Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

 

5. Clause 10 is linked to clause 5 in that it governs the outcome of investigations. The requirement under clause 10(1)(a) that the senior coroner (or jury where there is one) make a 'determination' as to the factors listed in clause 5(1) is broadly similar to the current rule in the 1988 Act. Liberty welcomes the addition that the determination must include the circumstances of the death in Article 2 investigations. We do, however, believe that clause 10 could go further. Clause 10(1)(b) requires the coroner or the jury to make a 'finding' at the end of an inquest as to the particulars to be registered under the 1953 Act.[7] This continues the current system allowing for short verdicts (such as 'unlawful killing' or 'misadventure') in non-article 2 cases which can become an additional source of distress to the bereaved. Short verdicts give an inadequate explanation of the circumstances of death and can be applied inconsistently. Liberty believes the extension of narrative verdicts to all inquests would provide better answers to questions the bereaved have about the circumstances of the death as well as prevent further fatalities.

How is it possible to have an Inquest into the Death of an Individual who has died at the hands of another, if all the evidence from the trial has not been brought to bare...

The Inquest would be incomplete!!!! Not having all the relevant information available to make an informed decision with the actual cause of death and who is responsible for that death....

How does this stand up Legally?????

Yes a short verdict possibly, but not before a trial has commenced..... As the Coroner would not have all the known facts that contributed to the death of an individual!!!

And if this is anything to go by:

13. Clause 14 and Schedule 1 make provision for the suspension and resumption of investigations. Liberty understands the policy objective of preventing simultaneous criminal investigations and inquiries, by different bodies, into the circumstances around deaths. We do, however, take this opportunity to raise concerns over the unnecessary delays to justice that can take place under the current system. A well-known and tragic example is the case of Jean Charles de Menezes who was fatally shot at Stockwell tube station on 22nd July 2005. While an inquest into the shooting was opened on 25th July 2005, the inquest was suspended after the IPCC opened its investigation in to the shooting two days later. The IPCC took over two years to release their report - well after a decision by the CPS that no criminal prosecutions would take place. As a result the inquest into the death was only resumed in September 2008. While blame for the delay in justice can be laid firmly at the door of the IPCC in this case, questions are raised about the role of the coronial system in such situations where other mechanisms of investigation and accountability fail. Delays such as these prolong the pain and suffering for the bereaved and undermine one of the primary functions of a timely inquest. We ask members to consider the relationship between the coronial service and other relevant bodies when looking at the current Bill and to consider whether time limits need to be imposed to ensure that justice is not delayed and therefore denied.

Why was Joanna Yeates inquest rushed????????

So why the secret Inquest before a trial had taken place????

Secret inquests are normally held if it has anything to do with National Security.....

This doesn't make sense!!!!!

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/memos/ucm402.htm

[Leonora]

Now pardon me if i'm unsure of proceeding.... But why is he cross examined by his Defence council first??????

I thought the Prosecution laid their case in front of the Jury first and the defence then came in to rebut any claims made by the prosecution.....

Hang on a minute.. does that mean he has a right to a retrial, if proper procedure hasn't been followed?????

Can someone write a timeline of the court proceedings please....

I know how the Sally Ramage paper reads....And it does read as if the Defence spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak first!!

Vincent Tabak was "put into the witness box" by his own Defence Counsel. His testimony was given in response to a succession of questions put to him by his own Counsel. Then it was the turn of Counsel for the Prosecution to cross-examine him. As far as I can make out, his own QC questioned him for a second time, after he had been reduced to a "snivelling wretch" by Counsel for the Prosecution.

In my opinion these alone are not grounds for claiming a mistrial. The judge's repeated failure to intervene when he should have done, on the other hand, are, in my opinion, grounds for claiming a mistrial. Misleading the jury about the recovery of the body was grounds for a criminal prosecution.

A timeline of the court proceedings is rather a tall order, as there were SO MANY witnesses, and SO MANY witness statements were read out. It would lead to a very long post.

[[...]]

Just going back to the inquest regarding, inquests that are held in secrecy because of national Sercurity...


If this is the reason Joanna Yeates Inquest is shrouded in secrecy, then in turn it means that Dr Vincent Tabak could not be responsible.

And is Innocent as I have always claimed!!!!


Leonora... I believe there are plenty of reasons that this is a Mis-Trial!!!!!!

EDIT:......

