Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 160303 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #45 on: April 14, 2017, 12:49:49 AM »
I mentioned earlier, that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen on Park Street.....

There is only one image of the car that they have said belongs to Dr Vincent Tabak on Park Street....

I was looking to see if I could see the number plate... Wing mirrors etc..And I saw something else......I have circled it....

In the red circle of the picture of the car appear what looks like is a Head???  I'm sure I can see a head a face..... It's just right of the arrow next to the car door.... The image actually goes over part of the driver side window...

It's a strange anomaly ?

Is this video image over layed or something? Are two images merged?


The funny thing is now I have seen it I can see it in all pics of the car on Park Street

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #46 on: April 14, 2017, 08:47:41 AM »
I was looking again at the post above... The time has been blurred out on the CCTV footage of The Car on Park Street...

I'll do a comparison of a traffic cam in Bristol... It shows the time and date...

Why have they blurred the Time of the image of the car on Park Street CCTV ??

We seems to have plenty of Times blurred out on CCTV when it has Dr Vincent Tabak in them..... why?????

There must be loads more CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak driving around Bristol on Saturday 18th December...

Why do we only see one????



Another point I could be wrong, but I'll mention it anyway....

You can see a vague outline of the driver in the car on Park Street... Which puzzles me somewhat...

I don't understand how you would... If Dr Vincent Tabak is over six foot tall then he would not need to be so close to the steering wheel and probably wouldn't be visible in the car....

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #47 on: April 14, 2017, 09:20:34 AM »
...
In the red circle of the picture of the car appear what looks like is a Head???  I'm sure I can see a head a face..... It's just right of the arrow next to the car door.... The image actually goes over part of the driver side window...

It's a strange anomaly ?

Is this video image over layed or something? Are two images merged?

The funny thing is now I have seen it I can see it in all pics of the car on Park Street
Isn't it the driver's wing mirror sticking out? I can't take seriously any of these claims about CCTV clips of Renault Meganes. The CCTV clips of Joanna and Vincent, on the other hand, would be good fun - even her mother couldn't resist a chuckle at the one in Waitrose - if it weren't so serious. But as you have pointed out, their integrity is questionable. In my opinion, Joanna's movements captured on CCTV were elegant, and her body language self-assured, whereas the good-looking actress in the reconstruction looked as if she had never used a supermarket self-service checkout before.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #48 on: April 14, 2017, 09:36:57 AM »
Isn't it the driver's wing mirror sticking out? I can't take seriously any of these claims about CCTV clips of Renault Meganes. The CCTV clips of Joanna and Vincent, on the other hand, would be good fun - even her mother couldn't resist a chuckle at the one in Waitrose - if it weren't so serious. But as you have pointed out, their integrity is questionable. In my opinion, Joanna's movements captured on CCTV were elegant, and her body language self-assured, whereas the good-looking actress in the reconstruction looked as if she had never used a supermarket self-service checkout before.

Partly the reason for posting that image with the circle is to show how everyone sees things differently, and how they interpret situations differently...

Either visually or verbally....

Brings me back to the question, why would .. Andrew Mott and Martin faithful both say that they were trying to stop a body from thawing out???

What was the significance of the body thawing for 2 police officers to mention this???


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #49 on: April 14, 2017, 11:09:10 AM »
Quote
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics

oanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.

A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.

So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."

I knew I'd read it somewhere....

Quote
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

Which colleague went down WHERE.. to supervise the removal of the clothes???

To me this sounds like it is at the scene....  Dr Delaney does NOT need assistance from LGC Forensics in how to remove clothing....
Wouldn't a mortuary technician remove and bag the clothing ???

This puzzles me...

But it will bring me around to Andrew Mott and Martin Faithful..

Which means the picture from the Mortuary must be when she has no clothing on...
Are there any pictures from the Mortuary of Joanna Yeates clothed???

When Dr Delaney describes her flowered print pink top... When did he see this ????

Quote

There were apparent blood stains on her flower patterned pink top but no signs of injuries to her genitalia, Dr Delaney said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html

What a weird response.... Apparent blood stains... Did he ever see the clothing???? Or just pictures of the clothing???

Then Andrew Mott:.....

