Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 39504 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #15 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.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2017, 01:54:35 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #16 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

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #17 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)


Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #18 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.

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #19 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?????

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #20 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.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 01:49:21 PM by Leonora »

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #21 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

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #22 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!!!!!

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #23 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)....

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #24 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


Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #25 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!!!!
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 07:52:14 PM by mrswah »

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #26 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!!!!

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #27 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!!!!!!!


Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #28 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.”

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #29 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..