Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 272175 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1545 on: July 31, 2018, 09:39:49 PM »
Remember this post... About witness's appearing in court and those who's statements were just read out without them being in attendance....

From:  13:26 GMT, Friday, 19 December 2008

Transcript of Ian Kelcey from the video attached to the article..

Quote
It's very very few cases where it would be appropriate for a witness to give evidence anonymously, we think there are absolutely no cases where it would be appropriate for a witness to give anonymous hearsay evidence. in other words, evidence could not be tested

So therefore why didn't Kelcey Hall make objections at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak where these witness 's had there statements read out and were NOT PRESENT!!


The list below are witness's who had their statements read to the jury and didn't appear in Court

* Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )

* Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)

* Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )

* Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )

* Sarah Maddox (At Dinner  Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )

* PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )

* Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )

* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)

* Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )

* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)

*  Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )

* Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).

* Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )

* Peter Lindsell  ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )

* Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )

* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)

* Micheal Breen... Not sure where to put him

* PC Martin Faithful

2008 Ian Kelcey believed this: we think there are absolutely no cases where it would be appropriate for a witness to give anonymous hearsay evidence. in other words, their evidence could not be tested

2011 he allowed this......(imo)


The list below are witness's who had their statements read to the jury and didn't appear in Court

* Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )

* Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)

* Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )

* Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )

* Sarah Maddox (At Dinner  Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )

* PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )

* Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )

* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)

* Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )

* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)

*  Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )

* Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).

* Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )

* Peter Lindsell  ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )

* Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )

* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)

* Micheal Breen... Not sure where to put him

* PC Martin Faithful

None of these witness's evidence was tested!

What changed his mind???   why was it allowed in the case of Dr Vincent Tabak?? What possible reason could these witness's be in any danger giving evidence??



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7791830.stm  ( I needed to watch it in safari).

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1546 on: August 01, 2018, 07:26:44 AM »
From Omroep Brabant

Quote
Brother Vincent T: "he feels lonely"

VEGHEL - Marcel, brother of murder suspect Vincent T., says his brother feels lonely in prison. Vincent told him this during a telephone conversation. T. is stuck on suspicion of the murder of the British Joanna Yeates.

In the KRO program Brandpunt, Marcel tells that he can not imagine that his brother is capable of the murder . "It is a very friendly, warm, helpful boy with which it is very nice to do things together."

Neighbors
Marcel does not know much about Yeates. "I know the neighbor was only living there for a short while, because when I was there in the autumn, the apartment was still empty, which I've heard, she lived there for up to two months, and in the same period my brother spent six weeks away working at a sister company of his employer in America, so I think there was hardly any opportunity for contact. "

Conversation
During the holidays, when Joanna's body was found in Bristol, Vincent was at home in the Netherlands. "We were all in a house, it had snowed, we had sleigh and that kind of cozy things, and at one point he asked the adults together, because there were also children and he did not want them taxing that story, and then he told what he knew, what happened to his neighbor, that the whole house was turned upside down, that everything was being examined, his apartment too. press That put his life upside down. "

Press
When T. was arrested, the British press was fast in the Netherlands. "I was told quite quickly by my mother that there was English press on the sidewalk, about an hour or two after the news that he had been arrested, that was how fast it was, when no one had been at my door yet, but you wonder where it is going. "

Contact
A few days ago, Marcel had contact with his brother for the last time. "He is in prison and he feels safe, but lonely, this is just a terrible feeling."

The lawsuit starts at the earliest at the end of April.

 correct print
Publication: Monday, January 31, 2011 - 00:46

It was happily accepted that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Cambridge with Tanja Morson and her family for Christmas Eve and Christmas day... But this article tells us otherwise...

The need for witness's at trial to confirm or deny what has been stated is paramount... Marcel Tabak himself should have been a witness at trial to tell us of what happened at what time and date in connection to his brother..

If Dr Vincent Tabak is in Holland at Christmas as Marcel Tabak states.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak go to Cambridge earlier?? Did he go to Cambridge at all??

Or was Joanna Yeates body found later?

Nobody established Dr Vincent Tabak's movements at anytime over the period of time Joanna Yeates was Missing and subsequently found dead...


