... maybe Joanna yeates had gone in the communal front door to get her mail...  But did they come out of the communal front door at the same time together ... Or was Joanna Yeates actually already with someone and Dr Vincent Tabak was just leaving to go to ASDA for his shopping....

So yes... I can see why they would want of keep CJ's statement quite... Because if he mentioned Dr Vincent Tabak coming out of that door and he had to go to trial to be a witness... everyone would know that Dr Vincent Tabak had another exit out of that building... therefore not needing to go past Joanna Yeates flat to access the little gate ....(IMO)...


Is the green tarpauling there just to stop people seeing that the Police are not going in and out of Dr Vincent Tabak's flat through that door?? It's very possible !!



 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4nS0epQ9g
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 21, 2017, 10:24:25 AM
How are the Police still Forensically Examining the Property of CJ... once they have released him... They have had 4 days at this point to take what ever they need from CJ's Flat....

But they keep coming in and out of that front door with bags and bags of stuff.... They have the keys to the building.... Dr Vincent Tabak is no longer staying there.... So who's items are they taking out of the front entrance of that building????

They let CJ go... they knew they had nothing on him.... So why are they still going in and out of that front door !!!!

On the 5th January 2011... They are still coming out of that Front door with items .... That is 7 days after CJ's arrest
and 4 days after they have released him.... They still wouldn't have access to Cj's flat after they released him... They should and would have got all of the Forensics from the flat in those days that CJ was in custody... (IMO)..

On the third image.. We see the Forensics coming out with camera equipment.... Is this when they photographed Dr Vincent Tabak's flat??? Remember DCI Mark Luther showed the court images from inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat... And we never saw them go down the side of the building with anything!!


If we really think about it... there are NO media photo's of them going to Dr Vincent Tabaks flat with camera's etc.. by means of accessing it down the side of the building.... No Forensics with bags and bags of stuff walking up the side of that building from Dr Vincent Tabak's front door...

And they wouldn't be walking past Joanna Yeates flat with all of Dr Vincent Tabak's stuff either.... So how do they take things from Dr Vincent Tabak's flat without the media seeing it ?????

Straight through the front door..... (IMO)... Meaning they were forensically searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before he was arrested.... (IMO)... !!

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 21, 2017, 10:33:12 AM
I believe they were searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before they arrested him.....

Look closley at the circled image I have attached.... That forensics officer has a Laptop in her hands... Now we know CJ didn't have a laptop... So who's laptop is she carrying.... along with what looks like a briefcase or Orgainizer..

They (IMO)... were already searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... and gaining access to it internally.... (IMO)...!!!!

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 21, 2017, 11:04:16 AM
Is this DCI Mark Luther.... That Policeman looks like he's in charge to me ....  This is the day after CJ is released... Mark Luther did show photographs from inside Dr Vincent Tabak's flat and at this point I don't believe they should still be searching CJ's flat.... (IMO)..

So is  that Policeman I have circled Mark Luther.... what ever rank he maybe ?????

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 21, 2017, 11:41:22 AM
I believe they were searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before they arrested him.....

Look closley at the circled image I have attached.... That forensics officer has a Laptop in her hands... Now we know CJ didn't have a laptop... So who's laptop is she carrying.... along with what looks like a briefcase or Orgainizer..

They (IMO)... were already searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... and gaining access to it internally.... (IMO)...!!!!
Are we sure it was a laptop that Christopher Jefferies didn't have? He has stated (though not under oath) that he doesn't have a television, but surely he has a computer? Weren't the police obliged to retrieve his more necessary possessions for him, once he had been released on bail and told firmly by his own lawyer to lie low indefinitely?

Is it possible that the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was a ploy to enable the police to use his keys to gain access to Vincent Tabak & Tanja Morson's flat without their knowledge nor consent? Surely the young couple took their laptop with them to Holland, both to send and receive e-mails (amongst others, to VT's friend in China on New Year's Eve), and to follow the progress of the Joanna Yeates murder inquiry, which was not reported at all in the non-English speaking countries?

What would the police have been looking for? Did they suspect Vincent or Tanja of planning a terror attack - which, of course, requires an understanding of the movement of crowds of people inside or outside buildings?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 21, 2017, 12:39:16 PM
I was looking at Cars that were removed from Canygne Road during the investigation.... I found this image interesting...


The information upon this images says that the Police are removing the car to get to the drain.... I don't think that would be the case ... personally.... Why not just get the driver to remove the car?? They would need permission to remove that car... You mean to tell me it has taken them until the 5th January to search that drain near her home.... Don't believe there is a drain there either ... To be honest... It look like there are NO drains down that part of the road .... (IMO)..


In fact looking closley at both pictures .... There is a little doorway in the wall where there is a silver car parked... You can see it as they take the blue car away...

On The Google images there is NO CAR PARKED There... And there is NO drain in the space where the silver car would have been....(IMO)...

So you have one of two choices.... (IMO)...

(A): It is Dr Vincent Tabak's Car... or car the he used ....

(B): Its Joanna Yeates car....

Because there doesn't seem to be a valuable reason to remove a random car of a street in that fashion.... (IMO)..

I have added 2 images... The Newspaper Article Image.. And a google image of the same place now ....


The Newspaper article implies that the car is taken from a different Street... when it is still Canygne Road .. that The car is removed from ....

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 22, 2017, 10:09:24 AM
I was looking at Cars that were removed from Canygne Road during the investigation.... I found this image interesting...


The information upon this images says that the Police are removing the car to get to the drain.... I don't think that would be the case ... personally.... Why not just get the driver to remove the car?? They would need permission to remove that car... You mean to tell me it has taken them until the 5th January to search that drain near her home.... Don't believe there is a drain there either ... To be honest... It look like there are NO drains down that part of the road .... (IMO)..


In fact looking closley at both pictures .... There is a little doorway in the wall where there is a silver car parked... You can see it as they take the blue car away...

On The Google images there is NO CAR PARKED There... And there is NO drain in the space where the silver car would have been....(IMO)...

So you have one of two choices.... (IMO)...

(A): It is Dr Vincent Tabak's Car... or car the he used ....

(B): Its Joanna Yeates car....

Because there doesn't seem to be a valuable reason to remove a random car of a street in that fashion.... (IMO)..

I have added 2 images... The Newspaper Article Image.. And a google image of the same place now ....


The Newspaper article implies that the car is taken from a different Street... when it is still Canygne Road .. that The car is removed from ....
Photos are Canynge Square.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 22, 2017, 01:01:50 PM
Well... I learnt something today a quote from Twitter....

Quote
Recalling my favourite quote from #Jogee :Hale: "One man's common sense is another man's stupidity"..she's going to be an excellent Pres ;)

Well what does that say about myself...  I always thought common sense was a valid guide of understanding the basics.. Yet I seem to maybe have failed...

How do I quantify 'Common Sense" ?? How do I quantify my "Common Sense"??

Now I have always said I applied common sense to my findings... But I now seem to need to question myself....

Maybe "Common Sense" is not the words I should be using... Unless...

I turned left and picked up an NVQ on "Common Sense" instead of "Manslaughter Law"... Then maybe I could quantify my responses .... *&*%£

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 22, 2017, 02:48:18 PM
I was trying to understand ... How the Police seemed to spend days searching CJ's Flat....

Now a search warrant as far as I am aware, pertains to certain Items that are on the search warrant in relation to a particular crime...
 I believe I am correct in thinking, that If Items are on show and are seen, then they can also take said items as part of the warrant....

Which brings me back to DCI Phil Jones.... And also my belief, that they searched Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat/ Or Maybe it's Joanna yeates Flat DCI Phil Jones is referring too...

Quote

Major Crime always comes under complex crime as far as I can tell...
There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminatedhttp://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg411592#msg411592

Well... They wouldn't have had a warrant to search CJ's kitchen units to that extent.... they were not looking for places to hide Drugs or places to hide knives... And Joanna Yeates couldn't possibly have been hidden there...

Did they have a warrant to rip CJ's flat apart at the seams ???? I doubt it...

We are then left with.. Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat or Joanna Yeates flat....

If they didn't have a warrant already to search Dr Vincent Tabak's flat as they hadn't arrested him at this point, it only leaves Joanna Yeates Flat... So did they find the trainers under Joanna Yeates kitchen Unit behind the Kickboard???

I want to look at DCI Phil Jones Statement to The Leveson:...

Quote

Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. So when the forensic lines of inquiry were completed, he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which is then when he was released from his bail without charge.

This statement from DCI Phil Jones flies in the face of Lydnsey Lennen saying they turned everything around in 48 hours... So these trainers should have been turned around in 48 hours... Did they test all of these items they collected ???? Because it takes them weeks to collect everything ...

DCI Phil Jones just says house ... and implies that it was CJ.... But House includes 3 flats belonging to CJ...

Now I am going back to say that the Trainers were located in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat...

We have to remember that the Police thought that Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ had colluded....  Now to check for blood on these trainers... would not take until march... (IMO).. And if that was the real reason they say they let CJ go and Bail was lifted... That should have been a lot sooner (IMO)...

Did the trainers come from Dr Vincent Tabaks flat ??? I'll say NO... because they would have been introduced as evidence in court...

So they had to come from Joanna Yeates flat....

DCI Phil Jones is either admitting one of two things in that statement....

(A): That they suspected CJ of being a Serial Killer

(B): CJ had colluded with Dr Vincent Tabak....

(C): They knew there was someone else who was the killer....

I'll explain....  Hear we have a bit of an apology to CJ along time after he's been released on bail... CJ has to fight tooth and nail for this apology....

Quote
"This is an unusual step to take but these were exceptional circumstances. I had a private meeting with Mr Jefferies on Friday and hope to use his experience to inform our serious crime investigations in the future."

So Serious Crime Investigations ....
Quote
Who should attend
​Candidates M​​​UST;
Be of substantive Detective Inspector rank or above or agency/Police Staff equivalent, or awaiting promotion to that rank.
Have access to the investigation of serious and complex crime.
Be PIP Level 2 competent.
Have completed in-force diversity & leadership training.

Serious Crime always come under the Complex Crime umbrella ... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/contents/enacted

So why was 'The Serious Crime Unit involved wiht The Joanna Yeates investigation ????

Back to the trainers.... Where did they secure the trainers from ....???

It cannot have been from Joanna Yeates flat... according to the Forensic Photo's we have come to know ... I say this because.. there is NO Forensic Powder on The Kickboard  of the Sink Unit in Joanna Yeates Flat....

So we are left with Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat...

Quote
Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken.In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard.

So DCI Phil Jones is talking about there initial Forensic search I believe... Because he would have said Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... Now... Did they search Dr Vincent Tabak's flat at the same time they were looking at CJ's Flat??? without said warrant for Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....

Because the Forensic Pictures tell us it wasn't Joanna Yeates Flat... !!

Or.... Is it Joanna Yeates Flat and they knew who's profile it was ???  There's not a lot of options left..... (IMO)...


(I have attached image of Kickboards in Joanna Yeates Flat...)

http://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Learning/Professional-Training/Investigation/Pages/Management-of-Serious-Crime-Investigations.aspx

http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/joanna-yeates-police-apologise-christopher-jefferies
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 22, 2017, 03:14:56 PM
                                 The Right To A Fair Trial

Quote
The Right to a Fair Trial means that people can be sure that processes will be fair and certain. It prevents governments from abusing their powers. A Fair Trial is the best means of separating the guilty from the innocent and protecting against injustice. Without this right, the rule of law and public faith in the justice system collapse. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of a just society.

How could Dr Vincent Tabak's trial be classed as a fair trial.... 

The presumption of Innocence

Quote
A fundamental element of the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proved guilty following a fair trial. This is why the responsibility falls on the state to prove guilt and to discharge the presumption of innocence.

So my question is:... How can you attend your own trial as a guilty man.. "Guilty of Manslaughter"... When the basis of a fair trial is the presumption of Innocence ????

Meaning how was the trial Fair????

OMG... there must be something about this trial that legal bods can see has hasn't been followed within the Law ....



https://www.fairtrials.org/about-us/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/the-presumption-of-innocence/

https://www.fairtrials.org/about-us/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 22, 2017, 03:37:43 PM
I know I had posted before about "Guilty" until proven "Guiltier".... And I think this is an extremely important matter....

Everyone in Bristol and beyond knew or was aware of The Joanna Yeates 'Murder Case"as it was all over The National media...... And therefore any Juror that would be selected would have been more than aware that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently... "Pled "Guilty " to Manslaughter in May 2011...

When we come to court... Dr Vincent Tabak should be on the stand as a defendant who has the presumption of "Innocence"....

Even if.. he had "Pled " Guilty to "Manslaughter " In May 2011"  that information should have been kept away from the general public and potential Jurors until the end of the trial....

It's a bit like when they take previous convictions into account on sentencing....