Another problem with the Inquest being held in March 2011....  Dr Vincent Tabak had not even entered a plea at this time... And the only indication of his guilt is the ramblings of a person pretending to be a Chaplain....

So how did they determine at the inquest...

(a): The cause of death

(b): At who's hands...... ????????  Especially as Dr Vincent Tabak was in custody charged with her Murder!!!!!!!

Double EDIT:..... They wouldn't have even had the ramblings of the Chaplain as this information was not produced until trial.....

So how did the inquest make it's findings?????

[Leonora]

How is it possible to have an Inquest into the Death of an Individual who has died at the hands of another, if all the evidence from the trial has not been brought to bare...

The Inquest would be incomplete!!!! Not having all the relevant information available to make an informed decision with the actual cause of death and who is responsible for that death....

How does this stand up Legally?????

Yes a short verdict possibly, but not before a trial has commenced..... As the Coroner would not have all the known facts that contributed to the death of an individual!!!

And if this is anything to go by:
Why was Joanna Yeates inquest rushed????????

So why the secret Inquest before a trial had taken place????

Secret inquests are normally held if it has anything to do with National Security.....

This doesn't make sense!!!!!

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/memos/ucm402.htm

Thank you for that link, and the pertinent quotations. I note that the paper by Liberty refers to the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was a foreign electronics technician working legally in the UK, and who may have known too much about National Security when he was gunned down by security officers in a London underground train.

This Vincent Tabak case stinks to high heaven of cover-up, and I include National Security as one of the possible explanations. Even the serious media behaved with striking meekness, especially with regard to the porn and prostitutes. Yet there is only the scantiest of evidence of any link to National Security - and that is the mark of a good cover-up!

I have wondered whether it was Vincent Tabak himself who was the intended victim, while "the young lady from Bristol" has been given a new identity. But two pathologists would not perjure themselves, would they? A fellow sceptic suggested that Vincent Tabak had worked on the movement of people in the Millennium Stadium, and became party to knowledge of anti-terror measures that made him a risk to National Security. On the day his neighbour went to the Ram pub he was working on a Saudi Binladin Group project for the Grand Mosque in Mecca, for which his employer was tendering.

However, there is precious little evidence for the National Security angle, apart from the identities of some of the expert witnesses, whose public credentials are minimal. One of them seems to be connected to the Royal Military College of Science. In this connection, this thread should be aware that the Coroner for Avon & Somerset was under suspension at the time of Joanna's death. He challenged this suspension in the High Court, but lost.

[[...]]

The Court would tell him only that, yes, an inquest was indeed opened, and adjourned, on 29th December 2010, and held on 28th March 2011.

Has he got this Information in writing Leonora????? Is it possible to see it?????

[[...]]

 One of them seems to be connected to the Royal Military College of Science. In this connection, this thread should be aware that the Coroner for Avon & Somerset was under suspension at the time of Joanna's death. He challenged this suspension in the High Court, but lost.

Have you any links to this info Leonora???

[Leonora]

Leonora... I believe there are plenty of reasons that this is a Mis-Trial!!!!!!
... They wouldn't have even had the ramblings of the Chaplain as this information was not produced until trial.....

So how did the inquest make it's findings?????

Correction: The chaplain didn't ramble, nor was he first and foremost a chaplain, but, as you have so inimicably discovered, a senior prison officer. His failure to tell the jury that fact alone is probably grounds for claiming a mistrial!

As I have tried to demonstrate, but apparently no one is listening, the conversations between the chaplain and the prisoner were edited to make them sound like a confession. They also made them sound like the ramblings of a vague old man. The incriminating words were spoken not by the witness, but by none other than Counsel for the Defence, pretending to discredit him. It was a conjuring trick that fooled everyone. And the judge, trained to spot that sort of trick where normal mortals would be taken in, was silent.

[[...]]

Correction: The chaplain didn't ramble, nor was he first and foremost a chaplain, but, as you have so inimicably discovered, a senior prison officer. His failure to tell the jury that fact alone is probably grounds for claiming a mistrial!

As I have tried to demonstrate, but apparently no one is listening, the conversations between the chaplain and the prisoner were edited to make them sound like a confession. They also made them sound like the ramblings of a vague old man. The incriminating words were spoken not by the witness, but by none other than Counsel for the Defence, pretending to discredit him. It was a conjuring trick that fooled everyone. And the judge, trained to spot that sort of trick where normal mortals would be taken in, was silent.