Dr Vincent Tabak, appears to have been able to phone his brother, who else did Dr Vincent Tabak call??

Marcel tells us of the entire house being examined and turned upside down... If there was any chance of cross contamination, that surely could be an opportunity for it....  Did the Police have warrants to search the entire house before Joanna Yeates was found??

What were they looking for in this Missing person enquiry??  Why did they concentrate on that house??

The actions of the Police leave many unanswered questions, and treating the residents of Canygne Road in this manor beofre they were sure that a Crime had been committed, tells us the Police were aware of Joanna yeates status before it was officially confirmed (imo)..

There appears to be NO-ONE that was interviewed in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak's whereabouts over this period... yet we have in court a statement read out and a story told by the defendant that doesn't tally with reports made by his family... And not one member of his family representing him at his trial in Bristol...

So there is a room/house full of people who could get on the witness stand and put Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland on the day that Joanna Yeates body is found... yet we hear nothing from these people.... Why??

Did Clegg not interview his family??  There is so much lacking in this case... I find it unimaginable how it ever got to trial.. yet we are all aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration for the murder of Joanna Yeates.

But... If it hasn't been established that Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland at the time Joanna Yeates body was found... how can we trust, what has been stated at trial?  How do we know if there are not other people who may be able to establish Dr Vincent Tabak's whereabouts on the 17th December 2010??

We have a clip from a CCTV footage in Asda, to tell us that this is what Dr Vincent Tabak was doing that evening.... But was he?? We already know that the Tesco CCTV footage isn't the original footage.... The man in the Asda footage may not even be Dr Vincent Tabak, it is not easy to confirm this... We have no receipts from the purchaces made in Asda, or no bank records to show such a purchase... we do not see Dr Vincent Tabak at the till to see if he uses cash.... we see a man walk in and out twice, leaving with some bags.....

Who's to say that someone in the store didn't pass him the bags?? We don't know as his full Asda trips were not seen by us nor i believe by the jury either...(imo)

So where was Dr Vincent Tabak on the 17th December 2010?? Was he with Tanja Morson?? we don;t know... we didn't have Tanja Morsons testimony at trial either... He may not have even been in the country, because we have nothing to establish that either...

A whole trial, where NOTHING was established.... We do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak was the man at Bristol Crown Court in October 2011... just because we are told he was, doesn't make it so...(imo)

So we have a story at trial told by a man that no-one has identified as Dr Vincent Tabak, telling us a tale that makes no sense.. A tale of what took place... A tale that puts him in this country on the 25th December 2010, when a report from his brother Marcel was made earlier that he was in Holland on the 25th December 2010...

So what do we believe?
I believe this case is a travesty... A case where we were told untruths... A case were hearsay evidence was allowed.. A case that  the public should be made aware of....

A Case that needs the full attention of the media... and Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction needs questioning, this case isn't going away... the information can be found around the Internet... anyone can see how it doesn't make sense .. if they spend a little time looking at the Internet, they too can gather the information just like I have...

And ask themselves... what on earth is British Justice about?? Because this isn't Justice... This isn't Justice by any stretch of the imagination!


http://www.omroepbrabant.nl/?news/1497891583/Broer+Vincent+T+hij+voelt+zich+eenzaam.aspx

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1547 on: August 01, 2018, 03:13:45 PM »
Transcript from the beginning of this news feed....

Quote
Standing in the shadows, the quiet neighbour nobody suspected. And when Vincent Tabak returned from his Christmas holiday abroad, he thought he'd got away with murder. Two weeks earlier he'd used this car to dump the body of Joanna Yeates after killing her in the victorian mansion block where they both lived.


Two weeks after 17th December 2010 = 31st December 2010

So we have 2 problems here.... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be in Holland on the 31st December 2010, secondly how did the BBC get footage of Dr Vincent Tabak and his car on this date.... He isn't a suspect at this point....

I had originally thought CrimeWatch had gotten the footage... But it was obviously the BBC on the 31st December 2010..

So it is Dr Vincent Tabak stood in the shadows directing the driver where to park... I have said before, they must know where to park seeing as they live at that address...