Quote
Quote
Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.

Tabak's QC, William Clegg, questioned why photographs were not taken of a broom being used to arrange straps underneath the body so her body could be taken away.

"I can't comment on why that was the case," Mr Mott said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34413947

Then we have Martin Faithful :

Quote
Quote
Mr Faithfull told the court how the forensic team had made efforts to prevent Miss Yeates frozen body from thawing out, in order to avoid losing any potentially significant evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html

So the Forensic Team must be what Lyndsey Lennen says... They were at the scene....

(1): How Can you remove clothing from a frozen body????

(2): How can you take DNA samples from a frozen body

(3): Why are they even touching the body before Dr Delaney has seen it???

(4): What efforts Did the Forensic team do to stop a body from thawing out???

(5):Why would they want to stop a body from thawing out????

(6): What significant evidence would they loose???


It dawned on me why????? The real reason they needed to mention that Joanna Yeates body was thawing out..


It was so they could collect their DNA SAMPLES ! at the scene!!

How else did they collect them??? And the clothes...

I would have thought that the best conditions for collecting DNA would be when the body had Thawed and the clothes and the body had dried...  But I'm No expert...

They now they cannot take samples from a FROZEN BODY!!!! So we need the explanation about her Thawing Out...(IMO)


2 officer, cohobrating the same state of the body... Thawing!!! Yet neither of these officer were Trained in Forensics as far as I am aware...

Lydnsey Lennen says that it was all turned around in 48 hours... I cannot see how ...  That would only be possible if Joanna Yeates body wasn't frozen... Dr Delaney had to wait to do the examination because of the bodies frozen state...

So how did Lyndsey lennen And Co.... Remove the clothing from a body that was Frozen in The foetal position at a crime scene????

Quote
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky."


Why didn't the defence cross examine these witness's more throughly ????





Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #50 on: April 14, 2017, 01:03:11 PM »
To mediate between the competing claims for poor Joanna's body made by the different forensic professionals, Andrew Mott was called in as the Forensics Co-ordinator. He had to stop the body from thawing out, so as to preserve its immediate environment from contamination until Karl Harrison could examine it. As Lyndsay Lennen says, the body was frozen to start with, but for her to get the clothes off so as to analyse the DNA on the clothes and skin, its temperature had to be above freezing. To do his worst with his little scalpel, Dr. Delaney also needed the body to thaw out. However he also needed to observe and document the clothes themselves before Lyndsay Lennen. Andrew Mott had a legitimate role as referee.

As I posted before, Dr Delaney could not even get near the body until the fire engines had finished doing whatever they came to do. The best he could do until then was to glimpse it.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 08:11:36 PM by John »

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #51 on: April 14, 2017, 01:39:38 PM »
The clothing would have had to have been dried out before any samples had been taken.... when did this happen??

To be able to mark on the Jeans (circle) where the sample were taken from.. ie behind her Jeans knee....

What light source if any was used upon theses dried Jeans / clothing of Joanna Yeates to determine whether there was any other biological material upon the clothing...

They must have been looking for semen samples to determine if Joanna Yeates had been sexually assaulted, where there any stains on Joanna yeates clothing?

Did she spill her beer on herself... easily happens... did any food or drink land on Joanna yeates clothing????

There are so many questions the Defence SHOULD have asked !!!! (IMO)


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #52 on: April 14, 2017, 01:49:23 PM »
I still query how frozen Joanna Yeates body was....

She was found on the 25th December 2010 and here autopsy was complete by 27th December 2010

The body would need to thaw at the right temperature so that all of the body was in the same decomposing state..

Would all of the Internal organs have thawed enough at this point???

For Dr Delaney to do a full autopsy??

Or was Joanna Yeates Not as frozen as we have been lead to believe???

If the body wasn't frozen completely then wouldn't that suggest she hadn't lain in Longwood Lane for all of the time stated...

And maybe died later than was first considered ....

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #53 on: April 14, 2017, 02:24:52 PM »
With the killer’s confession, Lennen’s DNA evidence was not further tested. “It happens, in court,” she says. “You get called biased, in the police’s pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so.”