The Jury should Never have been informed that Dr Vincent Tabak had "Plead Guilty to Manslaughter until after their verdict.... (IMO)...

Then the trial would have been somewhat fairer... But they are informed through the media ... and they are also the "Prosecution"... (I Believe)...

Quote
Nigel Lickley suggested to Tabak that, rather than being invited
in, as Tabak had told the court, he may have knocked on her door with an excuse that the
cat had strayed into his flat and Tabak fiercely rejected this scenario. The Defendant
admits manslaughter but denies murder.
He repeatedly apologised to Yeates' family and
boyfriend, Greg Reardon, his own family and his girlfriend Tanja Morson.

Denying Dr Vincent Tabak the "Presumption of Innocence" at his own trial... Therefore making this trial wholly unfair and a breach of Dr Vincent Tabak's human Rights... (IMO)....

Basically ... The media should have never been allowed to tell the world that Dr Vincent Tabak had "Pled" Guilty to Manslaughter" unless.. Ann Reddropp accepted said.. "Guilty Plea".... But she wanted the world and his dog to know that they would never accept this "Manslaughter Plea"....

Meaning that Dr Vincent Tabak could Never have a Fair Trial As They had already prejudiced any jury... With the divulging to the world in May 2011 as to Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt... And reaffirmed this "GUILT" to the Jury in October 2011 at Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial as they had already known what had happened at The Old Bailey in May 2011....!!!! (IMO)..

So on that basis alone Dr Vincent Tabak deserves a retrial... As the "Conviction in My Opinion" is unsafe ...!!!

Edit...All through the trial... Th media reports that Dr Vincent Tabak denies "Murder" but admits to "Manslaughter".... How should we all know this before the verdict has been announced !!!!

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 22, 2017, 03:50:53 PM
So we are left with 3 options: (IMO)..

(A): Ann Reddrop accepts Dr Vincent Tabaks 'Guilty Plea to manslaughter

(B): This evidence is kept from the Public and the Jury until after the verdict....

(C): The case is thrown out, because the revelation of The "Guilty Plea To Manslaughter" was already made public to
       the Nation in May 2011... Information that was made very public...Which PREJUDICED This Trial.... (IMO)

Edit.... Heres a question....

How many articles have been written about Dr Vincent Tabak admitting "Guilty to Manslaughter' before the trial has completed are there ???

If that isn't a flagrant breech of "Law of Presumption of Innocence"... I don't know what is !!!!

Double Edit:.... The Problem is... The Jury only ever had the option to find Dr Vincent Tabak "Guilty of Murder" also..... Doubly affirming that Dr Vincent Tabak's Manslaughter Plea would help in the jury deliberations ....(IMO)

Triple Edit.... Can anyone on the evidence presented and "Not Knowing".. Dr Vincent Tabak had "Pled" Guilty to "Manslaughter".. Say he was "Guilty of Murder??? ... I don't believe so...

The Evidence was only presented to show "INTENT"... And how does a couple of searches show "Intent"???

The Jury had to be fully aware that "Dr Vincent Tabak had "Plead "Guilty To Manslaughter" to start with... To evaluate that he intended to "Murder" Joanna Yeates... Or else... You have a naff story and a couple of searches to prove this.... And No Witness's that have seen Dr Vincent Tabak do anything....!!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 22, 2017, 04:09:58 PM
Quote
The jury did not hear during the trial that when police delved into Tabak's computers after his arrest they discovered an interest in hardcore pornography, some of which featured strangulation and bondage.

He accessed a portal to a pornographic site on the day he killed Yeates. Following the killing he sometimes navigated between reports about her disappearance and pornography.


Police were particularly interested in an image on one of his computers showing a slight blonde woman, resembling Yeates, with her pink top pulled up.

Police analysts also found that during business trips Tabak researched escort agencies. While in Los Angeles shortly before his attack on Yeates, police believe, he may have twice used the services of a sex worker, once after checking into a hotel under a false name.


If all that Information was supposed to be Prejudicial to Dr Vincent Tabak's trial... Then how could the fact that the Jury already knew he'd pled "Guilty to Manslaughter'... Not be seen as Predudical to Dr Vincent Tabaks trial ????

Answers to The Court of Appeal please !!!! Someone needs to do something ....(IMO)...!!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-guilty-joanna-yeates-murder
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 22, 2017, 05:23:53 PM
Ah.... I'm just bending my husbands ear again... And then I thought...


Quote
At Line 292 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words
‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
and at home he Googled
‘Los Angeles murder case’

Why is this relevant?????

Why didn't the Jury pick up on this .....

Dr Vincent Tabak researching "Manslaughter in English law" would only be relevant if the Jury had an option to find him "Guilty" of "Manslaughter".... But they were not giving that option....

So that search shouldn't really be irrelevant.... It's only relevant... If the jury are aware that Dr Vincent Tabak has already "Pled guilty " to "Manslaughter "...

Reaffirmimg the Prosecutions Case ... That Dr Vincent Tabak was Cunning and deceitful...  But how can that be the case if "Manslaughter" wasn't even on the table ????

The Jury would need to know the relevance of said search ....(IMO)... Therefore showing they were already aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's "Manslaughter Plea " before their deliberations.... (IMO)...

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 22, 2017, 08:35:24 PM
Well... I learnt something today a quote from Twitter....

Well what does that say about myself...  I always thought common sense was a valid guide of understanding the basics.. Yet I seem to maybe have failed...

How do I quantify 'Common Sense" ?? How do I quantify my "Common Sense"??

Now I have always said I applied common sense to my findings... But I now seem to need to question myself....

Maybe "Common Sense" is not the words I should be using... Unless...

I turned left and picked up an NVQ on "Common Sense" instead of "Manslaughter Law"... Then maybe I could quantify my responses .... *&*%£
"Common sense" is acknowledged to be difficult to quantify. Judges expect jurors to use their common sense. I believe that common sense is what enables the majority of people to make appropriate decisions in their own lives, in most cases, without having to carry out anything like a rigorous analysis. But not everyone will agree with me.

On the other hand, common sense goes wrong in the majority of public issues that we are expected to understand and on which we form points of view.

A couple of months after VT's trial, I concluded that anyone ought to be able to see at once that the verdict was wrong, on the grounds that the prosecution never once indicated his motive. No matter how little anyone knew about the case, commonsense suggests that a person such as VT would not commit murder without a very strong motive. But evidently most people do not see it like that.

In my opinion, the sort of people who analyse murder cases online evince above-average abilities for lateral thinking, but diminished levels of common sense.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 22, 2017, 09:31:18 PM

I had never heard of it before ... You learn something new every day  ?{)(**

Origin
Late 16th century (in the sense ‘prove by argument or evidence’): from Latin evincere ‘overcome, defeat’
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 23, 2017, 08:28:05 PM
Anyone any thought about the publics awarness of the fact that Dr Vincent tabak 'Pled "Guilty to Manslaughter"? 5 months before the trial commenced in October 2011 ??

Also that it was never entered into whether it was 'Voluntary" or "Involuntary" Manslaughter
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 24, 2017, 08:57:37 AM
Another revealing quote from DCI Phil Jones :

Quote
Mr Philip Jones
The Gold Group, sir, was comprised of the Chief Constable, the gold commander was the Assistant Chief Constable for Protective Services, and the head of corporate communications, and they would meet daily. So they had an overview of the media interest and they were able to manage and deal with that, allowing me to concentrate on the investigation.

Why was Assistant Chief constable for Protective Services, Involved with the Joanna Yeates case ???

More evidence that they saw this as a Complex Crime...

Why Protective services ??? That's witness protect amongst other things....

I believe that The Assistant Chief Constable  for Protective Services is Assistant Chief Constable John Long.... The PDF I have attached lists him between 2008/2011

Why are so many high ranking officers involved in this "Simple Murder Case" ???

Quote
Protective Service Elements

Serious and Organised Crime

Our primary role is to ensure that our communities are kept safe from the threat of serious
and organised criminality such as drugs, gun crime and terrorism.
The force is continually seeking to deter, dismantle and disrupt serious and organised
criminal activity within the force area. This involves a review of our approach to intelligence
gathering and the Force Intelligence Unit to ensure that demands can be met. In addition
significant work is being undertaken with partners both locally and nationally through for
example; CDRP’s, Probation, UKBA and SOCA.

I keep coming across IBM and Southwest One.... Is that who Lyndsey Farmery worked for ??

This Southwest One is interesting...
Quote
Speaking under Parliamentary Privilege at the House of Commons on 18 September
2012, Ian Liddell-Grainger, MP for Bridgwater and West Somerset, told MPs: “There
is a booby-trap in the contract that forces Somerset to compensate IBM if spending
falls. Last week, the County Council had to take the decision to take £2.7m from
contingency funds to pay the company off. If spending remains at the current level,
which it probably will, Somerset will have to fork out £2.7m every year for the next
five years. That is £13.5m, plus a £5m subsidy to the Avon and Somerset force.”(21)

Well a lot was spent on "The Joanna Yeates Case".... that was a simple murder!! How can Policing be for profit??

Again the review was due to happened just days after they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak...

Quote
The Southwest One contract is not available to the public, and the figures for both
the amount of savings and the level of taxpayer funded investment have varied
wildly. Despite evidence of failure to make savings agreed, Somerset County Council
24
and Southwest One ended up in a legal dispute over levels of savings delivered by
Strategic Procurement Services. The company brought the case to court, saying it
was entitled to payments when savings reach a certain level.

So how many individuals that worked on the Joanna Yeates case where employed by Southwest One ??

Quote
Technology Services

Based at Police Headquarters at Portishead with a small team based at County Hall, Taunton, the department covers both Application Services & Infrastructure Services. These services provide many varied services including solutions, support, and along with developing business applications for our customers.

Portishead?? isn't that where The Joanna Yeates case Head Quarters was ???

How can the Police benefit from using this Service ??

Quote
Rewards and benefits

Wellbeing - Southwest One is committed to maintaining the work-life balance of its employees. Flexibility in working arrangements is an important tool in enabling employees to maintain or improve their balance between home and work.

Southwest One Group Stakeholder Pension Plan - Southwest One offers you membership of a group stakeholder pension plan with Scottish Life to help you save for your future. The plan will belong to you and when you save into it so will Southwest One and the taxman (unless you choose to opt out). This will boost your savings and help you to reach your retirement goals.

Life Assurance Scheme - Subject to eligibility, employees have the opportunity to join the Southwest One Group Life Assurance Plan. The benefit provided by the scheme is a lump sum benefit of four times your basic salary upon your death whilst in service.

Income Protection Plan - Subject to eligibility, employees have the opportunity to join the Income Protection Plan. This is an insured ill-health benefit, which becomes available after 5 ½ years’ continuous service.

Eye Vouchers - Southwest One will pay eyesight tests for employees who are regular computer users.

Employee Support Groups - Employees in Southwest One can now access Employee Support Groups available from Avon and Somerset Constabulary and include:-

It appears to be a complete conflict of Interests....(IMO)...  So how many people who were actual Police.. worked on the Joanna Yeates Case ??

I can't get my head around this ... It's mental...

Tracey Hayley
Quote
Public Sector
Programme Director and Head of Organisational Development
Company NamePublic Sector
Dates EmployedDec 2007 – Mar 2010  Employment Duration2 yrs 4 mos
LocationSouth West England
Delivery of first Joint Venture Company between three public sector authorities and a commercial supplier.
Legal and commercial negotiations, partnership problem solving, negotiating and influencing. Collaboration, consultation, employee relations.
Coaching, mentoring, leadership development, transformational change, cultural and organisational change. Programme Management (OGC certificate in Managing Successful Programmes).
Strategic Planning, risk management, performance and process improvement.
Corporate lead on change management, performance improvement, planning, quality and standards


She worked with Lyndsey Farmery on Operation Jupiter... Also we find :

Quote
Scott Fulton
Digital Product Manager ✔ Public Speaker ✔ Helping build digital products & teams that delight customers ✔17 years exp.
February 13, 2009, Tracy worked with Scott in the same group

The very same Scott Fulton who is Head of E services at Avon and Somerset Police... Why didn't he appear in court???  Here's what Scott says about Tracey..

Quote
have known Tracy in different roles over the years and have always found her approachable and easy to work with.

More recently she played a key role in the work involved with Avon and Somerset Constabulary's outsourcing of key back office resources to what is now the joint venture company Southwest One.

From the meetings I was involved as part of this process she never appeared phased by the sheer volume of work and detail that was involved with regard to contracts and building relationships between the organisations.

This Case is just bizarre.... 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracyhayler/

http://www.southwestone.co.uk/index.html

https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/2015/09/22662.pdf

http://www.liddellgrainger.org.uk/images/DOCUMENTS/POLICE_and_Procurement.pdf

http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 24, 2017, 09:21:10 AM
this gets weirder.....