Is the man in the shadows someone pretending to be Dr Vincent Tabak??  who's car is that really??  Why would the BBC just happen to be at Canygne Road taking footage of what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak on the 31st December 2010??

So what was the Holland Interview about??
Did the Holland Interview take place??

How can Dr Vincent Tabak be in two places at once??

If Dr Vincent Tabak is on Canygne Road on the 31st December 2010, how did they obtain a DNA sample from him, which apparently was the reason he was arrested... The DNA sample was taken in Holland according to Ann Reddrop on the Crimewatch program i believe... She also states he gave it reluctantly....

Never mind whether it was reluctantly or not... I want to know how Dr Vincent Tabak can be in two places at once??

I would like to see the date of the recording of Dr Vincent Tabak outside Canygne Road.... someones telling porkies again.....

On camera, we have Ann Reddrop state Dr Vincent Tabak was reluctant to give his DNA in Holland
We have DC Karen Thomas as well telling us of Dr Vincent Tabak's reluctance and his over interest in forensics
We have DCI Phil Jones stating that a team flew over to Holland ....
We know this Interview was supposed to take  6 hours.... So where was Dr Vincent Tabak on the 31st December 2010??

If the BBC are stating in this video that it was 2 weeks prior that Dr Vincent Tabak had killed Miss Yeates... making the filming of the car and Dr Vincent Tabak stood at the main entrance of 44, Canygne Road the 31st December 2010...



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15448121

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1548 on: August 04, 2018, 01:55:12 PM »
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and in particular should keep comments, RELATIVE, AMIABLE and CONSTRUCTIVE.  You could call it the RAC of the forum world.

Please do not engage in sniping, goading or name calling as such conduct will attract penalties.

Have a great weekend everyone!!
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case/ This is a THEORY!
« Reply #1549 on: August 15, 2018, 01:48:57 PM »

Quote
Homepage
  ,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
   Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
,  Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
   Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
   Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area

This whole case has had me in turmoil... I couldn't understand how certain obvious actions didn't happen and how other actions did....

We have to remember that everything I know about this case comes from on-line information, and i believe that a lot of the evidence and statements that were made happened on line, i just couldn't work out many issues and problems I faced in determining, where these statements that were made in court came from.....

Issues i had such as why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have an application for bail or why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have good character evidence entered into trial....

I have stumbled again upon something and I put a new theory forward.....

The reason I believe that evidence.. like finger prints and items removed from Joanna Yeates Flat or Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat didn't appear in court is because the whole of this case was done on-line....

Everything and i mean everything I know about this trial has come from the Internet... From The Facebook Forum, to the images that we see of Joanna Yeates, Dr Vincent Tabak, Greg Reardon, the Yeates, Joanna Yeates friends, all have come from on-line in one form or another....

I have said that the information came from social media.... I have shown how Darragh Bellew posted about the items that were Missing from Joanna Yeates Flat....  We see images of neighbours ,Interviews from Neighbours... all available to view via the internet.....

I have never been able to understand why witness's were not called, when in reality they should have been... But I have an answer for that which I will come back to later...

The whole truth may never be known?  It is still in my head.... But is there a way in which to find the whole truth?? I am hoping there is....

It is the Polices own strategy that has got me thinking about the trial in a different context... Forms.... In my post I referred to these on-line forms and with the information I have found, I believe I now understand, why certain procedures were not followed or should I say , certain applications were not made....

And why certain applications were made.... I'll start with something simple, Dr Vincent Tabak's application for Bail...

I couldn't understand why it didn't happen... I expected that at the court, there was plenty of opportunity for an application for bail to be applied for....

Now there's a reason I propose that this didn't happen... Dr Vincent Tabak is in court at the first opportunity... I believe a possibility is that an application for a new solicitor/ representative happened whilst Paul Cook was representing Dr Vincent Tabak... Making it impossible for Paul Cook to make an application for bail, as he would not be Dr Vincent Tabak's solicitor...

