Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 162876 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #105 on: April 22, 2017, 11:56:53 AM »
Quote
Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight.

I dislike the vagueness of the Defences questions....  Which road is the defence refering too?? Is it Canygne Road??
Is it any road between.. Bedminster and Canygne Road.. Or any road between Longwood lane and Canygne road??

What captured Dr Vincent Tabak on this road? If it's a CCTV image where's the date and time stamped image of Dr Vincent Tabak on the road..

If it's a person... why did they not appear in court??

What Time and day is Timeline 113...???

How can Clegg determine the length of time it took Dr Vincent Tabak to reach home, if they was NO evidence presented or demonstration to prove this time??

 Is Clegg just hazarding a guess at this time... Why doesn't Clegg state where Dr Vincent Tabak's car is....

By Clegg stating Dr Vincent Tabak reaches his home around midnight... Is that Time accurate???

What time is around Midnight??? Exact times are extremely important...

Here he does the same ... He must know the exact times ..

Quote
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.

He know when Tanja was sent a text from Dr Vincent Tabak,... why the hazarding a guess...

Here's another point that needs correction...

Quote
Defence Counsel: When did the couple move in to Flat 1?
Tabak: 25 October 2010

How did Dr Vincent Tabak know when Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon moved into Flat 1???

What event made them moving into Flat 1 make that date so memorable??

If the facebook comments by Greg giving away his Ski equipment are dated 16th Oct 2010 and whom ever wants these items ....collect from Canygne Road.. Had they moved into Canygne Road by this time?? Had Dr Vincent Tabak noticed his neighbours before the 25th December 2010

If he had never seen his neighbours before the tragedy in December 2010.. How could he know who had moved into Flat 1 on the 25th October 2010???

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #106 on: April 25, 2017, 05:57:27 PM »
I had an interesting discusion today... I found out something about the PERSPEX Fronted Cell..... It's not the normal conversation you would have with anyone,... it was a passing comment...

I remember Jixy saying... About the PERSPEX fronted cell... and i accepted like everybody else did, the FACT.. that Dr Vincent Tabak was put in a PERSPEX fronted cell.. was because he was on suicide watch...

We all..... Including me... accepted that as a genuine reason for the way in which he was incarcerated....

Question... What are PERSPEX Fronted Cells used for?????

Is it the Norm to put Suicide Prisoners in These type of cells and I believe the answer is NO....

Think about that ... How many PERSPEX cells would prisons have to have installed to WATCH.... LOKK AFTER Prisoners on suicide watch????? Well a damn sight more than they actually have...!!!!

An Aquaintance of mine who I hadn't seen in a long time.. described a situation she found herself in... upon arrest.. and subsequently being held for 17 hours plus... Why was SHE put in a PERSPEX fronted cell......???

Massive question....Simple Answer....

They put her in this PERSPEX prisone cell... NOT because she was suicidal....... BUT.......... Because she suffered from Panic Attacks and Agrophobia... and needed the visual to stop her from feeling Trapped!!!!!

There fore as I have stated before... Dr Vincent Tabak Most likely suffered from an anxiety based illness. and couldn't cope with being in a cell where he didn't fell claustophobic.....

And as these anxiety type disorder run in family it would only go to support the fact that he suffered the same disorder as his mother....

It has be stated that Dr Vincent Tabak's mother suffers from Agrophobia... So why not her son Vincent ??? Who according to NO MEDICAL EVIDENCE to support him at trial had no problems with life what so ever.... Nonsense...

Yes... you may come back at me for the PERSPEX CELL... but i challenge you to prove the reason legally that Dr Vincent Tabak was detained behind a PERSPEX Fronted cell in the first place!!!!!!!


If it wasn't for the simple answer that he wa Agrophobic like his own mother!!




Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #107 on: April 26, 2017, 09:45:35 AM »
...
Question.. In Dr Vincent Tabak's testimoney to the court... does he ever say thta he spoke to "Brotherton"??
...
Mr. Clegg's last question on VT's first day in the witness box: “You met Brotherton and told him what you did. Did you want to kill Joanna?”

Vincent Tabak: “No, definitely not.”

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #108 on: April 26, 2017, 10:00:04 AM »
Mr. Clegg's last question on VT's first day in the witness box: “You met Brotherton and told him what you did. Did you want to kill Joanna?”

Vincent Tabak: “No, definitely not.”

So is Dr Vincent Tabak denying he even met "Brotherton"???  Because the reply could be in that context!!

Everyone assumes he's denying killing Joanna Yeates... But Thinking about it now... he could quite easily be denying ever met with "Brotherton!!! (IMO)....



Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #109 on: April 26, 2017, 11:32:12 AM »
So is Dr Vincent Tabak denying he even met "Brotherton"???  Because the reply could be in that context!!

Everyone assumes he's denying killing Joanna Yeates... But Thinking about it now... he could quite easily be denying ever met with "Brotherton!!! (IMO)....

No of course it is not Brotherton he is "denying"! It is the question, "Did you WANT to kill Joanna?" that he is denying. That is Clegg's reason for ending the day's cross-examination with this question.

It would be sensational if he had denied meeting Brotherton, and the prosecution would certainly have pounced on that.

It is the barristers and the judge who should be brought before their own professional bodies. Mr Lickley told the jury that VT confessed to Brotherton that he had killed Joanna. However, Brotherton never used the word "confession" except to say that "it was NOT a RELIGIOUS confession". He was a careful witness ensuring that no one could ever charge him with perjury, as he emphasised that "it was NOT a confession". But everyone pounces on the word "religious". Brotherton NEVER testified that VT told him he had killed Joanna. It was Clegg who put that idea into the jury's head by posing it as a question that the witness did not need to deny.

Unlike jurors, judges are trained to detect and control this kind of trickery on the part of barristers. The jury trusted the judge, yet he remained silent.

Brotherton's supposed "betrayal" of VT's confidence caused so much comment in the press (none of whom understood what was going on) that the authorities published a warning to prisoners that the chaplaincies could not guarantee confidentiality.

Your research into this issue is excellent, but the conspirators could also have used another prisoner as "listener". This has been done in many other cases, but none of these would have made such an impact in court as Brotherton did.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 05:43:54 PM by John »

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2017, 08:17:55 AM »
There are loads of things that should have been produced in court....

Like the Coat Stand, that we can see clearly in the crime scene photo's... that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak hung his coat upon...

Did they forget to take it to Forensics???

Did they think the killer came round in a onsie... Common sense must say that it's possibly been touched by an intruder.. But we have it there for all to see in the hallway of Flat 1...

The kettle is missing.. and appliances from the kitchen are missing... did they think the killer wanted to pop the kettle on...

I still have a problem with Greg being able to take away his possessions... and the only photograph that are available of Flat 1 are when Greg's possesions have been removed....

That's not right... how would that give a true representaion of how Flat 1 should look like...

They painted the idea that Flat 1 was a time capsule....  That would imply that nothing had been touched since Joanna Yeates disappearance...

The Flat to me looks staged...  How can you have such a tidy Flat when a Murder was supposed to have taken place there... Greg says how messy it was ....So why is it so TIDY???

Didn't the Jury even question this.... what were they told upon entrance to the flat... we don't know... because they seem to have completely put out of their heads that a VIOLENT STRUGGLE took place in that Flat...?
How did  that come into play when deciding on Dr Vincent Tabak's fate...

Did they had to visualize what took place there ??? They had to imagine how furniture was knocked over ??

Which brings me back to the console... where is it in the photographs.. mrswah said consoles are tables as well.. so I would imagine that it should  be in the hall... "BROKEN"!!

Where are the photographs of this broken Console?? Were the jury shown photographs of the flat before the clean up... when it had all of Greg's possesions in situ???

Or.. did they just see it when they went on their visit???

When you compare the crime scenes of Joanna Yeates and Becky Watts, they are vastly different... They didn't remove everything out of Becky Watts home...

The photo's of Joanna Yeates flat are definetley staged ... she didn't move into a flat with NO Carpets....  So they had to move all the furniture to take the carpets up....

Did they take photographs so they could put everything back in its place ??? where are these photographs??? What did Joanna Yeates Flat TRULY look like!!!






Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Total likes: 464
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #111 on: April 27, 2017, 09:24:27 AM »
We don't know, Nine.

I remember, when Jo first went missing, there were conflicting reports about the state of the flat, some saying it was too tidy, some saying the opposite.

Greg said (in court) that he found a mess, and that he had tidied up before realising that something untoward might have happened to Jo.

Jo's parents commented on the state of the flat, but it was never clear exactly what they meant.  I assume that they feared Jo had been abducted because they found her keys, purse, phone, etc in the flat, and knew that she would not have gone out without these items.

As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly.    Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #112 on: April 27, 2017, 09:30:17 AM »
We don't know, Nine.

I remember, when Jo first went missing, there were conflicting reports about the state of the flat, some saying it was too tidy, some saying the opposite.

Greg said (in court) that he found a mess, and that he had tidied up before realising that something untoward might have happened to Jo.

Jo's parents commented on the state of the flat, but it was never clear exactly what they meant.  I assume that they feared Jo had been abducted because they found her keys, purse, phone, etc in the flat, and knew that she would not have gone out without these items.