Tracey Hayler... who has a connection to Nailsea... who follows on Twitter "Martin Faithful"who has only 29 followers.. The very same  PC Plod... who's written witness statement claimed he had seen Joanna Yeates, body thawing..??? Who's witness statement backed up the Birches written witness statemnet.. who found Joanna Yeates

Then it gets weirder again.... I believe another lady he follows is a Karen Faithful could be his wife ..... who has never tweeted... But has ITV Press Centre, following her amongst her only 6 followers ..... Is that how the "Leaks" happened ?? Why would ITV Press Centre have a connection to a random Police Officers wife/relative ??

These connections cannot be coincidental... Can they ????

https://twitter.com/MartinFaithfull?lang=en

https://twitter.com/KarenF71?lang=en

https://twitter.com/TracyHayler?lang=en

Why would a plod have anything to do with someone in her position???? Do they know each other on a personal level??
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 24, 2017, 11:29:26 AM
Why would a Beat Bobby who area is "Redwood" see Joanna Yeates body... when realistically, it should be Senior Officers who are at the scene??

Quote
PCs Martin Faithfull and Greig Difford plus PCSOs Simon Tuong, Charlotte Thompson and Eleanor Hicks covering Redwood.


I find it odd that a PC Plod would even be at that scene to be honest... This was a massive Case... With Top Officers involved....  So why did PC Martin Faithful attend the scene ...not only that ... But becomes an integral witness, in written form.. of not only what Joanna Yeates body looked like on discovery.. But his statement which was read out  in court, I believe ..... says he was trying to stop a body from thawing....

You can't seriously believe , that they would allow a Plod right in the middle of the discovery of Joanna Yeates body... That doesn't make sense.... (IMO)..




http://www.northsomersettimes.co.uk/news/all-change-for-police-beat-teams-1-4043815
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 24, 2017, 07:38:41 PM
Now this next article is extremely odd.... I'll say for why....

The Article is written by the Daily Mail, but the date of the article is
Quote
By Daily Mail Reporter
CREATED: 14:38, 24 December 2010

There are many odd things in this article..... 

(A): The connection made to Claudia lawerence, and the  Assistance North Yorkshire Police gave Avon and Somerset Police..

Quote
North Yorkshire Police and Avon and Somerset Police confirmed yesterday that they have 'liaised' over the disappearance of Jo.

(B): It's still a missing person enquiry

Quote
'It is still a missing persons inquiry, I do want to stress that, but obviously it is very, very unusual for somebody just to go missing from their address in Clifton, which is why we do have grave concerns for Joanna, which is why we are putting the level of resource we are into this,' Mr Stratford said.

(C): Expecting Dr Delaney

Quote
'A pathologist will be attending the scene to examine the body.

(D):  This next statement is extremely odd.... I think it's what Jon Stratford says....

Quote
'All we want desperately is to find Joanna safe and well, so if she can hear this, please do get in touch with us and tell us where she is and we will take very good care of her.'

That is the weirdest thing ever !!!!

(E): And Then reporting she has been found ???

Quote
Police searching for missing Jo Yeates say they have found a woman's body close to a golf course.
No identification has been made on the body which was discovered about four miles from the flat she shared with her boyfriend.
The discovery was made today by a couple walking their dogs in the Failand area of North Somerset, an Avon and Somerset Police spokesman said.

How did they report the day before she was found ?????  In part of the article they talk like she is still missing.... This is Christmas Eve... How did the daily mail already report on her being found the day before ????


 This from the Guardian on the 24th December 2010

Quote
"All we want desperately is to find Joanna safe and well, so if she can hear this, please do get in touch with us and tell us where she is and we will take very good care of her."

Same phrase..... So how is it that The Daily Mail are reporting her found and Missing at the same time on 24th December 2010????



https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/24/ukcrime

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#ixzz4nm1GtiWj


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 24, 2017, 07:58:00 PM
And Just to make absolutely sure of this Dailey Mail report... The report is basically Reported Twice....

Once on The 24th December 2010 and Then again on the 25th December 2010...

The two images are basically the same.... same report virtually... But On different days....


The articles are virtually identical... apart from On The 24th December 2010 article it doesn't mention The forensic tent.. And Uniformed police officers with wooden poles were searching grass verges.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#comments

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341520/Missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-Police-womans-body.html#ixzz4nmETIEKF





[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 25, 2017, 10:20:16 AM
I keep going back to the flats layout.... There are 7 flats in the Building...

CJ Lived at Flat 5... he says so on 'The Lost Honour of CJ

Joanna Yeates Lived in Flat 1

Dr Vincent Tabak lived in Flat 2

How are these flats layed out....

I'll come back to that.....

I have been an idiot..... I thought the layout of Joanna Yeates flat was hallway with all the rooms leading off...ie: A door to the bedroom.. A door to the bathroom a door to the kitchen and a door to the frontroom.. I without thinking.. believed they all lead of the hallway... But that is not the case ...

I think it is the Tour Video that throw me... but it has also helped me ... looking at it again..

So you go into Joanna Yeates flat and turn left... Then you open the door to the L- Shaped front Room... Go into the Front Room then..... To your lefthand side is the door to the kitchen which is inside the front room...   I don't know why I didn't see it before... Picture blind I think...

But on the tour... they got through the hall turn right first into Joanna Yeates Bedroom, opening the door to get in..... And the doors to the front room and kitchen are already open when they go in there...

So Dr Vincent Tabak , would have had to go through the front room to get to Joanna Yeates kitchen.... but he never mentions doing this.... He says:
Quote
Tabak: She invited me in.
Defence Counsel William Clegg: Did she open the door?
Tabak: Yes
Defence Counsel: Did you take off your coat?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What room did you go into?
Tabak: Kitchen- both of us.

I thought it was straight from the hall to the kitchen... But it isn't...  he doesn't describe how he gets to the kitchen...  I would have imagined that she kept the front room door closed as it was very cold that time of year....

So if the settee's were closer for Dr Vincent Tabak to put Joanna Yeates on... why would he carry her to her Bedroom ??... makes no sense... (IMO)...


Now another issue is this image I have found of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.. The only image from inside....

It looks out onto the garden:

Image (1): Shows were i got the image and its description of it being Flat 2

Image (2): Is a close up of image

Image  (3): From the last honour of CJ

Image (4): The back garden... Can see a bit of lattice in bottom right hand corner ...

Image (5): Outside 47 Canygne Road

Image (6): Shows the Front Room Door which is open... And also the kitchen Door which is open

So back to image 2... It shows dining table chairs and a bit of a view out of the window onto the garden...  Now there is two possibilities for image two....  It doesn't look like it is from the front of 44 Canygne Road... Because... There is no lattice fence work at the front of CJ's house... And if it is the back of Flat 2... It then means the bay window at the back is a Dining Room and not a Bedroom....

Other possibility is that it is actually from the house on the opposite side of the street... No:47... I have googled Canygne Road and that house has the square lattice fence.... But of course now everything has over grown...

But CJ.. helps without realising... or maybe he does.... In The Lost Honor of CJ.. there's a shot of him looking across the road as the police are about to turn up... and you can clearly see the Lattice fence around that house... also it isn't as over grown...

But I really think it's 47 Canygne Road the picture of the Dining Room....  Because I can see a Pampas grass to the left of the lattice fence ... which would be to the right/centre in the dining room picture....

Why were the press provided this image ???  All the imagery is there to confuse I believe...

Edit:.... When was that photograph from what is supposed to be flat 2 44, Canygne Road taken??? I say this because the article it comes from is 22nd January 2011... And daffodils do not grow that early as far as I know ... March is normally the time of year you would see them... That has to be the year before ..(IMO)..

 So who took the photograph??????? Of a Flat, they say is Flat 2 44,Canygne Road , that no-one had any reason to look at for any crime the year before ....??? Weird !!
 So it cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak's flat !!!!!!

Double Edit.. I know why I thought the Hallway was T- shaped... It's because they turn right to go into Joanna Yeates bedroom...  And I just assumed that the Hallway was T- shaped.... When in fact in reality the Hallway is L-Shaped.. Trick of the mind... (Clever on their part)...we see what we want to see.... Or.. Should I say we see what they want us to see.... (IMO) But you lot probably already knew that... it was just me who seemed to have missed it...!

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8822459/Jury-shown-inside-Joanna-Yeates-flat.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/324139/weeping-girl-tipped-off-jo-police/




[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 10:08:04 AM
Well as I said.... The Flats have been causing me a headache....  And trying to establish, how the building is set out...

When watching CJ... In The lost Honour of CJ... He says he is in flat 5.....  For the past few days my heads been going round and round... trying to work out what is staring me in the face.... I know I am missing something... That is obvious..

And I believe I say it many many times... Even though I do not realise I am doing....

The Police NEVER go down the side of the building to collect anything from The Flat at the rear.... Never......  And it's bothered me... I keep asking WHY????

And I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't actually live in the Flat at the back of the building...(IMO)....  We only have the media's word that he did....

Reasons I believe he lives in the house....

(A): Dr Vincent Tabak says he collects his car off the road...... That wouldn't be too far from the communal front
       door...

(B): Mrs Lowman Mentioned about The Communal flat...

(C): We never see the Forensic take anything from the back Ground floor flat...

(D): Dr Vincent Tabak Moved out....


Lets look at (D): ...Dr Vincent Tabak moved out of Canygne Road because of all of the disturbance... Police in and out... He was upset with all the comings and goings....

Well if the Police are never seen to be going around the back of the building and are only going in side the building.. that would follow that, the disturbance is more.... Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja should in all honesty not be disturbed once they have entered their home if they lived at the back of the building (IMO)...

But  inside the house... The Police are at it none stop..... Up and down stairs constantly asking questions... taking statements etc.....  Very unsettling indeed....

Lets think why the Police would possibly think that Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded with CJ.....

I believe  it's because they probably lived on the same floor of the building.... CJ is not going to pop off around the back of the building to bang on Dr Vincent Tabak's door to ask him for assistance in moving a body... (IMO)..

Back to "Holland".... Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja would need to see CJ's car..... And what they says is that it changed position....

How would they notice ????...  If apparently they used the little gate to exit and went down past Joanna Yeates flat to get to what everyone is saying is their flat....

They wouldn't.... But if they come in the little gate and go across the grass to get to the communal door.. Then they would see CJ's car....  Other wise they wouldn't (IMO)...

I started looking online to find things out about the flats at Canygne Road... And I found this: It list Flat 3 as the Ground Floor Flat....

Quote
Flat 3 Ground, 44, Canynge Road, Bristol, City Of Bristol BS8 3LQ
£300,000   Flat, Leasehold, Residential   24 Jan 2001
£143,000   Flat, Leasehold, Residential   23 Feb 1999   

It also list this one too:

Quote
Ground Floor Flat, 44, Canynge Road, Bristol, Avon BS8 3LQ
£97,500   Flat, Leasehold, Residential   05 Mar 19991 bedroom
£61,500   Flat, Leasehold, Residential   30 Sep 1996   
£73,500   Flat, Leasehold, Residential   17 Nov 1995   


I thought... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't live in the flat at the back of the building..... If as Ann Reddrop states... that they had been planning Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest since late December... Then this picture got me thinking... (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRSE4d-Vo2UwzsSt7Ya0_Vj57cPwRYuQVCkdmEGYEmvEp_BrJK7wQ)

They used it when they arrested CJ... But I don't think CJ lives in that flat.... therefore it has to be Dr Vincent Tabak's (IMO)...  Everything is done for a purpose....

Take the image I put up yesterday.... Of what was supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's Room... well he would see the house Opposite if he was higher up....

I believe the gardens are communal....  both front and back.... Maybe that is why "Bernard The Cat had Two Cat Trays"....

I was thinking about how "Bernard could have gotten into Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat:... and it's unlikely if they are at the back...  and in the cold they are hardly going to leave the door open... But the communal Front Door is open all the time ... People in and out...  And then we have the Layout of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....

Remember, the odd shaped "Corner Store"......  That shouldn't appear on a plan of the house... If its underground... The odd shaped corner bit... Is the entrance to the building.... It doesn't continue up the building.... So why would it go down into the ground like that ??? It wouldn't  (IMO).... Meaning Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat is inside the building and Not at the back of the building.....

It's the imagery again.... Put pictures in the paper of Dr Vincent Tabak being in the back garden and you associate him with the ground Floor Flat....  But if it's communal.... then he could have been in it at anytime ....

Now I did find a picture which I'll attach of three people going into the communal door... A man and 2 woman....  Dr Vincent Tabak did say that he was allowed to return to collect some of his things.... 


Is the man in the picture Dr Vincent Tabak ???? I believe it possibly is.... (IMO)... He's very tall..... The two woman in the photo are just waiting at the entrance... Now if they don't live there they wouldn't be allowed in to what potentially is a 'Crime Scene"....