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/bcl002-eng.pdf

The FORM is never filled in by Paul Cook or Micheal Fitton QC

So, Dr Vincent Tabak is kept on remand.... His new solicitors/representatives, do not fill in the for to apply for bail.. 
And the below form is not needed by Clegg/Kelcey and Hall, because no application was original made for bail, and therefore NO Bail decision was made by the judge as to whether to Bail Dr Vincent Tabak....

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/bcl003-eng.pdf

I can keep going with this.....

I have ideas and notions spinning around my head... This Case is quite unbelievable...  So I believe it is entirely possible that everything was done on-line...

* Video link application

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/mae002-eng.pdf

* Witness's

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/dis002-eng.pdf

* The written witness statements

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/ws001-eng.pdf

* Hearsay

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/he001-eng.pdf

* Bad Character Evidence

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/ebc003-eng.pdf

* Traffic Offences

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/rtp003-eng.pdf



These are the reason I believe that all of the statements were read out in court and why they didn't appear....  Depending on which forms are filled in depends on what is allowed or not allowed in court (imo)

So a traffic offence form has never been filled in.. Bad Character evidence form was not filed in or applied for (imo)

There are many more forms, but I am just giving an idea on a theory as to why certain basics didn't happen in this case...   Many of these forms are available in the PDF form which I have demonstrated, but many are word documents and there is not a PDF alternative to show you at the mo.... But if as the Police strategy suggests that many people filled their forms online at the Avon and Somerset Jo website, whats to say that their on-line forms are not the very forms that I am talking about here...  Forms were you can give a witness statement without entering a court room...

Did someone fill in a form saying that they were DCI mark Luther??

Anyway... I have had another idea, which I am going to share soon......  I'll post again.. Don't forget that this is a theory and no accusations to any person living or dead is seen as fact.



http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470437#msg470437

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case/ Dr Vincent Tabak's New Representatives..
« Reply #1550 on: August 15, 2018, 02:51:45 PM »
,.................

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1551 on: August 15, 2018, 02:54:35 PM »
...................

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1552 on: August 15, 2018, 03:17:50 PM »
 oopsie theres seems to have been a disruption in proccedings

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1553 on: August 15, 2018, 03:30:37 PM »
 &%%6

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1554 on: August 15, 2018, 03:55:16 PM »
Was notice to introduce "Bad Character Evidence" supplied to the court?

Was the application for this notice ever obtained??

Could the facts have been proven by the prosecution?? 

Is this the reason why the porn wasn't introduced as evidence, because they had no way in which to prove that this was a fact and this is what Dr Vincent Tabak did or enjoyed doing.. And as they didn't have the computers of Dr Vincent Tabak forensically tested by an independent expert, there was no way in proving for a fact , what was or what was not on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer... (imo)



https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/october-2015/ebc003-eng.pdf

Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1555 on: August 15, 2018, 04:33:02 PM »
Hi Nine,

I've just been looking through your last posts and I've got admit that I'm completely confused.

Quote
I will attach copies of this application the application made by Dr Vincent Tabak and I believe there may be a way in which it is possible to change the outcome as it stands... i will quote from said document..

Is this genuinely something written by Tabak? Or is it something written by you from his point of view?

Am I the only one bemused by the last few posts.


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1556 on: August 16, 2018, 10:33:43 AM »
I'll apologise for the long post before I start.....

Baz you don't need to ask me that question, it is obvious...  Now the point of this is because,  This entire exercise appears to be electronic....

What hard copies are there in evidence from this trial.... ???  All of the information that has been gathered and was used at trial was from computers, phones etc.... There was nothing physical in this case...

Dr Delaney explains his findings...  which one would expect, Same for Lyndsey Lennen and Tanja Nickson...  Tanja Nickson... Lynsday farmery uses a slide show if I remember correctly....

I have posted about Dr kelly Sheridan's article where she talks of fibre analysis and test on an ikea duvet, but she wasn't present at trial to tell us her findings...

Lyndsey Lennen in an article has told us about the 48 hour turn around of the physical evidence including fibres from  the coat of the suspect... she has to mean Dr Vincent Tabak.... But where was the coat at trial? what exhibit number was this coat of Dr Vincent Tabak?

Shouldn't Dr Kelly Sheridan have appeared at trial as she is a fibre expert to tell the jury of her expertise and what HER findings were....

The photo's around the internet of this case tell us what...??  That Dr Vincent Tabak has changed... looks very different... The man was supposed to have lost weight not gained it.... 

The experts in any field we are supposed to trust, we believe that their greater knowledge will leads us to the truth, we have protocols etc to make sure that everything is above board...

But what was put in place in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak??  We don't know.. As leonora has pointed out before, who identified the man on the Live Link as Dr Vincent Tabak??

Tanja Morson did not give any statements once Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested...  Tanja Morson did not attend trial... She didn't identify him... His family didn't take the stand and only appeared on one day it seems and they have said nothing...  We only see them walking across the road, we do not know if they actually went into the court room where the trial is taking place..

I point this out because from the oodles of court drawing I have seen, the Tabak family do not appear in any of them.. So how are we to know who was actually inside said court room??

If they have been told they may be called as witness's of this trial, they would have to wait outside and not be able to see any of the proceedings, and that could happen throughout the entire trial... They might not have seen the man whom took the stand and said that he was Dr Vincent Tabak and then told a story of how he apparently killed Joanna Yeates..

The Yeates didn't know who Dr Vincent Tabak was either... they saw him apparently via video link at The Old Bailey.. I found that strange that they attended what was a plea and management hearing...

Now we come to William Clegg... Did he meet Dr Vincent Tabak?? Did he know for sure that the man in the dock was Dr Vincent Tabak??  Or did he assume it was?? We expect our experts to follow protocols, but what if they don't... what if they cut corners....  What if he sent someone else to take a statement... 

I believe that it would be possible to get the infomation needed from your client without actually talking to him... We have to remember that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't say anything... he made "NO Comment' interviews with the Police....

He signs an enhanced statement in September 2011 and the case then goes ahead... But what is this enhanced statement??   Was this statement electronic?? Was this statement physically signed by Dr Vincent Tabak?

Did Dr Vincent Tabak have a meeting and sign this enhanced statement?/ Or was it all electronic?? Who knows what Dr Vincent Tabak's signature looks like??  Who could confirm it??

Was each of these statements actually signed.... I don't know, but i am expected to believe someone whom is called an expert... Who physically collected the written statements from Dr Vincent Tabak??  Who meet with Dr Vincent Tabak of the people who represented him?

Before you think I'm accusing people of misconduct, lets remember that my opinion changes about this trial... I had come to the point of not knowing if this trial was actually real.... I have said on many occasions it all could be a farce....

If the people we see at a trial walk past a camera, does that mean that they are those people?  The media may have identified those people as certain people , but are they?  This trial could be part of a wider sting operation for all I know... And the like of Clegg, Lickley and Reddrop were just playing their part..  The media are the ones telling us about this trial, and tweeting about this trial, which i myself cannot believe how a whole criminal trial was allowed to be tweeted from a court room....

If the trial was about something else, then the media would not be allowed to report on this.... And maybe that is why they do not talk about the Dr Vincent Tabak Case...  So there are other options that can be applied to this case... Therefore I am asking, who verified anything in this trial??

As it is clearly possible for anyone to fill out forms (I will post on that)... 

We are told that the Police applied for a warrant, well... Was the warrant granted?? You can sit at a computer and physically apply for it... But who signed and sealed it??

There was mountains of evidence moved from the property being 44. Canygne Road, but did they have a warrant to move  all of that evidence,... And did they need to strip the Flat of everything?? Only items that may relate to the crime are usually taken, but there are hundreds of items taken... Hoiw long would that take to turn around the forensics on all of those items??

Now I have just downloaded a search warrant and it bring fore and interesting point....

Quote
1. Complete the box above and boxes 1 to 8 below.  If you use an electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand. If you use a paper version and need more space, you may attach extra sheets.

2. Complete the declaration in box 9 and the authorisation in box 10.

3. Attach the draft warrant(s) you are asking the court to issue.

4. Send or deliver a copy of the completed form and draft warrant(s) to the court.  You may send them by secure email. Make sure the court knows if the application is urgent. Your time estimates will help the court to allow enough time to prepare for the hearing.

