Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 231772 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #165 on: June 28, 2017, 09:39:29 PM »
Ok... I have sort of covered this before... Also.. I have posted before and it's been removed... And that is probaly because I mentioned people by name...

Well No names mentioned as such... But... An extremely Important piece of information all the same ...

I'm referring to "The Old Bailey" hearing..... the very same "Old Bailey" hearing that was held in court 2... A special court room for trials of such importance that it is a high Security Court Room....  A Court Room where Terrorist and such cases are normally heard and NOT A Simple Murder Trial....

This is my CRUX.... 'The "GUILTY" Plea to Manslaughter!!!!

I'll now jump straight to the trial on October 2011...

When any person appears at trial ...(IMO).... They stand accused...

"The Fundamental part of any body appearing before a "JURY"... Is.... The Defendant Is INNOCENT until Proven GUILTY.... NOT GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN EVEN GUILTIER if that is even a concept....

Dr Vincent Tabak should legally (IMO)... never have entered such a plea... and I do not understand how it ever happened!!!!

'The only reason any defendant enters a "Plea" is either... When they are at trial... or The Prosecution is happy with "The Plea " the defendant is entering and the Judge decides the sentence.... leaving "NO" reason to have a JURY!!!!!

But No.... NOT in this case.... "We Have a Defendant" who is Guilty Until Proven GUILTIER..... Which in law I don't know where that stands ....

You see in America they have deals as to take the death penalty off the table.... But we don't have "The death Penalty"... So Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't need to make a "PLEA" at all.... The only reason to make the PLEA would be so that the Judge would decide sentence.... And not arrive at your own trial as a Guilty Man Trying Not To Look GUILTY!!!

That concept is out of "WHACK"... (IMO)....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #166 on: June 28, 2017, 10:14:59 PM »
There are few passages in the English law reports better known than that in the speech of Viscount Sankey, the Lord Chancellor, in the House of Lords appeal case of Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions, when he said:
“Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt … . If at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given either by the prosecution or the prisoner ... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to anacquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.” ([1935] AC 462, at pp.481-482).

Article 6 Right to a fair trial

There must be a hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law (including unbiased jurors).

Well The Jury are already bias (IMO)... They have a "GUILTY PLEA" sat in their laps... !!!!

There must be equality of arms between the parties, so, for example, the defence has the same right to examine witnesses against them as the prosecution has and both parties have the right to legal representation etc.

No equality of arms (IMO)...When the defendant has pled "Guilty" To Manslaughter!!!!

Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

Article 6(2) concerns the right of every person charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.

Provisions which require defendants to prove elements of their defence (reverse onus provisions) may breach this right, particularly if a legal burden of proof is placed on the defendant (requiring them to prove that the case against them is not true).
Not "GUILTY" Until Proven even "GUILTIER"!!!

Minimum rights in criminal trials

Article 6(3) also guarantees the following minimum rights that apply in criminal trials:

* the right for an accused to be promptly informed of the accusation against him or her – this must be in a language which he or she understands and the charge must be detailed and adequately precise

* the right to have enough time and facilities to prepare a defence

* the right to legal representation, including the right to either defend oneself in person or through legal assistance chosen by the accused, for legal aid to be provided if a person cannot afford legal representation, and when the interests of justice require it

* the right to examine witnesses against an accused and for an accused to present witnesses for their defence – this right does not prevent vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence in alternative ways, either anonymously or via video-link etc., as long as the entirety of the evidence against the accused is not presented anonymously
the right for an accused to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he or she cannot understand the language used in court

Lets go back to that quote...

the right to have enough time and facilities to prepare a defence

With so many defence Lawyers in a Matter of months and everything apparently being Tickerty Boo by May 2011... As for The Judge to be able to set a trial date of October 2011..

When in REALITY... Did Dr Vincent Tabak have time to prepare a "PROPER" Defence!!!

the right to examine witnesses against an accused and for an accused to present witnesses for their defence – this right does not prevent vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence in alternative ways, either anonymously or via video-link etc., as long as the entirety of the evidence against the accused is not presented anonymously
the right for an accused to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he or she cannot understand the language used in court

Did every person who saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the night he was out drinking champagne and apparently being bored appear in court??? Or were some of the statements just witness statements read out in court????