So... if we take into account that Dr Vincent Tabak moved out.... and Karen Thomas seeing Dr Vincent Tabak on the 22nd December 2010 as she says... That's also likely if the Police are wandering around the main house knocking on doors....

Why would he feel he needs the Polices permission to enter his flat if he lived around the back??? They Flat at the back of the building doesn't effect anything... It's seperate .... So Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja should be able to come freely....

Now if they live inside the building... then the comings and goings would be problematic for a Police force trying to gain access to these flats...

So I put it to everyone.... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't live at the back of the building... (IMO).. he lived inside it!!!

Think about it..... who's around at court to say... which Flat that they actually lived in ?????

CJ never says anything publicly... I don't know why he doesn't ... But there must be a jolly good reason he has...  And no-one else in the building has spoken publicly either....

So... In the last honour of CJ.. we can see what The Basement flat looks like when CJ goes to the door... and it is not layed out quite like it should be ...  And maybe that was CJ's little way of showing us the difference between the flats... And NOT that "Greg" actually meet Dr Vincent Tabak.... It was a way for CJ to let us know about that Flat (IMO).....

In The Lost Honour of CJ... He goes to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat for jump leads.... Now this is in the Daylight.... "Greg: went at Night-time as we all know... So there has to be a reason... that CJ added that scene to 'The lost Honour of CJ"...

I'll leave you all to ponder my conclusions about the Flat that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in at 44, Canygne Road...

And if he didn't live at the back of the building.. What possible reason would he have to walk past Joanna Yeates kitchen ????
 
It's always the DEFENCE... that has given us the Story of how Dr Vincent Tabak came across Joanna Yeates on the night of Friday 17th December 2010...  Well the DEFENCE has told so many untruths... (IMO).. 

Remember The Flat in Canygne Road that they say CJ put up for sale ..... Was it the one that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in ??? Because in the pictures of the "Bedroom".. Theres a dressing table in the corner... And "Dressing Tables are normally associated with woman and not normally men...... (IMO)...

So is that Flat that was for sale... The Flat that Dr Vincent Tabak lived in?? It's possible... Just like it is Very Possible that Dr Vincent Tabak actually lived inside the main building.. and not at the back as The Police nad Media have lead us to believe...!!!


As we have come to learn.... ANYTHING is possible in This Case !!!!


N:B... I again am not suggesting CJ has done anything untoward ....!!!

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/BS8-3LQ.html



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 10:57:26 AM
Another reason I don't believe it's the back ground floor flat... Is Dr Vincent tabak's response to the defence when asked about his phone ....

Quote
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
How soon before that did you left your flat?
Phone?
Did you normally take the phone when you went out?
Tabak: Yes.


Dr Vincent Tabak replies:
Quote
Defence Counsel: When at home, where was the phone kept?
Tabak: In a little room.

In A Little Room...!!!  Not The second bedroom!!!!! Is there even a second bedroom in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat????

Quote
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.

Why would this car be on the street when it has a designated car Parking space... Tanja apparently didn't use it that evening.... They didn't use it to go to work... So why would they park it on the street.... ????

Quote
Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street?
Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.

Now think about that.... Because, it's important....

Quote
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.


And BINGO.... there it is .... he backed the car from the designated car parking space.... to be level with the communal front door... That is why the boot is facing the road....... (IMO)..

If he lived in the flat at the back of the building... he wouldn't need to move it to put a body into the boot...(IMO)...

That answer always threw me.... I thought it was a double meaning... But I don't think so.... I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak reversed his car from the Designated Parking Space to outside the building..... lets just work out why.....

On the first quote below... The Defence asks where the car was.... But... when it comes to the next quote....

Quote
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.

Clegg deliberatley asks if the car was facing "Canygne Road"... and Not The Street..... Making a definate difference ...(IMO)....

Quote
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road

So I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak's car was already in the car park... he just backed it down a little to the communal front door ....(IMO)...

Dr Vincent Tabak's answer about..... "The Drive".... would he call it "The Drive" ???? The words The Drive is very English.... I'm sure most would call it The Driveway... And not simply "The Drive"...

As I have said... I believe that the words that come out of Dr Vincent Tabak's mouth on the witness stand have been written for him... he signs a statement in September 2011... But we don't know the content...

So who said the words 'The Drive"...  because I don't believe it would be a term that a Dutch National would use .....(IMO)...



http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 11:21:12 AM
I have just text my Dutch Brother In-law....  My question....

Quote
Would the Dutch say: "The Drive" or "The Driveway" ??

His answer.....

Quote
The Driveway I guess!

I'm just now trying to establish what he would call it if you pulled your car up to the side of house.... because why would he say... 'The Driveway I guess????? as a response of a Dutch National describing 'The Drive "......

My Brother In-law ... shouldn't be having to Guess... If it is something that The Dutch Call the private road/street at the side of a house .... (IMO)...

Makes Dr Vincent Tabaks talking about The Drive more intriguing.. (IMO)...

Makes me wonder if when Dr Vincent Tabak says "Street" he actually means the private road at the side of the house.....
Commonly know to us English as The Drive


Edit.... My brother In-law... didn't know in which context I meant the question....!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 11:48:22 AM
Here we go..... Good old wiki.....

Quote
Results of sister projects

Driveway
Sound:   driveway     (help, file) on the driveway driveway an access road to a greater road He picked up the wrong driveway and reached the southern highway

A Driveway would lead to a greater Road..... And The Drive in Dutch gets translated to "The Ride"....

So what would the Dutch call the land at the side of a building, you drive your car on to Park.....

Not The Drive..... (IMO)



https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=+De+oprit&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&go=Article&searchToken=87uc9p6di86n82ojq8vg3f706


https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=De+rit&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=brl7vx8grr06hnsgriox9y29
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 12:23:43 PM
I think First and Foremost when ever we look at what Dr Vincent Tabak, says or doesn't say.....

 Is that he is A Dutch National First and Foremost....  Even if he can speak English Fluently!!!!!


Edit....   Makes me question CJ again..... In The lost Honour of CJ.... he is letting people know, when he asks Dr Vincent Tabak if they call jump leads.. Jump leads in Dutch... CJ... Is allowing everyone to know .. that Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National... And won't say everything the same way as the English do..... (IMO)....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 12:57:14 PM
The Dutch Brother  In-law has replied to my text again....

To understand how I asked the Dutch brother in-law... I'll explain about the road next to my house...
Next to my house is a cobbled road... It's a drive.... It's private...  It comes off the main road.... My door opens straight onto this cobbled road .... (The cobbled Road is the length of the house roughly..)

So I asked The Dutchie , what he would  call The cobbled road outside my house.....


My question...
Quote
A driveway in English.. means a road leading up to a private house... what would the Dutch say...??

And text him again before he replied so he understood what type of road I meant.....

My Question....
Quote
What would you call the road outside my door... the cobbled road??

His reply to both questions in one text:

Quote
I would call it parking rather than Driveway. Your cobbled road I would call street.

So when Dr Vincent Tabak say:

Quote
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.

I believe Dr Vincent Tabak means the DRIVEWAY/DRIVE..... (IMO)....

And thats why we find him making... what at first appeared to be a confusing statement... next.....
Quote
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.


Because Dr Vincent Tabak backed the car out of the designated Parking Space (On The Street/The Drive).... meaning that was the reason The Back of the car was facing "Canygne Road"........ There is no other explaintion for it .... (IMO)....

Again.... We Must not forget that Dr Vincent Tabak is A Dutch National.........

EDIT.... There are no other houses on my cobbled road... I own the cobbled road....(but give access).. I have the only door onto it.... My neighbours have front doors and backdoors..... I have a side door onto the cobbled road.....

It does how ever get used as shared access for my neighbours to park around the back of the building... which my Dutch Brother In-Law has seen when he has stayed....


Edit... Just to clarify.... The cobbled road is enclosed..  no other house are on the opposite side of it... just my garden...



http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 03:10:08 PM
I have attached an image of where the cars are parked at Canygne Road in the carpark.... I have circled the area Dr Vincent Tabak would use...

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak move the car when the boot faces Canygne Road, just to put a body in the boot.... When it would be just as easy to put the body in the boot of the car where the car is parked ... Especially as he apparently has had no problem carrying a dead weight around a flat and between flats .....

He wouldn't...(IMO)..

He moved the car for the reason he gave..... For it to warm up before he had to get Tanja...
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 03:48:34 PM
I have just noticed something on that diagram.....

I have attached the image again and circled the shed.....

The shed is located at the end of the building and not in The Garden.....  Blocking access to Joanna Yeates flat....

So how would Dr Vincent Tabak walk down past Joanna Yeates Kitchen window?????

Was there more than one shed at 44 Canygne Road ????

If Joanna Yeates flat is described as having it's own private entrance why would Dr Vincent tabak be able to walk past her window... And on saying that....

If Joanna Yeates and Greg needed to get their car from it's designated Parking Space... They surely would have seen alot more of Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson... as they would have walked around the back to get to their designated car parking space regularly passing Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat Door.... (If Dr Vincent Tabak lived in that Flat)... (IMO)..

I don't believe that was the direction Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon accessed the Car...  maybe this diagram is accurate... and a shed actually blocked off access to the back of Canygne Road...


Edit I have attached 2 more images...  They clearly show that the SHED blocks access to the back of 44 Canygne Road....

meaning Dr Vincent Tabak could not have walked past Joanna Yeates kitchen window to gain access to the little gate....


Double Edit... Looking at image 2...  Because the path going down to the flat door is sloped... It would stop the people from the building behind seeing anything outside Joanna Yeates flat.. making that area more private....

Anyone from the back buildings who heard what they describe as a scream.... SEE NOTHING!!... And it's possible to see why with the shed blocking off the pavement.... (IMO)...


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 04:37:11 PM
Just another thought about the shed at the bottom of the building.... If Dr Vincent Tabak could somehow squeeze past for instance....

Then why isn't there ever any Crime Scene Tape stopping anyone from access Joanna Yeates Flat from the back of the building where the shed is located???

Police either appoint a Police Officer outside a Crime scene or Tape off The Crime Scene.... So Why Isn't  there either an Officer permanently parked at the bottom of that pathway... or crime scene tape... stopping access????
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: nina on July 26, 2017, 05:15:56 PM
Just another thought about the shed at the bottom of the building.... If Dr Vincent Tabak could somehow squeeze past for instance....

Then why isn't there ever any Crime Scene Tape stopping anyone from access Joanna Yeates Flat from the back of the building where the shed is located???

Police either appoint a Police Officer outside a Crime scene or Tape off The Crime Scene.... So Why Isn't  there either an Officer permanently parked at the bottom of that pathway... or crime scene tape... stopping access????
Shed is part of a wall built with old or weathered bricks.

I googled it when I came home and it does look like a shed made of wooden planks.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 26, 2017, 06:53:53 PM
A view from the back at another address showing the Green Tarpaulin around the back of 44 Canygne Road ...... Notice how it's in an L shape... It doesn't got all the way to the end of the building.... It stops at Joanna yeates Bedroom window ....

A little strange .... Is something in the way ???

First Image shows them erecting it .....

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 26, 2017, 08:50:58 PM
Anyone any thought about the publics awarness of the fact that Dr Vincent tabak 'Pled "Guilty to Manslaughter"? 5 months before the trial commenced in October 2011 ??

Also that it was never entered into whether it was 'Voluntary" or "Involuntary" Manslaughter
What I think is neither here nor there, but facts ought to be respected. When a defendant has been charged, the CPS normally briefs a lawyer to assemble the case against the defendant, and then presents this case to the defence lawyer. On this basis, the defence lawyer advises the client on how to plead at the plea hearing. The Crown then decides how to proceed with the arraignment on the basis of the plea entered.

So far, there is nothing in itself unusual in a jury being confronted with a defendant whose plea is already familiar to them. However, a defendant would normally plead Not Guilty unless he knew that the Crown had such a strong case against him that he would certainly be convicted when his case was brought to trial. If he expected to lose, then his lawyer would secure the prior agreement of the Crown to a remission of sentence in return for a Guilty plea.

The first thing that is weird about this case is that the trial revealed that the evidence against Vincent Tabak had been derisory, so, obviously, Mr Clegg should have advised him to plead Not Guilty. The second weird thing is that, even though they knew nothing of the evidence against him, many of the press, the general public, and presumably the persons who would form the jury too, were astonished at his Manslaughter plea, yet all but a handful of us came to accept that he must have killed Joanna, even after they learnt how derisory was the evidence against him.

I take it for granted that the prosecution would not have held back any bona fide evidence they had that would have helped their case, since they led so much "evidence" that was hearsay and not even true. So I don't understand why there weren't more sceptics who turned their attention to the soundness of the plea.

The distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter is obviously significant, if you are right about the existence of such a distinction in English law. Could it be that this distinction was covered by one of those discussions on a point of law that were mentioned in the tweets but not explained?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 26, 2017, 11:04:18 PM
I think First and Foremost when ever we look at what Dr Vincent Tabak, says or doesn't say.....