I  know there was NO Confession Leonora... I worked that out long ago.....  Dr Vincent Tabak never ever confesses to anything of the sort at anytime even at Trial!!!!!!

[Leonora]

Have you any links to this info Leonora???

https://www.pubfacts.com/author/Tania+Nickson

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/C_Knock/publications

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225066071_Interpreting_the_formation_of_bloodstains_on_selected_apparel_fabrics

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/coroner-dismissed-investigation/story-11269944-detail/story.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-12357267

[[...]]

Please someone explain how you can have an inquest before a murder trial takes place?

(Or close before a murder trial takes place)??????

[Leonora]

Please someone explain how you can have an inquest before a murder trial takes place?

(Or close before a murder trial takes place)??????

I don't know where you are going with this question. There would be no point in holding the inquest after the murder trial had taken place, and, as you yourself have discovered, the rules seem to permit the Coroner to close an inquest after a suspect has been charged.

By the way, Joanna kept a diary. Teresa Yeates said that her daughter had been busily preparing for Christmas and had been planning to make mince pies at the weekend, printing out a recipe from the internet and tucking it into her diary. If I had been Mrs Yeates, I would have made sure I got a good look at the diary entries for the preceding month before handing it over to the police - whereupon, sadly, it was never heard of again in public.

In 2006 the body of a 23-year-old student was found beneath the floorboards of a Glasgow church. Prior to the trial of the man charged with murdering her, her diaries were translated from Polish by an interpreter appointed by the authorities. These translations were read out in court, and seem to have been very illuminating, as they showed that the victim had led an active social life.

[[...]]

I don't know where you are going with this question. There would be no point in holding the inquest after the murder trial had taken place, and, as you yourself have discovered, the rules seem to permit the Coroner to close an inquest after a suspect has been charged.

By the way, Joanna kept a diary. Teresa Yeates said that her daughter had been busily preparing for Christmas and had been planning to make mince pies at the weekend, printing out a recipe from the internet and tucking it into her diary. If I had been Mrs Yeates, I would have made sure I got a good look at the diary entries for the preceding month before handing it over to the police - whereupon, sadly, it was never heard of again in public.

In 2006 the body of a 23-year-old student was found beneath the floorboards of a Glasgow church. Prior to the trial of the man charged with murdering her, her diaries were translated from Polish by an interpreter appointed by the authorities. These translations were read out in court, and seem to have been very illuminating, as they showed that the victim had led an active social life.

Charging a suspect and finding a suspect guilty are two different things altogether.... So asking why the inquest was closed before the trial took place does not seem an unreasonable question.

And with you disclosing the information regarding Joanna Yeates Diary.... That too would be used in an inquest...

And should have been presented at trial!!

I am familiar with the Tobin case you had glanced over... I believe the forensic scientist at the time spent 3 hours meticulously collecting any possible forensic material before any attempts to move the body from beneath the church took place.

So what were the procedure followed with regards Joanna Yeates removal from Longwood Lane????  And are there any timings in relation to the collection of forensic material????

[[...]]

leonora... How is it that this springs to mind: Jonny Nash


There are more questions than answers
Pictures in my mind that will not show
There are more questions than answers
And the more I find out the less I know
Yeah, the more I find out the less I know


I started with a few queries....  And the Hundred questions should be doubled!!!!

This case is Mind Boggling.....

[[...]]

A timeline of the court proceedings is rather a tall order, as there were SO MANY witnesses, and SO MANY witness statements were read out. It would lead to a very long post.

I don't mind Long posts Leonora...  I like to see the facts 

[mrswah]

I don't know where you are going with this question. There would be no point in holding the inquest after the murder trial had taken place, and, as you yourself have discovered, the rules seem to permit the Coroner to close an inquest after a suspect has been charged.

By the way, Joanna kept a diary. Teresa Yeates said that her daughter had been busily preparing for Christmas and had been planning to make mince pies at the weekend, printing out a recipe from the internet and tucking it into her diary. If I had been Mrs Yeates, I would have made sure I got a good look at the diary entries for the preceding month before handing it over to the police - whereupon, sadly, it was never heard of again in public.

In 2006 the body of a 23-year-old student was found beneath the floorboards of a Glasgow church. Prior to the trial of the man charged with murdering her, her diaries were translated from Polish by an interpreter appointed by the authorities. These translations were read out in court, and seem to have been very illuminating, as they showed that the victim had led an active social life.

Do you know whether Joanna's diaries were handed over to the police?  The police should certainly have asked for them.