Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 263324 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #270 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.

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #271 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.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #272 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"...

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
(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
(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"!!!!

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....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #273 on: July 06, 2017, 11:07:52 PM »
Part 2....

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...


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 ...

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 ....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #274 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...

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #275 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...

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.

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

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

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


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

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)

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


 * 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)..

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #276 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...

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #277 on: July 07, 2017, 10:21:11 AM »
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

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

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)...

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #278 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...

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #279 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

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
* 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

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?????

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #280 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"...


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.......

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.....

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 :
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 ???

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #281 on: July 13, 2017, 06:42:55 AM »
We know you love a bit of WIKI....


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

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #282 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???

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #283 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)...

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #284 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.