 Is that he is A Dutch National First and Foremost....  Even if he can speak English Fluently!!!!!


Edit....   Makes me question CJ again..... In The lost Honour of CJ.... he is letting people know, when he asks Dr Vincent Tabak if they call jump leads.. Jump leads in Dutch... CJ... Is allowing everyone to know .. that Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National... And won't say everything the same way as the English do..... (IMO)....

CJ, of course, never asked VT whether or not he had jump leads, as VT was still at work at the time he and his neighbour helped Greg to get his car started. That was a piece of fiction introduced for the sake of the film, just as the scene where CJ takes Greg round to VT's flat to introduce him to Vincent and Tanja is fictional.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 27, 2017, 09:50:32 AM
I was aware of how a "Plea Agreement" would happen... But I would have imagined that if a "Plea Agreement" was entered into then it wouldn't happen before a trial....

And if said "Plea Agreement" had been entered into.. then it wouldn't go to trial, but go before the judge after he has looked at any mitigating factors, or the defendant previous Good/Bad character.. Been involved in other criminal activities for instance ...

Then the judge would pass sentence ....

I do not understand how 5 months This "Plea" had been entered into...  then not being accepted... and a trial date set....
Allowing for the world to know of said "Plea".....  had taken place....

I was under the impression that this "Plea" would happen at trial and not 5 months before a trial if it wasn't going to be accepted...

Leonora.... or anyone for that matter.... Can anyone give me an example of a defendant  who has "Pled Guilty To Manslaughter, months before trial... where it has NOT been accepted, and then go to trial.... where the jury already know that this "Guilty To manslaughter Plea was entered into Months prior???

It seems irregular to me....  Like I said leonora... The jury shouldn't have known that information (IMO)... till after the trial... The 'Plea was basically "The Prosecutions Case"....  without the Plea there was NO Case!!

And putting Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand also seems ridiculous ... why did the Defence do that???

There was a basic outline of a story... that was it....  If the statement that Dr Vincent Tabak had signed ...had been read out to the jury ... like 20 other statements... There wouldn't have had anything to go on.....

But instead they have a Placid Dutchman... Sobbing and unable to answer over 80 questions... which in turn makes it appear as if he is being evasive and as some have said, only sobbing for himself ........ Which only Adds to the juries opinion of him.... (IMO)..

The Defences behaviour was appauling (IMO)... They did not help their client once ...(IMO).. 

I'm trying to understand this....

Quote
If a defendant wishes to be sentenced on a basis which is not agreed, the prosecution advocate should invite the judge not to accept the defendant's version unless he or she gives evidence on oath to be tested in cross-examination. The Criminal Practice Direction [2013] EWCA Crim 1631 which came into force on 7 October 2013 states that in such circumstances the defence advocate should be prepared to call the defendant and, if the defendant is not willing to testify, subject to any explanation that may be given, the judge may draw such inferences as appear appropriate.

So according to this... It is The Judge who doesn't accept the "Plea".... And therefore we have Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand explaining his version of events..... In the vain hope that he will get a reduced sentence...

It's like a game of Russian Roulette....

So why did "Ann Reddrop" Head of The Complex Case Unit... let everyone know that they were not accepting this "Plea"... when it was for the judge to decide, whether or not is was accepted!!!

So...if that information is how it unfolded... Dr Vincent Tabak.. had... No Explanation as to what happened to Joanna Yeates ... he only signed his statement on the 22nd September 2011.. I believe ...

Therefore I can see how it would have gone to trial in a way.... But the question is WHY... If they had NO EVIDENCE... why enter the "Plea" in the first place ????

There would be NO real need to argue sentence on a "Manslaughter Plea" (IMO)... The admittance of Guilt should have reduced the sentence in the first place... 

To me the above QUOTE, would only be of use to someone whom Pled Guilty to Murder .... Which of course Dr Vincent Tabak didn't....

Question... Did Clegg argue sentence ?????  I don't think so... 

Which also brings another question... If The Judge followed what it says in the QUOTE... Then why wasn't Manslaughter given to the Jury as an option????

I'll say this because... If it was all about length of possible sentence, therefore a jury should have heard any mitigating circumstances, the jury should have had an opportunity to make a decision on "ALL" evidence ...

But therefore... shouldn't the trial have been a "Manslaughter trial"???

I have just noticed this .....

Quote
Where the defendant pleads guilty but wants to be sentenced on a different basis to that disclosed by the prosecution case:

a) the defendant must set out that basis in writing, identifying what is in dispute;
b) the court may invite the parties to make representations about whether the dispute is material to sentence; and
c) if the court decides that it is a material dispute, the court will -

(i) invite such further representations or evidence as it may require;
(ii) decide the dispute.


So the defendant at First wants to be sentenced on a different basis.... And we come back to what is not agreed... Very interesting this quote....

Lets look at (a)....
Quote
a) the defendant must set out that basis in writing, identifying what is in dispute:

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't set anything out in writing.... He only signed the statement... in September 2011...

What is in writing that Dr Vincent Tabak disputed ????? The only thing he could dispute would be "The Porn"... And when did the Prosecution disclose that !!!!!

This is bizarre....

Ok.... If my understanding is correct....

Dr Vincent Tabak is at The Old Bailey... he enters the infamous "Guilty to Manslaughter Plea.. "... which should have been accepted ..But obviously wasn't ... But the argument is about length of sentence...

Then it''s the judges turn... To say he  is not happy and this is going to trial.... Needing to argue out about other material... possibly the 'Porn"..

So where is it in writing from Dr Vincent Tabak that he disputed 'The Porn" before he arrived at the Old Bailey??

There is "NO" Other Material that could possibly be argued out.... The Prosecution presented Nothing In the way of Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak... So what would need to be argued out????

I have found something else ... that makes me question.... Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty to manslaughter Plea".... And Everyone knowing about it before trial

From PART 3
CASE MANAGEMENT


Quote
(4) In respect of each count in the indictment—
(a) if the defendant declines to enter a plea, the court must treat that as a not guilty plea
unless rule 25.11 applies (Defendant unfit to plead);
(b) if the defendant pleads not guilty to the offence charged by that count but guilty to
another offence of which the court could convict on that count—
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;

So If my understanding is correct... Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea should have been seen as "NOT GUILTY" as The Prosecution didn't accept this ....

Quote
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;

So why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak seen as NOT GUILTY...

Therefore if this is how it is seen in LAW... Why did they Tell The world that Dr Vincent Tabak had Pled Guilty To Manslaughter?? when if my understanding is correct... He is seen as "NOT GUILTY" !!!!

Meaning they prejudiced the jury before the trial.... (IMO)..

And if we go back to the judge wanting to hear the evidence to decide sentence... Then the Charge Dr Vincent Tabak should have been facing in court would have been The Charge of "Manslaughter" and NOT of "Murder" ....(IMO)..

But what do I know ... !!


EDIT..... I can only see the Judge wanting The Defendant to explain himself in court if he was going to decide on The Sentence for "Murder.".. Because i cannot see how he would need a jury when it came to mitigating circumstances for "Manslaughter"... That would be The Judges discretion.... (IMO)

They appear to have combined every rule in the book.... (IMO).. And used each part of said rules to Convict Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)...

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-03.pdf

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/#a02

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 27, 2017, 10:19:11 AM
Just to satisfy my insistance that it is unheard of..

That A Jury would be aware of the fact that the defendant pled 'Guilty to Manslaughter".. Months before a Murder trial... And everyone knew this before the trial commenced...
 
Could someone give me a link to a trial that happened in the same way.... Where everyone was aware of this fact that the defendant had "Pled Guilty to manslaughter" months before said "Murder" trial was due to take place....And before the Jurors sat for the first time .... Because I don't think there is such an example....

But I could be mistaken..... !!

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 27, 2017, 10:45:47 AM
Ok... here's another thing to ponder.....

Where was Dr Vincent Tabak held before he appeared at Bristol magistrates Court???

Quote
If however, you are to be charged with an offence and the police decide you should still be kept in custody, you will be taken to a court to decide whether or not to release you on bail before the trial.

Dr Vincent Tabak should still have been held at The Police Station as far as I can tell....

No application for Bail was ever entered into... Why??

But he appeared in court on the 24th January 2011

Quote
Paul Cook, counsel for Mr Tabak, confirmed that his client wished to apply for bail.

Dr Vincent tabak was then:

Quote
Mr Tabak was taken from the court in the back of a police van, rather than a closed prison vehicle. He sat alone, without a prison officer.

So where did they take him?????

January 26, 2011   | by SWNS Reporter
Quote
Tabak, 32, is now in Gloucester prison 30 miles up the road from where he was being held in Bristol.

If Dr Vincent Tabak has not applied for bail... How can they hold him in "Gloucester Prison"... Or any prison for that matter before Bail has been applied for ??...

I could understand him been held at the Police Station... But Not "PRISON"...

His first appearance at court should have been for Bail whether it was accepted or denied... (IMO)... So how do they manage to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison before he has applied for bail?????


Quote
Tabak, 32, is now in Gloucester prison 30 miles up the road from where he was being held in Bristol.

It only says he was being held in "Bristol".... That could mean the Police Station!!!


Edit.... Not only That he is sent to Long Lartin... before BAIL is 'Accepted "or "Denied".. How does that work!!!


Double Edit.. Now don't got telling me it was for his own safety... because CJ was out on Bail at this time.... And they didn't let the world no he was Innocent... They didn't release CJ from Bail until March 2011..

So why was Bail NEVER applied for ??????



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8280005/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-enjoyed-normal-family-Christmas.html

http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-moved-prison-over-attack-fears-14290/

https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-EW-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2&member=1
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 27, 2017, 11:15:20 AM
A pdf on Bail ...

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-14.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 27, 2017, 12:00:40 PM


The distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter is obviously significant, if you are right about the existence of such a distinction in English law. Could it be that this distinction was covered by one of those discussions on a point of law that were mentioned in the tweets but not explained?

Yes... There is a distinction In Law between "Voluntary Manslaughter and "Involuntary Manslaughter"...

But my joking about an NVQ in "Manslaughter Law".. was to point out... That not only must the Jury understand the charge is Murder.... And find Dr Vincent Tabak Guilty of Murder... as this was there only option... But having been made aware That Dr Vincent Tabak had already "Pleaded Guilty to Manslaughter "

They then would need to have a comprehension of "Manslaughter in Law"...(IMO)..  As to distinguish between whether it was a Voluntary or Involuntary act.. on Dr Vincent Tabak's part... And once they understood that,.. Then they could make a the choice ....

The evidence didn't prove "Murder ".. (IMO)...  So did the Jury use the fact they knew about the Manslaughter Plea back in May 2011... affect the way they decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was 'Guilty' of Murder in October 2011???

And if NO Evidence was brought to show whether it was "Voluntary or Involuntary"... You are therefore expecting a Jury.. To understand "Manslaughter In Law"... (IMO)...

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 27, 2017, 12:33:12 PM
Oh... What do I know.... I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall...

All is fair in LOVE AND WAR... But not in "JUSTICE" it appears to me.... I am just a citizen who believes a Placid Dutchman is Innocent... And feel that his rights were violated.... And The Evidence doesn't add up...

But I can waffle on until the cows come home...
No-one as far as I can tell is going to do anything about this... And seeing as I don't live next to the farm anymore I don't think they will know where to find me.... And I've probably bent everyones ears enough by now...

 I don't know what more I can add... Unless I find something new ...


 
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 27, 2017, 01:07:33 PM
Ok... here's another thing to ponder.....

Where was Dr Vincent Tabak held before he appeared at Bristol magistrates Court???

Dr Vincent Tabak should still have been held at The Police Station as far as I can tell....

No application for Bail was ever entered into... Why??

But he appeared in court on the 24th January 2011

Dr Vincent tabak was then:

So where did they take him?????

January 26, 2011   | by SWNS Reporter
If Dr Vincent Tabak has not applied for bail... How can they hold him in "Gloucester Prison"... Or any prison for that matter before Bail has been applied for ??...

I could understand him been held at the Police Station... But Not "PRISON"...

His first appearance at court should have been for Bail whether it was accepted or denied... (IMO)... So how do they manage to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison before he has applied for bail?????


It only says he was being held in "Bristol".... That could mean the Police Station!!!


Edit.... Not only That he is sent to Long Lartin... before BAIL is 'Accepted "or "Denied".. How does that work!!!


Double Edit.. Now don't got telling me it was for his own safety... because CJ was out on Bail at this time.... And they didn't let the world no he was Innocent... They didn't release CJ from Bail until March 2011..

So why was Bail NEVER applied for ??????