Nowhere... In anything I have read so far does it say that a defendant goes to court as A Guilty Man!!!!.... To me it's unpresidented... But I'm no Lawyer...

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #167 on: June 28, 2017, 10:36:00 PM »

This won't leave me tonight.... I'm sending my husband bonkers again... But he did make a valid point before I came back to post...

The Only Other possible reason he could see that a defendant may "Plead" 'Guilty" To A Charge  was if they were facing other chargers relating to the case....

Well as I said to my husband... Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't facing any other charges in relation to 'The Murder Of Joanna Yeates".... So..... Again and not to bore you all...

How Can You Appear At Your Own Trial "Guilty" Of The Charge..... Before a Jury finds you  Guilty..... !!! WHEN THE PRESUMTION OF INNOCENCE IS THE FIRST PART OF ANY DEFENCE!!!!!!

AGAIN... How Can You Appear at your own trial as 'Guilty" Before being Proved "GUILTIER"??????

EDIT.... I'm like.... argggggggggggg

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #168 on: June 29, 2017, 10:03:23 AM »
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... think it's just a statement....

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)...

I have come back to this because, I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was on The witness Stand before Greg Reardon.... So did "William Clegg"  Address the court about 'The Broken Blind before" Greg Reardon took the stand ???

From The Sally Ramage Papers .... Which is from "Cleggs Address to the court"... Which I believe he made on 10th October 2010...

He believes it was the one
that had been from behind her back and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury.

Then from The Guardian....

Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates by grabbing her around the throat after she began screaming but had not meant to seriously harm her, a murder trial jury heard on Monday.

Tabak claims he held a hand around the landscape architect's throat for about 20 seconds using no more than "moderate force".

Makes me think his address with the claims of Greg Telling the Court that the Blind was broken could have easily been said before Greg Took the witness stand ....

This next statement I find odd... Is this statement been read to the jury just beofre Greg Reardon takes the stand???

According to Tabak, Yeates had begun to scream after he put an arm around her back. He put a hand over her mouth and the screaming stopped.

Tabak said he removed his hand and 25-year-old Yeates began to scream again. In a defence statement read to the jury at Bristol crown court, Tabak claims he then put his hand around her neck.

Would the defence statement be read out so early on in the trial ??

Then the article goes on to say....

Tabak, a 33-year-old Dutch engineer, later sat in the dock with his head in his hands as Yeates's boyfriend, Greg Reardon, described his last moments with his girlfriend before he left to spend a weekend away and his rising concern when he came home to discover her missing.

Which Gives the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak's statement was read just before Greg Reardon took the stand and "William Clegg" made his address to the court....

When Greg Reardon take the stand he initially is only sat down for 5 mins when they call a break for lunch... if I remember correctly... So It's conceivable that William Clegg Addressed the court with his information ... and then read out Dr Vincent Tabak's witness statement.....  which seems to be wrong.... (IMO)... shouldn't the prosecution present their case first and the "The Defence comes in with their rebuttal..??

Why does "Clegg" feel the need to implant in the Juries mind the version of events written in Dr Vincent Tabak's statement before Greg Reardon takes the stand ????

Think this needs further investigation....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #169 on: July 01, 2017, 05:58:26 AM »
I'm trying to find the listing at "The Old Bailey" for Dr Vincent Tabak....  Looking at the Law Pages for cases that have been heard there, I cannot seem to find it....  Would his case be listed at "The Old Bailey" for his plea hearing???

I would have thought it should have been..... But it isn't there .... Anyone any idea???  You need to scroll down to the date... There is one restriction there... But when I clicked on it ... The case was of a 17 year old boy...

I have attached an images of names and dates of appearances... and Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't appear... Why would that be ???

The other attachment is the search I did ...

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #170 on: July 01, 2017, 07:09:35 AM »
Again trying to find as much Information with regards Dr Vincent Tabak's apperance at The Old Bailey.... came across webslueths forum and the members who followed this case....

They were expecting the case to be heard at Bristol Crown Court and noticed the change.... 


Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...

So we have Two listings..... "Court Serve" list "The Old Bailey" hearing as "For Mention"....
Yet "Bristol Crown court" Court Serve"... list the hearing at "Court Serve" says it for a 'Plea and Management Case hearing.....

Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:32 AM
Aha - Courtserve listing for Bristol Crown Court refers to it being the Plea and Case Management hearing.
Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM


Plea and Case Management
T20117031 TABAK Vincent


OMG... what does this mean????

So Basically... The hearing at "The Old Bailey".. should have been a "For Mention" Which from this PDF i'll quote...

If notification is received saying that the PCMH will not be effective, the case should
remain listed on the allocated date but the Case Management Judge should direct
whether it should be listed for PCMH or for mention and to fix. At the hearing a new
PCMH and trial date should be set with liberty to apply.

What made them change from "For Mention"....

Then we get this ....

If no resolution or compromise can be reached through the above process, the case
should be listed for mention in consultation with the case management or trial
Judge. Hearings should if appropriate and practicable be listed for the
instructed/trial advocates’ availability in accordance with Part 3.8(2)(d) of the
Criminal Procedure Rules.
(g) The Court should provide blank pro forma orders to the advocates before mention
hearings. The Judge should then direct counsel to draft any agreed order for his
approval and should not release the advocates until such an order has been lodged
with, and approved, by the court.

How did they manage to list the same case as at one court "For Mention" being The Old Bailey court 2..... And at Bristol Crown Court as "the Plea and Case Management hearing."

As far as I can tell.... this hearing should have been "For Mention" at The Old Bailey" and not the Plea and Case Management hearing.

Is it legally possible to change what 'The Hearing" was for in less than a day?? Or have "TWO DIFFERENT COURT LISTINGS AT TWO DIFFERENT COURTS FOR TWO DIFFERENT HEARINGS FOR THE SAME CASE???..... That can't be right!!!!! (IMO)..

They have gone from having to argue points... Dr Vincent Tabak making a "Plea" !!

Shouldn't the next step have been a Plea and case Management hearing on another date and not Dr Vincent Tabak entering a "Guilty Plea" ??

This is really weird..... They had case management hearing after "May" if I remember correctly.... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to enter a "Guilty Plea" at A "For Mentions" hearing before a "Case Management Hearing" took place?????

Also on the original "Old Bailey" Court Serve.... It says that the Defendant will Attend..... How did they change that ??????

EDIT..... They didn't change the hearing status in less than a day... they listed "TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HEARINGS AT TWO COURTS".... If you look at the time that Clio posted the TWO COURT DATEs... 

 At:   05-04-2011 11:32 AM... (May)
 And: 05-04-2011 11:17 AM ... (again it's May)

So that's  15 Minutes apart..... So Again I'll ask...... How can you possibly list Two different Types of hearings for the same case on the same day????
Am I missing something here ????


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #171 on: July 01, 2017, 08:11:05 AM »
We are all aware that Ann Reddropp "The Head of The Complex Crime Unit"... Sought to follow this case through to the bitter end....

I never understood why she would be involved as Dr Vincent Tabak's Case was basically A Simple Murder Trial....

. Complex cases that are likely to go to the Crown Court and last more than four weeks should be managed in accordance with the Protocol for the control and management of heavy fraud and other complex criminal cases link to external website4, which sets out best practice and gives guidance to investigators, prosecutors, defendants and judges.

19. Legal Adviser's Office (LAO) or a solicitor agent will manage cases that fall within the Protocol, the key points of which are as follows:

* Interviews with suspects and witnesses should be managed effectively to ensure that they are relevant, well structured and of a length which can be properly presented to the court at trial. Interviewees should be provided in advance with relevant information, such as documents you intend to refer to during the interview. A well structured interview will prevent time being lost in court;

* Disclosure of material to the defendant should be made in an effective and time efficient manner. Only those documents that meet the test for disclosure (i.e. that assist the defence or undermine the prosecution) should be disclosed; the defence should not be swamped with all the documents the prosecution holds in relation to the case. Evidence schedules should also be prepared as early on as possible. The judge will engage in active case management to ensure that the process of disclosure does not cause the case to overrun;

*Prosecuting lawyers should be involved in the investigation as soon as it appears that a complex or lengthy trial is likely. The criteria for referring cases to LAO for independent legal oversight should be considered at the outset of the investigation and kept under consideration throughout;

*Any case that may last more than eight weeks should be referred by the prosecuting lawyer to his/her supervisor to ensure that it is run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. If the case is likely to last more than six months, it must be referred to the Head of Litigation in LAO; and

*Once the charges (informations) have been laid, the appointed judge is required to take a pro-active role in managing the case. HSE may be required to justify the length of the case and demonstrate that it could not be conducted in a more time-efficient manner.