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2017, 04:12:45 PM »
Quote
15.6. Intention to kill

Intention is generally defined in terms of foresight of particular consequences and a desire
to act or fail to act so that those consequences occur. It is distinguished from recklessness
because, on a subjective basis, there is foresight but no desire to produce the
consequences. But the perennial problem has always been the extent to which the court
can impute sufficient desire to convert recklessness into intention. The original rule was
objective. In DPP v Smith 59the test was that a person was taken to foresee and intend the
natural and probable consequences of his or her acts


Looking at this without any legal knowledge...

(IMO) How could Dr Vincent Tabak foresee the consequences of his action.... If the basis of foresight to fully understand the consequences of your action, then a medical knowledge would be needed and understanding the Medical Knowledge of how long a strangulation hold would result in death...? There was no medical evidence produced to back up Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed knowledge of venous obstruction as described by one of the medical experts.

For Dr Vincent Tabak to understand that holding someone by the throat for up to 20 seconds would result in the death or serious injury of a person, he would have had to have researched such knowledge or have it imparted to him by another medical expert....
There was No evidence from the prosecution to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was clearly knowledgable in this medical field...

And no search history to obtain such knowledge being produced at the trial....

I personally and probably many more of you were quite surprised at the little time it took to cause death... I had no idea... It seemed far too short a time for the result.... (IMO) having no medical knowledge or training I assumed that all the Crime programs I had viewed , imitated, reconstructed actual crimes... And I always saw, strangulation as a slow painful Personal attack that last minutes and not seconds.....

If... as it was intimated, that Dr Vincent Tabak strangulation of Joanna Yeates was sexual, then surely the evidence to support that theory of it being a sexual assault should have been presented at court...

There was NO SOLID EVIDENCE to support this.... No witness's took the stand to support the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak practiced Strangulation sex... Or was sexually satisfied with the action of Strangling females and gained pleasure in seeing their pain...

Quote
The original rule was
objective. In DPP v Smith 59the test was that a person was taken to foresee and intend the
natural and probable consequences of his or her acts

Could someone without this expert medical knowledge foresee that their actions would result in death... If we take it back to The Strangulation Porn that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed t have viewed, which the information of this supposed evidence was NOT brought to trial... Would they know that reinacting such acts would result in death...

Do Strangulation Porn movies come with a disclaimer of "Do Not Try This At Home.".. I very much doubt it.... And if these movies and a few interaction with Prostitutes, (whom also didn't appear at trial).. constitute Medical Knowledge, then surely all who appear in such films would either have PHD's in said medical profession or would be willing to perform in what ultimateley would be a Snuff movie..

There was No evidence before or after the trial that proved Dr Vincent Tabak watched snuff movies... The titles which were revealed by the media was a series called "Sex And Submission".. which is  a legal TV program..

In saying all that... how could the evidence available at trial prove The Prosecutions arguement that a Sexual Encounter, with the purpose to obtain sexual gratification by strangulation had taken place???

Quote
Given that s.8 Criminal Justice Act
1967 now entitles a jury to draw reasonable inferences from all the evidence, Justice
Wien in R v Belfon 60said that:
‘Foresight and recklessness are evidence from which intent may be inferred but they
cannot be equated...with intent.’

As for the jury, how could they come to their conclusion that Dr Vincent Tabak with his lack of Medical knowledge intentionally tried to cause harm or injury to Joanna Yeates....

How did they evidence presented show intent????? (IMO) it didn't....

Which then brings us to the judge.... how did he manage to sentence Dr Vincent Tabak on evidence that didn't exist???

If the Prosecution didn't provide witness's.. professional or otherwise ..to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had sought a Sexual Encounter culminating in strangulation porn... then how did he manage to give him a 20 year minimum tariff ??


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #55 on: April 16, 2017, 06:24:21 PM »
Playing devils advocate.....

Thinking on the lines of strangulation porn and the porn industry, would someone who died as a result of such an action be charged with Murder??

Or would it be involuntary manslaughter???

If no evidence to prove Dr Vincent Tabak intentionally strangled Joanna Yeates and as the prosecution asserted it was sexually motivated why did they pursue the Murder charge?

With them divulging to the media after the trial that they had intended to use the Pornographic Material and prostitutes... But this would prejudice the jury...