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8280005/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-enjoyed-normal-family-Christmas.html

http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-moved-prison-over-attack-fears-14290/

https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-EW-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2&member=1
Vincent Tabak was remanded in custody in Bristol prison for the one night between his appearance before the Magistrate and his appearance the next day for the abortive bail hearing before judge Treacy at Bristol Crown Court. The press claimed at the time that he spent a night of terror, as local feelings ran high. This was the explanation why he was moved to Gloucester, and then to Long Lartin. However, I have come to believe that this was just an excuse.  Since he is not a Moslem, nor a violent man, the only explanation has to be that he was considered a threat to national security, but that the public is not supposed to be told. Long Lartin prison specialises in terror suspects, persons who cannot be deported, and especially violent criminals.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 27, 2017, 01:22:25 PM
Well as I said.... The Flats have been causing me a headache....  And trying to establish, how the building is set out...

When watching CJ... In The lost Honour of CJ... He says he is in flat 5.....  For the past few days my heads been going round and round... trying to work out what is staring me in the face.... I know I am missing something... That is obvious..
Christopher Jefferies doesn't say anything in "The Lost Honour..." It is actor Jason Watkins who impersonates the landlord whose honour was lost. The honour of each of them has been seriously compromised by this case, since they have chosen to appear in public, and reinforce, and even supplement, the massive falsehoods that have been disseminated about the case.

The police never said anything to suggest that they suspected Mr Jefferies and Vincent Tabak may have been accomplices in this crime. It was the landlord himself, evidently, who, in a TV interview, attributed this theory to the police. He didn't believe it himself, but he had to have an answer to all the people who asked him why he thought he had been held on bail so long. He couldn't reply, "They needed to ensure that I didn't talk to the press and tell what I knew", though this is the answer which best fits the facts.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 27, 2017, 02:51:39 PM
And I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't actually live in the Flat at the back of the building...(IMO)....  We only have the media's word that he did....

CJ never says anything publicly... I don't know why he doesn't ... But there must be a jolly good reason he has...  And no-one else in the building has spoken publicly either....
Right from the time he was arrested, Vincent Tabak was described as Joanna's neighbour - a resident of the flat next to hers - not a resident of the same house. Surely at that stage in the case, when the journalists were still displaying a measure of healthy scepticism, they must have satisfied themselves of these basic facts? The journalists talked to anyone in Canynge Road who would listen, so surely the neighbours who knew who lived in which flat would have spoken out if Christopher Jefferies did NOT live in the flat immediately adjoining the front door, and Vincent Tabak didn't live in the flat directly underneath him?

The topological paradoxes you have revealed are nevertheless very disturbing. Is nothing sacred? How could Vincent Tabak carry the body round to his own flat if it were upstairs? - and then downstairs again to the car to which no witness testified he had access? Surely his own testimony makes it clear that his flat is at basement level?

Surely Christopher Jefferies would not deliberately mislead the public whom he loves about which flats he let out to tenants?

According to the diagrams published at the time, Christopher Jefferies's flat occupied only one-half of what is misleadingly designated the "ground floor". If there were two flats on each storey, then 44 Canynge Road would contain a total of eight flats. However, there are only five names on the plate outside the main entrance. Which of the storeys contains only one flat?
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 27, 2017, 03:18:40 PM


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418240#msg418240

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: AerialHunter on July 27, 2017, 09:31:16 PM
Oh... What do I know.... I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall...

All is fair in LOVE AND WAR... But not in "JUSTICE" it appears to me.... I am just a citizen who believes a Placid Dutchman is Innocent... And feel that his rights were violated.... And The Evidence doesn't add up...

But I can waffle on until the cows come home...
No-one as far as I can tell is going to do anything about this... And seeing as I don't live next to the farm anymore I don't think they will know where to find me.... And I've probably bent everyones ears enough by now...

 I don't know what more I can add... Unless I find something new ...


 


Every single step is a step in the right direction. We are hunting in the dark and we don't know if we will find a mouse or a mammoth but we all believe something is there. We can't plan to attack it until we've found it and we go in nothing more than our own blind faith. It fears us more than we fear it, as do those who try to protect it. If it is there we will find it, maybe not tomorrow, or the next day, but ultimately it can only hide from a hunter or show itself as it returns an attack against unknown odds, either way it's stuffed.

Never give up, never doubt your own instinct and never, never trust a copper!
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on July 28, 2017, 04:46:53 PM
Every single step is a step in the right direction. We are hunting in the dark and we don't know if we will find a mouse or a mammoth but we all believe something is there. We can't plan to attack it until we've found it and we go in nothing more than our own blind faith. It fears us more than we fear it, as do those who try to protect it. If it is there we will find it, maybe not tomorrow, or the next day, but ultimately it can only hide from a hunter or show itself as it returns an attack against unknown odds, either way it's stuffed.

Never give up, never doubt your own instinct and never, never trust a copper!

My own instinct tells me that, one day  we will find out the truth about the Joanna Yeates case. Somebody will come forward with new information if there is any, or else we will discover good evidence that VT did do it. That is why it is important to have this forum standing.

I wouldn't agree that we can "never" trust coppers. We just need to be wary.

My instinct (yet again) tells me to be equally suspicious of juries, who, let's face it, are made up of ordinary members of the public, some who think constructively, and some who assume that if a person is on trial, he or she must be guilty. And, I am particularly suspicious of  "forensic" experts who tell us that enhanced DNA is good enough evidence to catch criminals.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: John on July 28, 2017, 04:51:34 PM
My own instinct tells me that, one day  we will find out the truth about the Joanna Yeates case. Somebody will come forward with new information if there is any, or else we will discover good evidence that VT did do it. That is why it is important to have this forum standing.

I wouldn't agree that we can "never" trust coppers. We just need to be wary.

My instinct (yet again) tells me to be equally suspicious of juries, who, let's face it, are made up of ordinary members of the public, some who think constructively, and some who assume that if a person is on trial, he or she must be guilty. And, I am particularly suspicious of  "forensic" experts who tell us that enhanced DNA is good enough evidence to catch criminals.

I agree in that I believe there was more to this case than has ever been revealed publicly.  That said however, I do believe Tabak is guilty of killing Joanna but as to whether it was murder or manslaughter is another question.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 29, 2017, 10:46:37 AM
How does this sound to people ????

Quote
Mrs Yeates said: "I want nothing to do with the flat now. It was Jo's home, a beautiful place - but it's a sinister place now."

It almost sounds like Joanna Yeates owned the flat.... Maybe she did!!

Quote
She said the flat was being taken back by landlord Christopher Jefferies, the retired public school teacher who was wrongly arrested on suspicion of murder last year.

So.... Thinking about this.... Why would CJ... allow for this Flat to be kept as a Time Capsule for the Jury to come to view it, in October 2011... If he owned it....??

Wouldn't he want the rental value of this property...??

Why would he help the Police by keeping the flat empty??

Wouldn't Crime Scene Photo's surfice for a Jury???

I remember early reports talking of the value of the flat... and that shouldn't have been relevant if she only rented it....(IMO)..

Quote
The body of 25-year-old Miss Yeates, who had been strangled, was found by dog walkers on Christmas morning, three miles from her £200,000 flat in the upmarket area of Clifton, Bristol.

Did Joanna Yeates actually own that flat... and CJ own different flats ????


It's puzzling me know.... Why would CJ... assist the Police in The prosecution of A Dutch national... by keeping the Flat that he was supposed to own as a time capsule ??? They didn't permanetly block off Longwood Lane !!

CJ.. had been held on Bail until March 2011....  Had fought to get his name cleared.... So why then would he help the Police by keeping Joanna Yeates flat as a Time Capsule ??? It makes no sense ...(IMO)...



Edit.... Or did Mr and Mrs Yeates own the flat ???? And Joanna Yeates rented it from them ??


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4oDDrna4Y

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8902569/Joanna-Yeates-mother-clears-out-sinister-Bristol-flat.html
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 29, 2017, 11:30:29 AM


Flat 3 is The ground Floor Flat.... I believe there would be leases to all the flats, because each flat will lease the land the whole building is sat upon....(IMO)...

I think The main question.... Is who owns "WHICH FLAT".... !!!!


http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ppd/search?limit=1000&min_date=1+March+1995&paon=44&saon=FLAT+3

Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 29, 2017, 11:51:08 AM

Flat 3 is The ground Floor Flat.... I believe there would be leases to all the flats, because each flat will lease the land the whole building is sat upon....(IMO)...

I think The main question.... Is who owns "WHICH FLAT".... !!!!

http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ppd/search?limit=1000&min_date=1+March+1995&paon=44&saon=FLAT+3
In one of his interviews, Christopher Jefferies recounted that Greg and Joanna had contacted him about the basement flat on the day that the advertisement appeared, and that they had made a good impression on him. It doesn't sound as if there can be much doubt that he was indeed their landlord. The police and Christopher Jefferies undoubtedly have an uneasy hold over each other (probably owing to his 2nd witness statement). It can only be speculation, but perhaps part of the condition of his release from bail was that he made no attempt to re-let or re-furbish the flat until after the trial.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 29, 2017, 12:55:18 PM

According to the diagrams published at the time, Christopher Jefferies's flat occupied only one-half of what is misleadingly designated the "ground floor". If there were two flats on each storey, then 44 Canynge Road would contain a total of eight flats. However, there are only five names on the plate outside the main entrance. Which of the storeys contains only one flat?


How do you know this.... And what names are on the plate ???  are they the same names that have been there the last 7 years ??
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on July 29, 2017, 01:22:07 PM

How do you know this.... And what names are on the plate ???  are they the same names that have been there the last 7 years ??
This photo was taken in February 2014.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 29, 2017, 03:15:35 PM


It's just a list of names.... But is it correct??... It could be... But I don't know .... At The end of the day... Every man and his dog must have been to that front door... Your hardly going to advertise the fact that a flat is empty now are you!!

I'm still looking at this... And I hope I can come up with an answer ....
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 31, 2017, 09:01:21 AM
Quote
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;

I was just thinking about this....

If Dr Vincent Tabak was seen as "Not Guilty" before he faced a "Murder trial... Then does that mean he would have been free if the Jury found him NOT GUILTY of "Murder"???? As the only option Offered to the Jury was "The Murder Charge"..

You then have to ask yourself why.. Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand??

A Lawyer is there to Defend... Why didn't Clegg just tell Dr Vincent Tabak to keep quite???

It's for the "Prosecution" to prove their Case... NOT for the "Defence to "Prove" The Prosecutions case for them...


What would have happened if Dr Vincent Tabak had just sat there and not said a word???

The "Prosecution" had NO CASE!!!

It was only because Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand that we are supposed to understand the unfolding events...

Why did "Clegg" get Dr Vincent Tabak to take the stand???

And why did "Clegg: get Dr Vincent Tabak to sign his "Statement in September 2011...
No signed statement... No Case !!!

I thought "Clegg" had a great reputation... why would he jeopardize it???


http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-03.pdf
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 31, 2017, 11:22:18 AM
Quote
Right to respect for private and family life

(1): Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

(2): There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak's privacy invaded???

The Polices constant comings and goings at 44,Canygne Road, made it impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to remain at home and he went and stayed at a friends house...

It is not common Police Policy as far as I know... To cause such great disruption to other neighbours of any property where a Crime may have taken Place...

There was nothing to suggest that Joanna Yeates had indeed been Murdered in her own home at this time... There was nothing to prove this conclusively one way or the other.. And I believe the same applies today... The Police had no evidence to prove that Joanna Yeates was killed in her home ...

I want to look at this in terms of law...And of course my understanding of Law...

The rules governing discovery

I believe that the information obtained on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer in relation to his supposed 'Internet Searches" and other electronic communication, is seen within "The rules governing discovery"...

Firstly I must point out.. That these rules really apply to Civil procedures... But I believe that they have commandeered the law from "Civil Procedure" and used it in A Criminal Procedure"...

Discussions between the parties before the first Case Management Conference in relation to the use of technology and disclosure

Quote
8  The parties and their legal representatives must, before the first case management conference, discuss the use of technology in the management of Electronic Documents and the conduct of proceedings, in particular for the purpose of –

(1): creating lists of documents to be disclosed;

(2): giving disclosure by providing documents and information regarding documents in electronic format; and

(3): presenting documents and other material to the court at the trial.

