Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 54053 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #30 on: April 07, 2017, 11:48:57 AM »
I understand what you say leonora...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Simple Simon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Total likes: 1180
  • Like a tunnel that I follow to a tunnel of its own
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #31 on: April 07, 2017, 12:01:18 PM »
The text I posted was my own compilation from several different sources. The following link is typical:

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind......

Online mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Total likes: 418
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #32 on: April 07, 2017, 12:25:40 PM »
The text I posted was my own compilation from several different sources. The following link is typical:

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

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

I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2017, 12:49:52 PM »


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offline Simple Simon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Total likes: 1180
  • Like a tunnel that I follow to a tunnel of its own
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #34 on: April 07, 2017, 12:54:31 PM »
I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.

That's what I always assumed mrswah... That was until I read the Sally Ramage papers...
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind......

Offline Simple Simon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Total likes: 1180
  • Like a tunnel that I follow to a tunnel of its own
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2017, 12:55:43 PM »
Jurors also heard a statement from Matthew Wood, who was a school friend of Miss Yeates' older brother Chris. Mr Wood, a project manager, said he lived in Bristol and had been asked by Chris Yeates to show his sister around the city after she moved there in 2008.

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

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

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

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


Doesn't that beg a question...as she didn't normally Text him??????
« Last Edit: April 07, 2017, 01:47:48 PM by Nine »
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind......

Online mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Total likes: 418
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #36 on: April 07, 2017, 03:42:40 PM »
That's what I always assumed mrswah... That was until I read the Sally Ramage papers...

Well, I did find another mistake in Sally's account---can't recall what it was now. Will look it up!

Online mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 834
  • Total likes: 418
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #37 on: April 07, 2017, 04:06:04 PM »
I remember now : Sally mentioned that Vincent and Tanja had complained about Chris Jefferies allegedly spying at his tenants. I don't think it was V and T  who complained: I think it was previous tenants.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #38 on: April 07, 2017, 04:16:50 PM »
I always got the impression that Joanna texted these friends on the way home, rather than at home.
That was because the police wanted us to believe that "home" was where she was headed. It is possible that she did indeed enter her flat 9 minutes after leaving Tesco, having passed Fr. Henwood on the way - but her last-minute purchase of the pizza in Tesco (instead of Waitrose) - even though there was already another frozen pizza sitting in the freezer in her flat - suggests that her unidentified text to an unidentified person m/f while she was in Bargain Booze - resulted in an agreement to share a pizza at that other person's flat, presumably close to Clifton Village. She would have been famished by this time. So I think we should keep an open mind about whether she was on her way "home".

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #39 on: April 11, 2017, 02:00:42 PM »
My retired-lawyer husband tells me that someone in VT's position, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but charged with murder, would normally be convicted of manslaughter if not found guilty of murder.

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

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

That's correct, if the jury could not agree on the murder charge they could ask the Judge if they could return a guilty verdict on a lesser charge.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 07:52:02 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 Simple Simon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Total likes: 1180
  • Like a tunnel that I follow to a tunnel of its own
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2017, 08:50:34 PM »
I had to add this... Just posted on twitter minutes ago...

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

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-expert-witnesses-part-response-recent-linkedin-sally-ramage
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind......

Offline Simple Simon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Total likes: 1180
  • Like a tunnel that I follow to a tunnel of its own
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #41 on: April 13, 2017, 10:06:19 AM »
The whole quote below is only there so the information doesn't disappear... I have used part of it in my post...


Quote
28/10/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

What evidence could she have possibiiy reviewed????

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

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

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

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

Lets not forget :

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


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

What were the other key factors?????

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

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

What on earth does that say?

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

Thats says two things for starters..

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

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

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

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

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

Which makes that evidence useless....

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


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

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

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

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


http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/10/conviction-and-sentencing-of-vincent-tabak-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates.html
« Last Edit: April 13, 2017, 10:39:35 AM by Nine »
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind......

Offline Simple Simon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Total likes: 1180
  • Like a tunnel that I follow to a tunnel of its own
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #42 on: April 13, 2017, 10:15:21 AM »
Just had a little thought..... Other key factors

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind......

Offline Simple Simon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Total likes: 1180
  • Like a tunnel that I follow to a tunnel of its own
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #43 on: April 13, 2017, 11:01:51 AM »
Other key factors


Late December.....

(1): No DNA Evidence

(2): No evidence of him going to Asda

(3): No Sobbing Girl

(4): No Coat fibres

(5): No Searches made on his laptop

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

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

(8); No searching his work computers

(9): No computer porn

(10); No Timelines from his mobile phone

(11): No emails to and from Tanja

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

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

(14); No search of his car

(15):No Maps of Longwood Lane

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

(17): No finger prints

(18): No witness seeing him commit this crime

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

(20):NO MOTIVE

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

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

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

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

Being an upright citizen ??



« Last Edit: April 13, 2017, 11:06:26 AM by Nine »
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind......

Offline Simple Simon

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3552
  • Total likes: 1180
  • Like a tunnel that I follow to a tunnel of its own
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #44 on: April 13, 2017, 11:58:45 AM »
Why didn't the Defence challenge the initial charges... and what evidence did they initailly have to arrest and charge Dr Vincent Tabak, as the DNA alone would not have been surficiant ...

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

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

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


The Evidential Stage

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

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

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

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

Quote
Can the evidence be used in court?

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

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

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


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

Quote
Is the evidence credible?

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



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

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

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html
As the images unwind, like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind......