Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 162680 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #150 on: May 28, 2017, 02:58:58 PM »
Has it never been proved that VT bought crisps, beer and rock salt in ASDA then?  Surely, if he was under suspicion of having killed someone and having the body of that person in the boot of his car, I would have thought the police would have been very interested in proving exactly what he bought at ASDA.


I have attached images of him leaving ASDA's ...Or should I say images of someone leaving ASDA's... You need to keep freeze framing the video I have linked below... To see what I mean... This video show what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's 2 visits to ASDA.. which were supposed to be within minutes of each other... one his first vistit he is wearing all "Black".. and on his second visit... he is wearing a "RED" top... I also believe the picture in the "RED" top of a man who is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak.. walking down the "Aisles"... appears to have developed stubble.....

So when you see this gentleman from behind as he leaves on two occasions... he appears greyer on the first time he leaves than on the second time he leaves with shopping.....

This reminded me when I have been shopping with my husband... And over many a year he has been chased up and around an Aisle.. when someone has mistaken him for John Barnes.... The latest mis-identification they believe him to be is "Will I Am"... which amuses me... And I find it hard to contain my laughter at this ....

But on a more serious NOTE... "The man in ASDA may look like Dr Vincent Tabak... But Is It Dr Vincent Tabak????

The Man leaving ASDA with shopping... has a carrier bag..plus a longer item tucked under his arm... I am presuming they are saying that this item is the "Rock Salt"....




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
  • Total likes: 463
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #151 on: May 30, 2017, 08:42:09 PM »
I believe some barristers do both prosecution and defence work----could be wrong (or rather, my hubby, the retired lawyer could be wrong)!!!

I would love to know why VT's lawyers changed so many times. Is it because he was on legal aid? Is it a matter of which lawyer is free at the right time? Or is it more "complex" than that?????

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #152 on: June 06, 2017, 12:47:44 PM »
The fact That Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at "The Old Bailey".. has baffled me.. I cannot understand why this would be the case...

I was looking at "The Old Baileys" website to see if I could find an explanation as to "WHY" Dr Vincent Tabak's case would even be heard there and I got even more puzzling answers..

The major problem here is the court that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared in via video link....

Court 2..... Now this is a special court and in No Way should Dr Vincent Tabak appeared here whether in person or via video link...

Quote
Court Two is the high-security court, and terrorist trials and the like often take place here.

What was it about Dr Vincent Tabak that he appeared in COURT 2 at "The Old Bailey"??? he was hardly a threat as he was seen via video link... so why COURT2 ??

Back to a simple murder case... which for all intense and purposes it was .... So why COURT 2..??

The 'Shock and Horror " at his guilty plea should be the last of peoples concerns... more to the point is why "Court 2"??

Was this to seal in the minds of other Authorities that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed involved in something So Heinous... So Appalling.... That "The Head Of the Complex Case Unit" was also involved and if Dr Vincent Tabak was not a man of unsavioury character , he would not have found himself in COURT 2...

Is this the reason that "The Dutch Authorities never asked questions... did they think he was involved in "Terrorism"? Did Ann Reddrop have people believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was an extremely 'DANGEROUS MAN"!!

Court 2 is shrouded in "Mystery" and I find it difficult to see cases that have been heard there......  So why The Special Treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak.. so as to have him appear in the most special court in the land ???

Quote
Miss Yeates’s parents, David and Teresa, were in Court 2 of the Old Bailey to witness Tabak – who was appearing by videolink from Long Lartin prison where he is on remand – admit to killing their 25-year-old daughter.

Maybe there was pressure from "The Dutch Authorities".. wanting to know about Dr Vincent Tabak... and by sending him to "COURT 2" and explaining "WHO" and what type of criminal ends up in "COURT 2" "The Dutch Authorities "were satisfied with the explanation...(IMO)..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html

https://old-bailey.com/visiting-the-old-bailey/


[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #153 on: June 13, 2017, 03:57:04 PM »
Why did 'The Master Defender"... let Dr Vincent Tabak down so badly????

When his reputation only in an Interview a year before had gone to extraordinary lengths to "Defend"


Quote taken from PDF I have attached ...

Quote
One of the most fascinating periods in
Clegg’s career was when he defended two
men – Anthony Sawoniuk and Szymon
Serannowicz – accused of murdering Jews,
under the orders of the Nazis, in World War
Two. The cases were brought under the War
Crimes Act of 1991 and, in the case of
Sawoniuk, Clegg requested that the court
should decamp from the Old Bailey to
Damachava, Belorussia, scene of the alleged
crime.
“I told the court Sawoniuk couldn’t have
a fair trial unless the jury were able to look
and see for themselves the actual
environment. In addition we had to take
evidence by video from witnesses who were
too ill or too old to travel to England.
“It was quite a surreal experience. I
remember quite literally walking through
knee-high snow to a cottage in pitch dark,
hammering on the door and going in with
cameras and taking evidence from this old
woman who was sitting in front of a fire
with a cat on her lap, about things that had
happened 60 years before.”
Sawoniuk, a retired British Rail ticket
inspector, was found guilty of the murder
of 18 Jews in his homeland and given two
life sentences: he is the first and only
person in the UK to be convicted under the
1991 act. The case of Serannowicz collapsed
after Clegg successfully argued he was
mentally unfit to plead.

"WHY" wasn't The witness statements for the "Prosecution" "Video Taped" to play in Court"!!!! Instead of too many written "WITNESS" Statements that were read out to "The Jury"?????

I wonder if this was in Court 2 of "The Old Bailey??

Quote
Sawoniuk, Clegg requested that the court
should decamp from the Old Bailey to
Damachava, Belorussia, scene of the alleged
crime.

Funny that Clegg was against the 'Trial being held in Winchester because it would be difficult for 'The Jury "to travel"!!!

Quote
Prosecutors asked for his trial to be held at Winchester over fears local publicity could affect proceedings.

The bid was opposed by Tabak’s barrister William Clegg QC and rejected by Judge Mr Justice Field.


And:..
Quote
Prosecutors had wanted the case to be transferred to Winchester but this was rejected by the judge.

Jurors are due to visit Miss Yeates's flat during the trial and hearing the case at Winchester could have caused travel difficulties. Tabak would also have faced a longer journey to court each day from his prison. The judge remanded him in custody pending his next appearance in court in July.

Did you ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he minded Travelling???

"WHY" not Go "Above and Beyond" for Dr Vincent Tabak "???
"WHY" just fold his hand???
"WHY" "Disrespect His Client" and call him all the names under The Sun??

Why Didn't Clegg.. Put on the performance of a life time to show that Dr Vincent Tabak could not have had the time to KILL Joanna Yeates.. "The CCTV " evidence could help to prove this...
"WHY" didn't Clegg call any medical professional.. That had assessed Dr Vincent Tabak "Mental Health" to the stand...
"WHY" didn't Clegg have any "Good Character Witness's for Dr Vincent Tabak"....
 WHY"  Didn't Clegg Object when "The Yeates family appeared at The Hearing at The Old Bailey in May 2011... as he may have needed to call them as witness's later on in the trial in "October 2011"..



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-neighbour-vincent-tabak-126826

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/i-killed-joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-6398430.html

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #154 on: June 13, 2017, 05:05:28 PM »
Just to add to the above post from the same PDF....

Quote
Clegg works in a profession often
perceived as pompous. He’s quite the
opposite – and if you ever got into serious
trouble, you’d value his calm, down-to-earth
character and supremely logical, reasoned
approach as you faced the jury.

Now if i hadn't read this in Black and White I May have been mistaken them for.. "Interviewing" a completely different person..
Other Than William Clegg QC..

I do not remember him ever showing his "Calm Down to Earth Character" At Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial... When Dr Vincent Tabak was "Clearly" in "Serious Trouble"... As He Sat Sobbing In The Dock!!

As for his "Supremely Logical Reasoned Approach as Dr Vincent Tabak faced a "jury" I cannot remember this either...

Or did I mistake...  These "Unkind Words" as a "Source" of Support for his Client...

1:  His conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.

2:  “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”

3:   And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.

4:  He had told “lie after lie to the police.

5: “Did everything he could to cover his tracks”.

6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by
    attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.

7:  “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.

8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me


"Ten Statements" That he so "Lovingly" used to help with his  "Supremely Logical Reasoned Approach

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #155 on: June 13, 2017, 05:11:36 PM »
...Did you ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he minded Travelling???
...
He did actually! At the "defence hearing" on 7th September 2011 (at which VT wasn't seen at all, even by video-link), "Mr Clegg also asked whether it would be possible to house his client at Bristol Prison for the trial, rather than putting him through a four-hour daily round trip back and forth from Long Lartin jail, in Worcestershire, where he is currently in custody". The response he got to this application was not reported.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #156 on: June 15, 2017, 06:27:45 AM »
He did actually! At the "defence hearing" on 7th September 2011 (at which VT wasn't seen at all, even by video-link), "Mr Clegg also asked whether it would be possible to house his client at Bristol Prison for the trial, rather than putting him through a four-hour daily round trip back and forth from Long Lartin jail, in Worcestershire, where he is currently in custody". The response he got to this application was not reported.

I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
  • Total likes: 463
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #157 on: June 15, 2017, 08:49:52 AM »
I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?

I can't find the link either, but I do remember either hearing about this on the news, or reading about it in the newspaper at the time.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #158 on: June 15, 2017, 02:54:02 PM »
After discovering in "The Independant Newspaper .... that Joanna Yeates had her T-Shirt... pulled over her head when she was found ...

Quote
Post-mortem examination pictures showed her lying on her right side with her jeans still intact but her pink top pulled up over her head, exposing her navel and her grey bra.
Her right arm was bent around her head while her left was resting straight across her body.
A picture of her right foot with the sock removed was also shown.


I question the "Prepared Statement" that Dr Vincent Tabak signed in September 2011....

"The Prosecution had kept plenty of Evidence to themselves (IMO)... The 1300 page Document being just one...

So why would they let "The Defence" know that Joanna Yeates was found with her T-Shirt over her head ???

I don't believe they would ,...(IMO).... And this is why (IMO)... Dr Vincent Tabak or The Defence don't ever mention in court that...Joanna Yeates T-Shirt was pulled up over her head ... They Know her Bra and stomach are exposed ... And come to an explanation for this occuring... By saying Dr Vincent Tabak was  trying to put Joanna Yeates over the wall... but i don't believe that would end up with her head being covered by her T-Shirt....(IMO..

I honestly can't see that the Prosecution letting those images be seen by the defence... As their delayed inclusion of the 1300 page Document goes to support this .... (IMO)..

So... What is the Explanation NOW???

If it hadn't been for Dr Delaney describing how Joanna Yeates body was and her clothing position on her being found... we all might still think her T_Shirt was pulled up to expose her Bra...

And this is what "The Prosecution" have always wanted everyone to think (IMO).... because when you start talking covering a person face... You are more than likely "Talking about someone who knew Joanna Yeates"... And didn't want her looking back at them anymore ...... (IMO)...!!!!


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

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #159 on: June 18, 2017, 12:57:10 PM »
I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?
This hearing on 7th September 2011 was reported ONLY in the Bath Chronicle. This is odd, as it marked the occasion when the Defence announced that the accused would supply an "enhanced statement" describing when Joanna was killed. how much force was used, and how her body came to end up in Longwood Lane. The link was:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Court-hear-Bath-engineer-killed-neighbour/story-13290060-detail/story.html
but, like so many other detailed reports of the case, it is no longer accessible. Sinister, eh?

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #160 on: June 18, 2017, 03:19:39 PM »
This hearing on 7th September 2011 was reported ONLY in the Bath Chronicle. This is odd, as it marked the occasion when the Defence announced that the accused would supply an "enhanced statement" describing when Joanna was killed. how much force was used, and how her body came to end up in Longwood Lane. The link was:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Court-hear-Bath-engineer-killed-neighbour/story-13290060-detail/story.html
but, like so many other detailed reports of the case, it is no longer accessible. Sinister, eh?

That's appalling.... I screenshot many articles now because they remove them....  I'd say ...."WHY" do they remove them... But I think the answer is obvious.....

If they have nothing to hide... It all should be all there still... (IMO)...

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #161 on: June 27, 2017, 02:01:21 PM »
Note to posters:

I will allow some leeway but spurious remarks or comments which are irrelevant to the topic under discussion will be removed.
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 [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #162 on: June 28, 2017, 08:12:12 PM »
Quote
This is what Tabak’s defence counsel said in his address to the court:

The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.


Ok this puzzles me..... When is the opening address... Is that just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand or his speech to the court on the 10th/11th October 2011 ??

I do believe it's just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand... But..... Maybe not...

Did Greg say in his witness testimony on the stand ... "That The Kitchen Blind"...was broken ????

Two problems with that......

And please don't remove my post I am not  pointing any fingers....

Either it is William Clegg who introduces this vitla piece of information to the Jury first... Or it is Greg....

Now if it is William Clegg who introduces this information to the Jury first.... How can he state as Greg Confirmed ??? If Greg hadn't already been on the witness stand???

And if Greg mentions the blind being broken.... How could he know the importance that the blind would play if he wasn't aware of what Dr Vincent Tabak witness statement would contain.....

Did William Clegg directly ask Greg Reardon in Court if the kitchen blind in Flat 1 was broken when Greg Reardon took the witness stand ??????

It's an important question... (IMO)...