9  The parties and their legal representatives must also, before the first case management conference, discuss the disclosure of Electronic Documents. In some cases (for example heavy and complex cases) it may be appropriate to begin discussions before proceedings are commenced. The discussions should include (where appropriate) the following matters –

(1): the categories of Electronic Documents within the parties' control, the computer systems, electronic devices and media on which any relevant documents may be held, storage systems and document retention policies;

(2): the scope of the reasonable search for Electronic Documents required by rule 31.7;

(3): the tools and techniques (if any) which should be considered to reduce the burden and cost of disclosure of Electronic Documents, including –

(a): limiting disclosure of documents or certain categories of documents to particular date ranges, to particular custodians of documents, or to particular types of documents;

(b): the use of agreed Keyword Searches;

(c): the use of agreed software tools;

(d): the methods to be used to identify duplicate documents;

(e): the use of Data Sampling;

(f): the methods to be used to identify privileged documents and other non-disclosable documents, to redact documents (where redaction is appropriate), and for dealing with privileged or other documents which have been inadvertently disclosed; and

(g): the use of a staged approach to the disclosure of Electronic Documents;

(4): the preservation of Electronic Documents, with a view to preventing loss of such documents before the trial;

(5): the exchange of data relating to Electronic Documents in an agreed electronic format using agreed fields;

(6): the formats in which Electronic Documents are to be provided on inspection and the methods to be used;

(7): the basis of charging for or sharing the cost of the provision of Electronic Documents, and whether any arrangements for charging or sharing of costs are final or are subject to re-allocation in accordance with any order for costs subsequently made; and

(8): whether it would be appropriate to use the services of a neutral electronic repository for storage of Electronic Documents.

So lets look at that.....
Quote
The parties and their legal representatives must also, before the first case management conference, discuss the disclosure of Electronic Documents. In some cases (for example heavy and complex cases) it may be appropriate to begin discussions before proceedings are commenced. The discussions should include (where appropriate) the following matters –

Well what is classed as 'A Document" firstly??? 
Personally I would have thought it was in relation to a transaction... But lets apply this to "The Searches"...

Firstly... I believe that "The Prosecution", should have informed and made available to "The Defence" at The Case Management Hearing.. The disclosure of these "Documents" (Searches) This Case Management hearing that was Heard at The Old Bailey in May 2011...

It should not have been a complete  surprise at Trial in October 2011.. That "The Prosecution" had a 1300 page Document, containing these "Searches".. If they were going to be introduced into Evidence...(IMO)..

Lets look at the use of "Data sampling".... This I believe is Lyndsey Farmeys Field of expertise....

If we looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches as a whole... we would see that he was just like any other citizen... He would have possibly 'Searched for "The latest free Offer"... he could have searched for... "How many coffee granules are there in a teaspoon of "Ground Coffee".. He could have searched for...
Do Elephants really hide in Custard... He could have searched for... "Is Beyoncy really a Legal Expert???


The point I am making is... How many "Searches were created on not only Dr Vincent Tabak's "Home" Computer... but on Dr Vincent Tabak's "Work" computer.... To put the "Searches of this 'Placid Dutchman" into Context???

The Prosecution were allowed to present "These Electronic Document" without there being "Any Disclosure To 'The Defence".. But also without 'The Context of Dr Vincent Tabak's "FULL Search History" being brought to the table...

If we think about how we search ourselves.. We may do "Hundreds of Searches a day when aimlessly Surfing The net.... If as "The Prosecution and The Defence" have told us... Dr Vincent Tabak was "Bored"... Then he in all reality could have made "Hundreds and Hundreds of Searches on his computer.... Adding Tanja Morson's searches to the total as well.... Plenty searches could have been performed

Whilst i Have been posting on this forum, many a time I have 50 plus web pages open whilst searching on another page and going back and forth.... My Searches are purely related to this case by and large... But i do look at other things at the same time as I am doing this....

My point being..... If Dr Vincent Tabak had a "HISTORY" of searches on his computer and "NOT" all of them related in anyway to Joanna Yeates ... Then how can these "SAID SEARCHES".. be used as EVIDENCE and PROOF of GUILT!!!!... IF DR VINCENT TABAK PERFORMED 300 SEARCHES A DAY AND 2 SEARCHES OUT OF THOSE 300 SEARCHES COULD BE LINKED OR ASSOCIATED TO JOANNA YEATES... THEN HOW DOES THAT PROVE THAT HE WAS CONSTANTLY SEARCHING THE INTERNET TO COVER HIS TRACKS????? It doesn't..(IMO)
Lyndsey Farmery Is an "Intelligence Analyst"... Her Role within the "Police" is to Collect Data.. She 'Analyses Data"...

The only "Data" That our "Power Point Pointing Performer".. Analysed Was any 'DATA" She deemed To be relevant to The Joanna Yeates Murder Case....

She just collected 'The data That she decided was relevant to this case ..... And ignored any other Data that may or maynot have shown that Dr Vincent tabak was just like any other citizen at the time... Checking out what was going on about his neighbour... Whilst Internet shopping for Presents or How many Elephants you can get in a bowl of custard for that matter...

How did Dr Vincent Tabak's Internet History prove that he was obsessed with The Joanna Yeates 'Missing Persons Inquiry"/ "Murder case"...  If all of the 'Other Internet Searches" were not included in the evidence??
Watering down The relevance of Dr Vincent Tabak's Internet Search History"... (IMO)

I liken it to describing someone as a Gambling Addict.....

If one person goes to a "Bookies" every single week to put on say... "The Irish Lottery...And maybe a few Horse bets ... And this person works in a Factory of, lets say 500 staff....

Each staff member has about 5 tickets each for the Irish Lottery/ Horse Betting... making a total of 2500 bets "A Week"...

Because this person is happy to pop in the Bookies for the staff, does it every week...
They decide to have a loyalty card.. which would give "Them".. Free Bets and Bonuses ... All of those tickets would then be related to that person's loyalty card and that "ONE PERSON...... Meaning 2500 bets are attributed to the person placing the bets....

Therefore if someone said... OMG... That Person puts 2500 bets on a week... They "MUST" have a GAMBLING problem... Without the other evidence to discount this claim.... 'Everyone would agree that "The Person" did INDEED have a GAMBLING Problem"..

So how can you say that Dr Vincent Tabak had an "Obsession with the Joanna Yeates Case.... and was Trying to Cover his tracks by keeping "One Step Ahead of The Investigation".. as Ann Reddrop stated... If not all of the Information is brought forward, to "prove " or disprove".... That this was indeed the case ?

Meaning (IMO)... The Prosecution withheld Evidence And by just thinking about The Internet searches, not including Every Internet Search That was Done on either Dr Vincent Tabak's "Home" or "Work" computer... The Case against him was "Prejudical" and NOT OPEN AND FAIR... (IMO)..



https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/pd_part31b

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on July 31, 2017, 12:03:01 PM
I will just add.... That the person who places "The Bets"... only does a 20p a week "Lucky Dip" on the 'Irish Lottery"

Yet Joe Bloggs who's bets are within those 2500 bets a week... Spends £2000 per week on his betting habits...

How do you distinguish between the bets???

 This is why I deem "Internet Searches" to NOT be Relevant to Court Cases.... when someone cherry picks their way through Someones' Internet History... Without evidence to show Who exactly did which search and what other searches were happening between those dates... Which in this Case is between... 17th December 2010 and 19th January 2011  (Making thousands of searches possible...)

How can they "ALL" be attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak... And How can they show relevancy ????

As with Dr Vincent Tabak using various Computers at "Work".. Other People had access to them..  also who else apart from HIMSELF.. ever accessed his Home Computer???  We Don't Know.. ( He may have taken it to work with him!!)

So did.. Dr Vincent Tabak actually make the searches or was it somebody else....

And if it cannot be "Proven" who used which "Computer..." And at What Time"...  without all of the of the searches that where made between The Dates I have listed... How could anyone prove whether ..

Dr Vincent Tabak was the 20p Gambler.... Or was he the £2000 a week Gambler .... Can anyone really make a distinction??? Because I can't !!!!


Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 01, 2017, 08:15:05 PM
Ann Reddrop.... The very same Ann Reddrop who stood in front of the TV cameras and expressed to the world, what a Cunning, Manipulative, deceitful man, Dr Vincent Tabak was... And how he had lied and did everything he could to get one step ahead of the Investigation.....

The very same Ann Reddrop who was The Head of The complex Crime Unit... A Unit that deals with "Complex Crime"....

Now that we remember who she is, I want to remember that other little statement that she made ... The one that goes...

Quote
Late in December the Police ask for assistance and guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service.. That assistance has come from "The South West Case Work Unit" based here in Bristol... I reviewed the Evidence and Advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with this murder and began preparing this case for trial... In May this year Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter....but that was only part of it..

Ann who in late December 2010 decide that this Placid Dutchman was wholly responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates....

Now... I have always tried to guess what she meant as late December... When we knew that they sent a team of Detectives to Holland on the 31st December 2010....

That in itself is enough to raise an eyebrow or two..... But I think I can go one better.... And I didn't really think it was possible to be honest... But ....Oh yes it is ...!!!


The image and video that I have attached says it all...... It says that they did indeed set Dr Vincent Tabak up in my opinion...And if you are not going with my opinion on that then, the only other possible option you have left... Is That Joanna yeates , lived in the Entire Ground floor and Dr Vincent Tabak lived in a Flat in the main house...

I have attached a video to this post... A wonderful little News Clip that throws doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction ..(IMO)...

And what gives this information away so clearly is the weather.....  This video clip (IMO)... show how almost immediatley they were setting Dr Vincent Tabak up to take the fall... (Or did you have someone else in mind at this time Ann)!!!!!

Because when in December 2010 it snowed, we have a lovely video clip starting at the back of Canygne Road, looking directly at Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, standing on what must be the garden .... then walking down to the side of Joanna Yeates Flat where you can clearly see snow everywhere....

Not only that... It also goes to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak did not buy Rock Salt to clear the path as the snow is still there...

How can they be filming Dr Vincent Tabak  flat in the "FROZEN" winter, when as you have all said you didn't suspect Dr Vincent Tabak till the lovely Karen Thomas popped over for a cuppa and a chat... because if you have suspected Dr Vincent Tabak... I am sure he would have been cautioned before his interview in Holland.... And we wouldn't have video evidence of DC Karen Thomas and DCI Phil Jones telling the world how Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in Forensics caused you all to suspect him....

You see you can't have it both ways...


The News Clip is obviously taken in December 2010:

Quote
oanna Yeates murder trial: defendant Vincent Tabak gives evidence; December 2010 Bristol: Clifton: Canynge Road: SNOW ON GROUND GV Exterior of flat where Joanne Yeates lived Path beside flat PAN to front door


Another video showing The "FROZEN path outside Joanna Yeates Flat...!!

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656385638

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656487136

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 01, 2017, 08:49:20 PM
Ann.... were nearly friends... i feel like I almost know you... You are in my thoughts on a regular basis.. And we're not even pen pals.... But I do love the Islands Ann... Good Choice...

Were was I... Oh Yes... finding evidence to prove that you all had already decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty before he was charged.....

Lets go back to privacy... And.... not upsetting residents in the area that you are investigating....

You see Ann... The other little problem I have apart from the filming outside Dr Vincent tabaks Flat at the back of the building in December 2010.. Is..........

How did you manage to start putting up The scaffolding and Green tarpaulin around Dr Vincent tabak's Flat on the 20th January 2011... when as you know ANN... you had only just arrested Dr Vincent Tabak... and as far as the world was concerned you had all made the same mistake as you had done with CJ.....

How could you be so sure NO LAWYER would demand the release of this Placid Dutchman IMMEDIATLEY through lack of evidence....  How were you all so confident that he would be charged with "MURDER" as early as the 20th January 2011...

You couldn't possibly have known this, could you ANN... Yet there we have it... A load of busy little scaffolders.. working away to hide the view into Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat.... Which is extremely odd anyway... As you didn't screen anyother part of the building especially when you arrested CJ.... !!!

Quote
Clip #: 655366558SD
Collection: ITN
Date created: 20 January, 2011
Licence type: Rights-ready
Release info: Not released. More information
Clip length: 00:00:16:11
Location: United Kingdom

Again Ann.... Not released.... Oh I wonder why????





http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/687958316

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655388432

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655366558


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 01, 2017, 08:56:52 PM
Now this little clip is odd....

Somebody explain the Random Couple in The News Clip ... that are shown on a tour of Joanna Yeates Flat....

Beach Life...???.  And what's with the close up of a "Black and White Cat????


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 01, 2017, 09:06:21 PM
Now this next post is for mrswah and leonora....

The Fire Crew.... Well not totally them.... We have in this next video... The arrival in The Black Car of 4 Rope access guys... 4 guys who are heavily geared up to tackle someone far more serious than removing a body from A Grass Verge...

What are these guys retrieving??? Must be something of significance if it takes 4 of them....(IMO)....!!!

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688034660

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 01, 2017, 09:20:34 PM
Here we had Chief Superintendent  Jon Stratford telling us as early as the 7th January 2011... That its unlikely that there is a continuing threat!!


Quote from Chief Superintendent  Jon Stratford
Quote
In our experience and using our professional judgement, it's very unlikely, that there is a continuing threat to public in this area. And certainly the Investigation Team are finding nothing that would suggest that at this time


So... How can he be so sure ?????  What does he know ??????? I thought Dr Vincent Tabak was a Serial Killer in the making according to some.... He is freely wandering the streets of Bristol on the 7th January 2011...