Then:
Quote
1)  The main search power.  Make sure the court has a copy of the legislation which allows it to issue the warrant(s) for which you are applying (the main search power), and any legislation which allows you to make this application if you are not a constable.  If necessary, attach a copy of the legislation when you send or deliver this form to the court.
(a) What legislation allows the court to issue the warrant(s) for which you are applying?  This is the main search power.


(b) If you are not a constable, how does the legislation allow you to make this application?

What does it mean if you are NOT a Constable??? Anyone can apply??  So whom made the application??

Quote
10)  Authorisation

I have reviewed this application and I authorise the applicant to make it.
Authorising officer’s name: ……………..…………………..…………..…………………………………..…
Rank or grade: ………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…
Signed:7 ……………………….…………………………………….………………….… [authorising officer]
Date: ………………………….  Time: ………………………….

And more to the point who authorised it? And we then need to know was it a paper application or an electronic application?? And what was the signature on the bottom of this authorisation?? Who's was it?? Mickey Mouse??

Was the warrant granted? Everything in this case is so irregular... everything is the opposite of what it is supposed to be.... But the public aren't taking any notice...

They had so many civilian staff working this case, it is possible that anyone could have done anything.... People assumed roles, we know this... Civilian Andrew Mott has assumed the role of an SIO... he has assumed the role of a Forensics Officer, Brotherton assumed the role of Chaplain.... Who else assumed a role... It appeared that Clegg assumed the role of prosecutor in this case in the way he did not defend his client to the best of his ability..

You see, did someone assume the role of a high ranking Officer?/ we do not know... No Officer of any rank attended the trial and stood in the witness box, we were even told that DCI Mark Luther was in charge of this case.. And we know that to be untrue...

So if someone at the time of filing in these warrants assumed a role, does it mean that these warrants are invalid?? I would say so.... Nothing is corroborated in this case, it would appear and that is worrying.. Who filled in the forms?? Do we know, do we just assume that they are accurate??  Again I will say were these warrants granted??

I question this and the thoroughness of the defence, because if simple things like the application for bail was never made for Dr Vincent Tabak how can we know what other evidence was investigated by the defence, Was it robust enough?? Kelcey Hall has told us about clients getting a platinum serivce..

Quote
Speaking at the Law Society’s criminal law conference, Kelcey said there is a limit to what firms can be expected to do on legal aid rates: ‘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 Dr Vincent Tabak was base metal....  So were they being slack??  I don't know.. But I do worry that everything that could be done for Dr Vincent Tabak to receive a fair trial wasn't (imo)..  Did Dr Vincent Tabak receive good council?? I don't believe so... Were all the T's crossed and the I's dotted?? I cannot say... But I can say that the trial was a joke... A performance... And the evidence that was presented had already been in the domain of the public or media, via press reports, tweets forum posts or facebook posts, before the trial took place..(imo) So what new evidence came to trial to support the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates??

None... Nothing zilch... And it is very possible that the entire trial was made up from these electronic forms/ messages/tweets/ etc... We do not know.... But we do know that NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ever made it to trial.. Which is rather alarming...(imo)


https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1557 on: August 16, 2018, 11:34:34 AM »
I will post in parts the entire contents from the Justice website and what forms are available online to fill in...  then provide a link.... We know things change, and i want the information i have already posted to be in context, because in the future things may change...

Part 1..
___________________________________________________________________________________________
CourtsProcedure rulesCriminalFormsHome»Courts»Procedure rules»Criminal»Forms
Forms
On this page, you can –

read online or download the latest versions of the forms for use with the Criminal Procedure Rules
save a downloaded form and fill it in electronically, or print a form and fill it in by hand
Each form is listed under the Part of the Rules with which it is used.

General matters (including case management)
Preliminary proceedings
Custody and bail
Disclosure
Evidence
Trial
Sentencing
Confiscation and related proceedings
Appeal
Costs
Other proceedings

What happens to the information you give?

The forms for use with the Criminal Procedure Rules collect information required by the court for the purposes of criminal case management under the Rules and under other legislation.