As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly.    Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.

I can't find the post at the mo... But in one of the video's Jo's mum appears in she says about the washing up still being in the sink upon their arrival....

I wanted to know who cleaned that up... once they had contacted the Police and thought she had been abducted, you are not really gonna start doing the dishes... so why do we see a clean sink in the time capsule of the Flat???


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #113 on: April 27, 2017, 09:33:06 AM »
A...  Assume Nothing

B...  Believe No one

C..   Challenge everything../ check everything

A..B..C.. 

A basic for all to follow.. Police. Defence ,Prosecution Forensics alike....  Why didn't they implement this

The assumptions that were made in this case are tenfold..

Who did they believe??
Who was challenged ??
What was checked??
What was Assumed??

Challenged virtually nothing... The Defence Challenged Virtually No one.. And everyone believed a story, that was not Checked....

Dr Vincent Tabak's Black Coat... Looks like a wool fibre type coat.. The Defence want us to believe that there was no fibre transfer from Joanna Yeates onto Dr Vincent Tabak's coat... It gets put upon the coatstand when he arrives at the flat..

Has anyone really challenged this ??? When do perfect strangers entering another residence take their coat of and hang it up???

They don't... the Offical line is they do not know each other.... only people who have meet and feel comfortable in a social situation would take their coat of and hang it upon the coat stand...
Why would it be one of the first things that he would do??

Maybe once feeling a little more comfortable you would take your coat off, but I would imagine that he would put it across his arm..

We have no fibre transfer from Joanna Yeates on anything belonging to Dr Vincent Tabak... There should be some.. why didn't the defence challenge this before trial... why didn't the defence question everything..

Was The DNA Profiles tested against everyone who came into contact with Joanna Yeates ... The answer is NO!! why??

Was Tanja Morson's statements brought to court as she lived with Dr Vincent Tabak... No.. Why??

Was The Landlords statements brought to trial.... NO!! Why??  Could have challenged him!!



Did everyone involved in this case follow the simple A.. B... C...?? What other A.. B... C... should they have followed ??


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #114 on: April 27, 2017, 09:52:02 AM »
What are the principles?
The SRA sets out the following principles:

(1):uphold the rule of law and the proper administration of justice

(2):act with integrity

(3):not allow your independence to be compromised

(4):act in the best interests of each client

(5):provide a proper standard of service to your clients

(6):behave in a way that maintains the trust the public places in you and in the provision of legal services

(7):comply with your legal and regulatory obligations and deal with your regulators and ombudsman in an open, timely and co-operative manner

(8):run your business or carry out your role in the business effectively and in accordance with proper governance and sound financial and risk management principles

(9):run your business or carry out your role in the business in a way that encourages equality of opportunity and respect for diversity

(10):protect client money and assets

Well there's rich picking ........ Does lambasting your Client to a jury constitute any of the Principles of Law??

Does offering a Base Metal Service constitute the Principles of Law??

I have lost trust in the Defences ability to show a Fair and open approach to their own client, does that Constitute that Principles of Law??

In Fact it was the Defences statements of hatred they had for their client that pricked my ears about this case.... I couldn't understand this??

Could I put my hand on heart and say that this case was conducted with the "Principles Of Law"... (IMO) NO!!



https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/articles/the-ten-principles/

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #115 on: April 27, 2017, 11:54:21 AM »
...
As for the bathroom being thoroughly examined by the forensic team, I suppose there were no suspects at that time, and that forensic teams always examine bathrooms thoroughly.    Certainly, VT's story did not give any indication that anything had happened in the bathroom.
Of course there were suspects at the time! Officially, VT became a suspect on 31 December 2010. At that time, CJ was already a suspect, and had become one not later than 28 December 2010, when he was seen on TV for the first time.

Although we have been told that Lindsay Lennen took away the bedding for forensic analysis while Joanna was still a missing person, the heavy gang didn't move in until January, when dangerous chemicals were brought in. Ask yourself why the jury wasn't even TOLD about the forensic examination of the flat - let alone being told the evidence that you know very well would have had to exist if an inexperienced murderer had been loose in there. It seems obvious to me that the heavy gang were there to OBLITERATE forensic evidence that a later investigation could have used to incriminate someone other than Vincent Tabak. If you disagree with that conclusion, why not produce some arguments to refute it?

That is probably the explanation for the black stains in the bathroom too.