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

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #163 on: June 28, 2017, 08:43:39 PM »
Ok this puzzles me..... When is the opening address... Is that just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand or his speech to the court on the 10th/11th October 2011 ??

I do believe it's just before Dr Vincent Tabak takes the witness stand... But..... Maybe not...

Did Greg say in his witness testimony on the stand ... "That The Kitchen Blind"...was broken ????

Two problems with that......

And please don't remove my post I am not  pointing any fingers....

Either it is William Clegg who introduces this vitla piece of information to the Jury first... Or it is Greg....

Now if it is William Clegg who introduces this information to the Jury first.... How can he state as Greg Confirmed ??? If Greg hadn't already been on the witness stand???

And if Greg mentions the blind being broken.... How could he know the importance that the blind would play if he wasn't aware of what Dr Vincent Tabak witness statement would contain.....

Did William Clegg directly ask Greg Reardon in Court if the kitchen blind in Flat 1 was broken when Greg Reardon took the witness stand ??????

It's an important question... (IMO)...

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Mr Clegg's made his opening speech at lunch-time on 19th October 2011 - the day before Vincent Tabak went into the witness box for the first time. Mr Clegg's reference to the broken blind was made in this speech. Greg Readon had testified two days earlier, on 17th October 2011. In his testimony he claimed that he saw both Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson walk past his window when they returned home. This implies that the blind could not be closed. As a key prosecution witness, he could have been coached in what to mention, provided it were true, and what not to mention, if it were potentially prejudicial to the prosecution's case.

Where the couple had been on the Sunday evening has never been reported.

Mr Clegg did not cross-examine Greg Reardon at all.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2017, 08:46:43 PM by Leonora »

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #164 on: June 28, 2017, 09:13:49 PM »
Additional to the above post of mine... : .. Sorry to repeat a little ... But you will understand stand why by reading the post ...

Quote
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.

It's biting is that statement.... It's nipping away at me.... It has got my goat!!!!!

It's ridiculous... Really we all need to think about that statement of 'The Defence".....(IMO)...

Dr Vincent Tabak has signed a statement in September as to what took place apparently on the evening of the 17th December 2010.....

If....and this is so "MASSIVELY" Important.... "The Defences" arguement for Dr Vincent Tabak managing to get contact with Joanna Yeates by waving at her throught the kitchen window.... Then "WHY" did "The Defence" need to clarify that the blind was broken... or even mention the blind ?????

Lets do logic.....

(A): Did The Defence Visit Flat 1 at Canygne Road before the trial......

Answer I doubt that very much.....

(B): Did the defence see pictures of a "BROKEN KiTCHEN BLIND" ???

Well if it's the picture of the blind that I have attached... there is NO evidence That this BLIND IS BROKEN.....

So.... Why would CLEGG even need to suggest to Greg Reardon that this Kitchen Blind was Broken and not merely left pulled up ?????

The Prosecution cannot 'Apparently"... Know the significance of this BLIND.... So CLEGG has to Bring this information to the courts attention.....

If the photographs and video that we know from the Juries visit show that the blind is "PULLED UP"...  Then the idea that it was broken shouldn't come into play...... The Blind is Innocuous.. The relevance of whether or not it was broken... really is pointless in a way....

If Joanna Yeates has  just arrived home and the kitchen blind has been raised for instance... Maybe it was something she did every morning because of the lack of light at the side of the house...

If she was killed straight away as it has been suggested... she may not have gotten around to pulling the blind down....

But... they make a fuss over whether or NOT this BLIND is BROKEN.....

Again.... CLEGG... didn't need to ask if the blind was broken... It's raised....This is what evidence he would have seen and this is what evidence he should be happy with.....(IMO).... No need for "Clarification as to whether or not this "BLIND WAS BROKEN"...... So it's utterly Ridiculous that he uses the fact that GREG confirmed that this BLIND WAS BROKEN....

Who Mentioned the "BROKEN BLIND FIRST" and WHY Would you???

I can probaly tell you for why... I do remember a photograph from ages ago and I cant find it now... But I was sure that the blind hadn't been pulled up properly... And was dangling lower on one side... But we couldn't possibly have such a photo if Joanna Yeates Flat was a Time Capsule and hadn't been touched or entered until the Jury visit....

So did Clegg also see this photo of the Uneven kitchen BLIND????  Because quite honestly he had no GOOD Reason (IMO)... To Clarify that the KITCHEN BLIND WAS BROKEN If it bwas raied up high enough for Dr Vincent Tabak to see Joanna Yeates in her Kitchen.... (IMO)!!!!!!



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