It would only prejudice a jury if the defence didn't state that viewing porn wasn't illegal... there were many points the defence could have argued the porn... If indeed the prosecution intended to use it or it even existed..

Why then did they insist on it being a murder charge?? Why after the Old Bailey Appearance when they had No story as to how events had unfolded did the Prosecution pursue the Murder Charge.. when it could have easily been construed as a manslaughter case? What convinced The Prosecution In May that they had the evidence to convict Dr Vincent Tabak of murder??

The Prosecution had No tangible witness's to support there case of Murder.... especially after with holding the 1300 page document..It was inferred that the searches equalled intent...

In reality you could argue consenting adults (not saying she was) as a defence..
The proof would then have to be put back in the Prosecutions court on proving that they weren't consenting adults..

If you have a man with a pristine record who hadn't as much as a parking ticket to his name, why then could the defence not argue consenting? with the prosecution behind closed doors...

The Prosecution were NEVER going to use any Pornography material whatsoever... if the act of Strangulation sex is not an illegal activity then the consequences of partaking in such activities that resulted in death would be on the part of the actors negligence..

Would that in turn not make the charge a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.....

The porn was used later to convince a public (IMO) that Dr Vincent Tabak was a monster and not the Placid Dutchman that DCI Phil Jones described..



Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1027
  • Total likes: 462
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #56 on: April 16, 2017, 07:01:45 PM »
I can't remember off hand what VT was alleged to have looked up on his computer, but did he look up strangulation?

As far as I remember, I don't believe he did.

Had he committed the crime, I would certainly have expected him to.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #57 on: April 16, 2017, 07:16:05 PM »
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg397725#msg397725


Continuing from my other post......

Another thing I don't understand.... When The Prosecution and Defence appeared at the Old Bailey.. (IMO) The Defence must have argued behind closed doors about the Charge that the prosecution where going for....Murder Charge and Nothing less.... So why advise his Client to pled guilty to Manslaughter, handing A Conviction on the Prosecutions plate....

The ball would be in the Prosecutions court to prove murder!!!!

When did  the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiate.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????

It was only beneficial to The Prosecution (IMO)...

And allow a Jury to make the decision.... They were arguing whether it was Murder or NOT anyway... Wouldn't it be more prevalent for the Defence to leave it with the Jury knowing that the Prosecution were pursuing The Murder Charge..

And with the jury almost certain to have known about the plea, then that information would only prejudice them into finding him guilty... But without the plea, they may have come to a Manslaughter conclusion!!!!

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #58 on: April 16, 2017, 08:03:29 PM »
I overlook things constantly.... I re-read and then it pops out;...

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!!!!


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."

I think you are taking the above quote too literally.  Certainly the police were asked for assistance in late December 2010 but the review and decision to arrest Tabak came later.

A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes egregious malfeasance by public officials.
The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #59 on: April 16, 2017, 08:18:36 PM »
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg397725#msg397725


Continuing from my other post......

Another thing I don't understand.... When The Prosecution and Defence appeared at the Old Bailey.. (IMO) The Defence must have argued behind closed doors about the Charge that the prosecution where going for....Murder Charge and Nothing less.... So why advise his Client to pled guilty to Manslaughter, handing A Conviction on the Prosecutions plate....

The ball would be in the Prosecutions court to prove murder!!!!

When did  the Defence negotiate a charge with the prosecution?? If nothing was negotiate.. then Why The Manslaughter Plea???? you would only negotiate with the prosecution if it was beneficial...
So how was A Manslaughter plea beneficial to Dr Vincent tabak????

It was only beneficial to The Prosecution (IMO)...

And allow a Jury to make the decision.... They were arguing whether it was Murder or NOT anyway... Wouldn't it be more prevalent for the Defence to leave it with the Jury knowing that the Prosecution were pursuing The Murder Charge..

And with the jury almost certain to have known about the plea, then that information would only prejudice them into finding him guilty... But without the plea, they may have come to a Manslaughter conclusion!!!!

It is a defendant's decision whether to plead guilty to manslaughter or murder, not his counsel.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 09:14:58 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes egregious malfeasance by public officials.
The truth never changes with the passage of time.