The flat ceased to be a crime scene after Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011, and there was no reason why Greg Reardon should not have had his possessions restored to him by then. The reason for taking the jury to see the flat was, obviously, to allow them to feel important and feel a tingle in their spines, and brainwash them into believing that the crime really did take place there - especially as it most probably took place elsewhere.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Total likes: 464
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #116 on: April 27, 2017, 01:28:44 PM »
I didn't know Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011. (How do you know this, Leonora?)  What would have happened had VT not pleaded guilty, and had been found not guilty at the trial ? Surely, the police don't close a case until they have found the perpetrator??

I don't understand what the jury visit to the flats was intended to achieve, except to bring it home to the jury members that an ordinary young woman, leading an ordinary life, was unfortunate enough to be murdered by the beast next door, after experiencing an ordinary day------and it could happen to any of us.  I remember that the jurors in the Rosemary West trial visited her home too---but at least they knew for certain that a number of young women's  bodies had been buried in that home. It has never been proved that Joanna died in her flat---or in VT's.






Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #117 on: April 28, 2017, 11:19:20 AM »
I didn't know Operation Braid was shut down in April 2011. (How do you know this, Leonora?)  What would have happened had VT not pleaded guilty, and had been found not guilty at the trial ? Surely, the police don't close a case until they have found the perpetrator??

I don't understand what the jury visit to the flats was intended to achieve, except to bring it home to the jury members that an ordinary young woman, leading an ordinary life, was unfortunate enough to be murdered by the beast next door, after experiencing an ordinary day------and it could happen to any of us.  I remember that the jurors in the Rosemary West trial visited her home too---but at least they knew for certain that a number of young women's  bodies had been buried in that home. It has never been proved that Joanna died in her flat---or in VT's.
The Crown was to serve its case papers to the defence by 1st April 2011, so Operation Braid must have been completed by then. The inquest was held on 28th March 2011. The very interesting details (attached) of the expenditure on the case up to 31 March 2011 was published as a result of someone's FoI request.

The only beasts living next-door to me, mrswah, are of the friendly four-legged variety like your "avatar", so I don't expect the same fate to overtake me!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #118 on: April 28, 2017, 12:02:50 PM »
Quote
Operation Braid-Murder of Joanna Yeates Expenditure


Operation Braid - Spend to 31/03/11



Description Spend to 31/03/11
 
Overtime Costs............                 £ 231,352.00
 
Agency Staff Costs .........              £ 4,164.00
 
Accommodation & Subsistence ...   £ 2,345.00
 
Travel/fuel/hire cars etc.....           £ 7,505.00

 Equipment Purchases......             £ 10,639.00

 Contribution from other Forces ..  £ 6,662.00
 
Purchase of Storage Crates...        £ 5,484.00
 
Telephony Costs............              £ 3,216.00

Interpreters Fees and other costs  £ 3,468.00

Printing and Advertising Costs...... £ 440.00

Total of Overtime & Expenses..      £ 275,275.00

Forensic Costs.....                         £ 83,379.00

Salaries.....                                  £ 856,000.00

                                        TOTAL £ 1,214,654.00



(1):  Overtime Costs... Expected.. long hours put into case

(2):  Agency Staff Costs ... I wonder what agency staff they used and if any should have been called as witness's??

(3):  Accommodation & Subsistence.. I'm presuming this is for the family.. unless part of this was used when they
       went to Holland??

(4):  Travel/fuel/hire cars etc.... Yes this would include flight to Holland..

(5):  Equipment Purchases... I wonder what equipment was purchased ??

(6):  Contribution from other Forces .... Now this one I at first puzzled over, because I don't know what other forces
       were involved.. I just thought it was Avon and Somerset Police... But Then I wondered if they were referring to
       the DUTCH POLICE??
       Or is it the Fire Service they are referring too??

(7):  Purchase of Storage Crates.... That's a lot of money on storage crates... what on earth have they got stored in
        them??? None of it came to trial!!!

(8):  Telephony Costs......

(9):  Interpreters Fees and other costs....

       Now an Interpreter was hardly used.. where is the breakdown of this??
       The Police may have had an interpreter in the begining.. But They never used one to translate the Dutch text or
       they would have appeared in court!!!
       Or did they need an Interpreter when they were in Holland?? Did they
      use an interpreter when they INTERVIEWED Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland??????

If so... where are all the translations... thats a lot of money for interpreters... especially when the Defence have to pay for their own!!!!!

(10): Printing and Advertising Costs...

(11): Forensic Costs = £ 83,379.00....  I would love  a breakdown of these cost... Especially LGC's costs or are these
        LGC's cost??

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Total likes: 464
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #119 on: April 28, 2017, 12:44:21 PM »
It all sounds very expensive, but in terms of murder investigations, I have no idea whether it is!
« Last Edit: May 04, 2017, 01:55:21 PM by John »