Each form identifies the Criminal Procedure Rule and any other legislation that the court must apply: see the Rules and that other legislation for details.

The information that you give on a court form allows the court:

to make decisions about the preparation of the case for a trial or an appeal
to make a decision on an application or an appeal that you are making with that form, or on a response that you are making to an application or an appeal by somebody else.
The information that you give the court will be shared as the law requires, for example with the other parties to the case (and you may be required by the Rules and other legislation to give them that information yourself, for example by sending them a copy of the form: see the forms and Rules for instructions).

The information that you give the court will not be shared with anyone else or used for any purpose other than the purposes of the case unless that is allowed by law. For example, information is collected by HM Courts and Tribunals Service for statistical purposes and sometimes for the purposes of academic research.

The information that you give will be under the court’s control.

Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules contains rules about applications to the court by parties to cases and by members of the public for the supply of information from court records: for details, see rules 5.7 and 5.8 and the other legislation listed in the notes to those rules.

Please remember that:

criminal cases are heard in public unless the court orders otherwise, so if your name or other information you give is referred to in a courtroom then it will become public in that way (unless the court orders otherwise).
criminal courts give reasons in public for their decisions, including their sentencing decisions, unless the court orders otherwise, so if your name or other information you give is referred to in the court’s decision then it will become public in that way (unless the court orders otherwise).
not all information given in public in criminal cases can be reported. For a list of reporting restrictions, see the rules in Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and the other legislation listed in the notes to those rules.
Any form that you send the court will be kept in the court’s records until those records are destroyed in accordance with sections 5 and 8 of the Public Records Act 1958. Lists of for how long courts keep records are published on GOV.UK.

A notice about the way in which HM Courts and Tribunals Service handles personal information is published on GOV.UK.

General matters (including case management)
Part 1 The overriding objective
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Part 2 Understanding and applying the Rules
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Part 3 Case management
Magistrates’ courts forms

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1558 on: August 16, 2018, 11:37:37 AM »
Part 2......
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 3 Case management
Magistrates’ courts forms

Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court (Word 344kb, 7 pages) [cm001england-eng.doc]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court (PDF 249kb, 7 pages) [cm001england-eng.pdf]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court in Wales (English language edition) (Word 284KB) [cm001wales-eng.doc]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court in Wales (English language edition) (PDF 86KB) [cm001wales-eng.pdf]
Paratoi ar gyfer Treial mewn Llys Ynadon (Word 285kb, 9 pages) [cm001-cym.doc]
Paratoi ar gyfer Treial mewn Llys Ynadon (PDF 118kb, 9 pages) [cm001-cym.pdf]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court – 3 defendants (Word 503kb, 13 pages) [cm026-eng.doc]
Preparation for Trial in a Magistrates’ Court: notes for guidance (PDF 106kb, 4 pages) [cm001-notes-eng.pdf]
Case sent to the Crown Court for trial – case management questionnaire [cm025-eng.doc]
Llys y Goron- Achosion wedi’u hanfon i dreial [cm025-cym.doc]



Crown Court forms

Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) introduction and guidance notes (PDF) [cm007-eng.pdf]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) introduction to the online PTPH form (PDF) [cm007online-eng.pdf]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 1 defendant e-version (Word) [cm013.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 2 defendants e-version (Word) [cm014.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 3 defendants e-version (Word) [cm015.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 4 defendants e-version (Word) [cm016.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 5 defendants e-version (Word) [cm017.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 6 defendants e-version (Word) [cm018.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 7 defendants e-version (Word) [cm019.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 8 defendants e-version (Word) [cm020.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 9 defendants e-version (Word) [cm021.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 10 defendants e-version (Word) [cm022.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 1 defendant plain version (Word) [cm023.dot]
Ffurflen Gwrandawiad Paratoi ar Gyfer Treial a Phledio – 1 diffynnydd [cm023-cym.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 1 defendant plain version for use in courts in Wales (English language edition) (Word) [cm023wales-eng.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 2 to 5 defendants plain version (Word) [cm024.dot]
Ffurflen Gwrandawiad Paratoi ar Gyfer Treial a Phledio – 2 i 5 diffynnyddion [cm024-cym.dot]
Plea & Trial Preparation Hearing (PTPH) form – 2 to 5 defendants plain version for use in courts in Wales (English language edition) (Word) [cm024wales-eng.dot]
Standard witness table (Word) [cm010-eng.doc]
Tabl Safonol ar Gyfer Tystion [cm010-cym.doc]
Standard witness table for use in courts in Wales (English language edition) (Word) [cm010wales-eng.doc]
Certificate of Readiness – Defence – edition 11-15 (Word 106kb, 2 pages) [cm012defence-eng.dot]
Tystysgrif Parodrwydd yr Amddiffyniad ar gyfer Treial [cm012amddiffyniad-cym.doc]
Certificate of Readiness – Prosecution – edition 11-15 (Word 95kb, 2 pages) [cm012prosecution-eng.dot]
Tystysgrif Parodrwydd yr Erlyniad ar gyfer Treial [cm012erlyniad-cym.doc]