So who did you think killed Joanna Yeates ???? Because it obviously was not Dr Vincent Tabak!!!

Was the person you suspected out of the country at This Time???!!!!

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655295256

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 01, 2017, 09:47:22 PM
The Missing Sock.....

The First Image I have attached is of the old man handing the sock in from the video clip... The other two images are from the internet...

The first image the guys hair looks longer.... Or is that just me????



http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655303460

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 01, 2017, 10:21:55 PM
I'll apologise now for the many images... but I believe that they are needed...I'm sure you will understand why when you view them...


These images come from them removing the Intercom Plate from the Front of Joanna Yeates Flat... Not only that we have the men who are removing the door making ... many many Forensic Errors!!!

(A): We have a man.. ripping the tape with his teeth that he is going to use for the Front door of Joanna yeates...

(B): We have a woman appear that I have never seen before...

(C): This same woman with Forensic Gloves on scratching her nose

(D):The Guy wrapping the door up not only walks all over the plastic covering.. But also wipes his nose with his gloves on....

So... Cross contamination everywhere... Forensic's clearly Compromised.... There whole Forensic chain put into question.... Any Good Defence Lawyer would have ripped the Prosecution apart....



http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/685650778

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 01, 2017, 10:43:06 PM
More evidence of the lack of Forensic Control in this case...

(A): different guy Wiping his nose on to his plastic gloves

(B): The lady who is new to me ... Entering Joanna Yeates flat without a Forensic Suit... And unlocking the Front door without gloves

(C):Man with his Gloved Hand in his pocket....... No Cross Contamination there Ann!!

(D): Why are they using D.R.A Maintenance to remove this door???? The Same Maintenance crew who are going in and out of Joanna Yeates Flat!!!

(E): The Old Guy Scratching his head with his thumb whilst wearing gloves

There is no way on God's Earth that Joanna Yeates was killed in that Flat the way in which The Cross Contamination.... Random odd Job men are working that Crime!!!! (IMO)....

Joanna Yeates probably didn't even make it home....(IMO)!!!!!! All this staging.... And for what.... Is this when the planned arrest took shape  ????

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/685655606

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 02, 2017, 10:45:04 AM
The Fire Trucks... And DI Joe Goff.....

Now I hadn't realised that DI Joe Goff was actually on Longwood Lane, he amongst so many Police on the day of the discovery of an unidentified body on 'Longwood Lane " on the 25th December 2010...

Until they had a post mortem they apparently didn't know the cause of death... Yet every senior looking Police Officer from Avon and Somerset, have gathered on Longwood lane to sort out their strategy..


DI Joe Goff is carrying something in his hand... It appears to be a kind of bag with a book inside... He has his own book in his hand also..  so what is he carrying?? (could it be the significant piece of evidence? Is it a rucksack?)

Look at the third and last image.... what is he carrying???

And as leonora and mrswah have always said.... Why so many Fire Trucks ????

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688789862

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 02, 2017, 11:10:52 AM
Now... The Police have always insisted that Joanna yeates was on A grass Verge and there are some of us who simply do not believe this is true!!

The appearance of so many fire engine at the scene on Longwood Lane would suggest other wise....

The type of Stretcher that was used to recovery Joanna Yeates is all important... This stretcher will help prove that she was in a far more inaccessible area than a Grass Verge..

I have an image of said stretcher... It is of the type used by the fire service to rescue people from hard to access places ..... Now there is no doubt that Joanna Yeates was recovered from over the wall ...(IMO)...

In the second image I am not sure what is in the Firemen's hand??? Anyone identify this piece of equipment ???



http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688789872



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 02, 2017, 11:50:16 AM
The Police activity on The 24th December 2010 at Canygne Road, shows that they are investigating this "Missing persons Inquiry as a 'Murder inquiry"...(IMO)...

I am trying to identify the Senior Police Officer leaving 44 Canygne Road with the Forensic woman we know and another DSI woman and then getting into the on site Police unit..
He looks like The Guy who carries out the Forensics on other images we have ...

And why are they going into 43, Canygne Road ?? surely they have had days to search there ???

A couple talking to Police outside Joanna Yeates Flat..... Also a picture of a different CSI woman... I wonder who she is ???

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688841636



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 02, 2017, 11:57:25 AM
I find this next report puzzling....

It's when the search and rescue go out looking for Joanna Yeates... I think it's the 24th December 2010..

The Interesting part of this is that the area is sealed off with "Crime Scene Tape"... And we have a couple there walking there dog...

Noted is the ambulances that are in place.... Had they found her there ?????

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659295816

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 02, 2017, 12:25:19 PM
I would just like to add to this post...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418537#msg418537

That by the 29th December 2010... The snow had gone.... This is when CJ was talking to News reports outside Canygne Road...

So the fact that they had already been taking images of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat before this date is rather suspect....(IMO)...

Seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak was away for most of the Christmas period.... And CJ wasn't arrested nor had Dr Vincent Tabak called the Police from Holland!!!

Quote
Joanna Yeates murder:
29.12.2010 Christopher Jefferies speaking to press SOT - It is a serious distortion of what I said to the police and I have no further comment to make because that is almost certain itself to be distorted 30.12.2010 Car (belonging to Christopher Jefferies) being lifted on to back of police truck Police truck carrying Jefferies' car driving away Forensic officer carrying evidence bags out of Jefferies' flat


http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659148876

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 02, 2017, 02:33:13 PM
Why doesn't Chief Superintendent  Jon Stratford want the public to think that there is a killer out there... When as he says... It's an unusual Crime for The Clifton area ...

He then goes on to say: At about 2:20 ish... what whole video...

Quote
Could I...  It's very impertinent of me I know ....
Could I just amend the question slightly from.... you've got a killer on the loose...
 


I think He is on Clifton Downs having this Interview ..... No date for this Interview ....

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/689706524

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on August 02, 2017, 06:12:52 PM
I find this next report puzzling....

It's when the search and rescue go out looking for Joanna Yeates... I think it's the 24th December 2010..

The Interesting part of this is that the area is sealed off with "Crime Scene Tape"... And we have a couple there walking there dog...

Noted is the ambulances that are in place.... Had they found her there ?????

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659295816
It's not an ambulance, but a white minibus, probably for transporting detachments of police officers. The dog is not a labrador, but a St Bernard, or a St Bernard lookalike. The Birches, who allegedly found Joanna's body, were walking their chocolate labrador, called Roxy. The priest who testified that he saw Joanna was walking his labrador.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 02, 2017, 07:26:08 PM
It's not an ambulance, but a white minibus, probably for transporting detachments of police officers. The dog is not a labrador, but a St Bernard, or a St Bernard lookalike. The Birches, who allegedly found Joanna's body, were walking their chocolate labrador, called Roxy. The priest who testified that he saw Joanna was walking his labrador.

It says Rescue Ambulance on the front Bonnet... And Ambulance down the side....  And I'm amazed that you haven't said anything else leonora... All those Fire Trucks !!

Bit small for a St. Bernard....  ?{)(**
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on August 02, 2017, 09:36:52 PM
It says Rescue Ambulance on the front Bonnet... And Ambulance down the side....  And I'm amazed that you haven't said anything else leonora... All those Fire Trucks !!

Bit small for a St. Bernard....  ?{)(**
The labels "Rescue Ambulance" and "Ambulance" are just a ruse for the benefit of journalists, neighbours and suspects. Just like DCI Phil Jones's insistance that Joanna was fully clothed and had incurred no other injury than those that caused her strangulation. I imagine it is normally used for transporting detachments of heavily armed police officers to houses where terrorists are believed to be holed up. In between, the vehicle is probably used for transporting packing cases.

There was no fire, so the pumping tenders had to be used for draining a large pond in the quarry, and the crane for retrieving the vehicle that was in the pond. Even more mysterious is the apparent lack of curiosity about the fire trucks on the part of the news media. This can be explained only by a conspiracy. Editors are very intelligent people, but they know that no one ever lost money by under-estimating the intelligence of the general public.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: mrswah on August 02, 2017, 09:54:53 PM
That is a very good picture of all the fire engines!!!

As for what DCI Goff is carrying, I thought it was a laptop at first, now I think it is probably a loose leaf file.

I was always under the impression that Vincent and Tanja moved out of their flat because Tanja felt uncomfortable being there-----and it happened that her friend was abroad, so there was a flat for them to use. Had there not been, I'm sure they would have stayed at no 44.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 04, 2017, 09:09:26 AM

Why in the "CrimeWatch" Reconstruction.. Is the girl who is playing the part of Joanna Yeates wearing a Black Rucksack with White down the edges??

All the images of Joanna Yeates have her wearing a Blue Rucksack why would they change the colour of the 'Rucksack"???

I have noticed there is a lot of references to "Black and White"...

(A): Joanna Yeates Bathroom

(B): Joanna Yeates Bedroom

(C): The settee's in Joanna Yeates front room.. ( One with cover removed)

(D): Bernard The Cat

(E):All The CCTV images that are Black and white...

Why would the Police deliberatley change the "Colour" of The Rucksack That Joanna yeates was supposed to be carrying???



 Not sure what it means ....!!




http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655516666

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655377712

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: AerialHunter on August 05, 2017, 11:56:29 AM
The ambulance really is an ambulance. It was purchased to enable access to areas around the Severn Estuary where other ambulances cannot go due to the terrain. The white van is a SOCO's van (Scene Of Crime Officer) (I use the term "officer" lightly here, they are just anyone trained to use ear buds to swab surfaces and put them into a plastic bag so someone with a brain can analyse anything stuck to the cotton wool). Standard procedure is to check an area is clear of anything of interest and delineate the cleared space with anything to hand, in this case police tape. Anything that gets found is placed into the area and from then on is considered "forensic", i.e. "The Property of The Courts". That's all the tape is there for, there is nothing in that cleared space. The couple walking the dog are outside of that small space and the photographer has included the tape in the shot just for effect.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 08, 2017, 12:38:49 PM
I believe that the Flat is Staged.... I don't believe that the flat has Joanna Yeates furniture inside it..... And although everyone may think I have lost the plot... bare with me.... And my reasoning for believing that this is the case .....

The reason which I will give you supporting evidence as to why I believe that the flat is staged.... Look at Image 1 and Image 3...

They show the kitchen window sill... On Image one... The Police have obviously not finished painting the tiles!!! Because by the time Image three is taken which is when the Jury have been.... we have all the tiles the same colour!!!

Why would the Police need to Paint The Kitchen tiles in Joanna Yeates Flat???

Whether or not you believe in confessions or admission of GUILT.... The fact that The Police Have Clearly tampered with evidence should be more than enough to cast doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction....(IMO)...

This also make me believe that the "For Rent Advert... that was  on Rightmove is actually Joanna Yeates flat... and what it looked like .... With the kitchen blind down.... I will say this because all the kitchen tiles have been painted... and obviously that painting had happened after Joanna Yeates was dead....

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/19/article-2050880-0E58081400000578-386_634x417.jpg)


Edit..... It's a Crime Scene (apparently).... WHY ARE YOU PAINTING TILES?????? You can even see the UNDERCOAT... So that is deliberate (IMO)... You're not going to top coat until you finish undercoating... !!


http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656494322

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050880/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeates-killed-accident-objected-kiss.html

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 08, 2017, 03:03:25 PM
Removed by Me...  Pointless post.. sorry
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 10, 2017, 02:09:12 AM
..........



Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 10, 2017, 02:15:22 AM
......
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: Leonora on August 13, 2017, 12:29:32 PM
For someone who has read no more than Wikipedia's account of this case, the absence of a motive on the part of Vincent Tabak ought to loom large as the "elephant in the room". Unfortunately the elephant in the room is a threatened species which few people acknowledge. On the other hand, the dog that did not bark in the night is a much loved pet familiar to EVERYONE. I cannot imagine why I never thought it odd before that Mr Clegg failed to open his case for the defence by barking, "MOTIVE? Woof woof!"

Instead, as we know, he opened it by telling the jury that he didn't expect them to like his client. Then he invited the same client into the witness box to spend two days playing out the bluebeard role devised for him.

Just imagine what would have happened if Vincent Tabak had gone on answering "No comment" and pleaded not guilty. The trial would have been somewhat shorter. Mr. Clegg would have had a lovely time demolishing each of the prosecution witnesses in turn with a few well-aimed questions. He would have issued the jury with copies of the very sympathetic preface to his client's PhD thesis. He would then have opened his case by asking what motive the CPS thought Joanna's murderer had. He would have called Christopher Jefferies, Tanja Morson and select character witnesses to testify. It would have taken the jury one cup of coffee to declare the accused innocent.
Title: Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
Post by: ...... on August 13, 2017, 11:26:41 PM
Remember these guys....  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418544#msg418544

The clumsy lot with the handling of Forensics.....

Well I hadn't realised that they came back... Oh yes... And