Part 4 Service of documents
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Part 5 Forms and court records
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Part 6 Reporting, etc. restrictions
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1559 on: August 16, 2018, 11:40:03 AM »
part3...
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Preliminary proceedings
Part 7 Starting a prosecution in a magistrates’ court
Application for summons or warrant for arrest for alleged offence under Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 section 1, CrimPR 7.2(6) (Word 0.06mb, 5 pages) [sp001-eng.doc]
Cais am wŷs neu warant arestio ar gyfer trosedd honedig [sp001-cym.doc]
Part 8 Initial details of the prosecution case
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Part 9 Allocation and sending for trial
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Part 10 The indictment
Form of indictment (Word 23kb, 1 page) [ind001-eng.doc]
Form of indictment (PDF 8kb, 1 page) [ind001-eng.pdf]
Form of indictment (order for trial under section 17(2) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) (Word 32kb, 3 pages) [ind002-eng.doc]
Form of indictment (order for trial under section 17(2) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004) (PDF 10kb, 3 pages) [ind002-eng.pdf]
Part 11 Deferred prosecution agreements
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Part 12 Discontinuing a prosecution
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Custody and bail
Part 13 Warrants for arrest, detention or imprisonment
There are no forms for use with this Part.

Part 14 Bail and custody time limits
Application to magistrates’ court to reconsider police bail, CrimPR 14.6 (Word 0.05mb) [bcl001-eng.doc]
Application to magistrates’ court to reconsider police bail, CrimPR 14.6 (PDF 0.03mb) [bcl001-eng.pdf]
Notice of application for court to consider bail, CrimPR 14.7 (Word 0.05mb) [bcl002-eng.doc]
Notice of application for court to consider bail, CrimPR 14.7 (PDF 0.03mb) [bcl002-eng.pdf]
Defendant’s application or appeal to the Crown Court after magistrates’ court bail decision, CrimPR 14.8 (Word 0.05mb) [bcl003-eng.doc]
Defendant’s application or appeal to the Crown Court after magistrates’ court bail decision, CrimPR 14.8 (PDF 0.03mb) [bcl003-eng.pdf]
Draft order for conditional bail with residence in EU member State, CrimPR 14.16 [bcl004-eng.doc]
Draft European supervision order certificate, CrimPR 14.16 [bcl005-eng.doc]
Application for conditional bail with residence in EU member State – notes for use with the forms of draft order and draft certificate, CrimPR 14.7 & 14.16 [bcl006-eng.pdf]
Application for extension of pre-charge bail, CrimPR 14.21 [bcl007-eng.doc]
Cais i ymestyn mechnïaeth cyn cyhuddo [bcl007-cym.doc]
Application for extension of pre-charge bail: confidential information supplement, CrimPR 14.21 [bcl008-eng.doc]
Cais i ymestyn mechnïaeth cyn cyhuddo: gwybodaeth gyfrinachol ychwanegol [bcl008-cym.doc]
Response to application for extension of pre-charge bail, CrimPR 14.21 [bcl009-eng.doc]
Ymateb i gais i ymestyn mechnïaeth cyn cyhuddo [bcl009-cym.doc]