Well already they managed to time the case so it would last just 4 Weeks.... So does it mean that these rules don't apply????

Advance sentence indications
20. In cases before the Crown Court, the defence can request an indication from the judge of the likely maximum sentence that would be imposed should the defendant decide to plead guilty (often referred to as a ‘Goodyear indication’) 5. The request can be made at any stage of the proceedings, including at trial, although it is most likely to be made at the plea and case management hearing (see above).

So if Dr Vincent Tabak was going to "Plead Guilty" he should have been given a "GoodYear"???

An indication can only be sought by the defence and should not normally be given until the basis of the guilty plea has been agreed with the prosecution (for example, by way of an agreed Friskies schedule with aggravating, mitigating and other factors relevant to sentence) or where the judge has concluded that s/he can deal with the case without the need for a Newton hearing6 – see The sentencing hearing.)

So... I'll say yet Again..... Why without ANY PROVISIONS.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak Plead Guilty To Manslaughter ??

Why without consulting with The Prosecution does The Defence Offer "A Guilty Plea To Manslaughter"????

Goodyear (as above), paragraph 70(a). “An indication should not be sought while there is any uncertainty between the prosecution and the defence about an acceptable plea or pleas to the indictment, or any factual basis relating to the plea. Any agreed basis should be reduced into writing before an indication is sought. Where there is a dispute about a particular fact which counsel for the defendant believes to be effectively immaterial to the sentencing decision, the difference should be recorded, so that the judge can make up his own mind.” (paragraph 66).

So if a "Goodyear could NOT be sought by The Defence because obviously The Prosecution were "Always" going for "A Murder Charge" as Ann Reddrop says... Then again.... why did Dr Vincent Tabak make "A Plea " at The Old Bailey handing The Prosecution the case in their lap????

So we NOW have... A "For Mention" hearing where "A Goodyear" wasn't offered yet The Defendant... Dr Vincent Tabak pleads "GUILTY"...... I'm not quite as green as I am cabbage looking.... But surely that cannot be right!!!!!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #172 on: July 01, 2017, 08:20:57 AM »

For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031

So I believe that U20110387 Vincent Tabak .... Is Dr Vincent Tabak's case Number at The Old Bailey....

Anyone out there know how to chase that up ????

Offline AerialHunter

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #174 on: July 01, 2017, 12:28:41 PM »
Additional to the above post of mine... : .. Sorry to repeat a little ... But you will understand stand why by reading the post ...

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)!!!!!!

If Clegg was building a picture for the jury the fac that the blind MUST have been in the up position because of its condition does make it relevant. Clegg had to explain how Tabak and Yeates came into contact, and the simple coincidence of Tabak passing the window when Yeates was in view is more than enough for him, seeing as he opening gambit seems to hang Tabak out to dry.
There is none so noble or in receipt of his fellows unbridled adulation as that police officer who willingly deceives to protect one of his own kind and, by virtue of birthright, extends that privilege to his family.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #175 on: July 01, 2017, 04:39:38 PM »
What does Via PVL... mean ???
Prison Video Link

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #176 on: July 02, 2017, 11:49:28 AM »
Part 1.....

Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...

I really wasn't sure what For Mention was... But an Article in 'The Independent" say:

The defence shall apply to the court for the case to be listed for mention if they are unable to obtain instructions from the defendant. If the defendant fails to attend court, the judge will wish to consider whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

So..... what happened between the two listings.... ??

So if they were unable to obtain instructions from Dr Vincent Tabak.... How on earth did we jump to a "Plea and Management Case Hearing... in 15 minutes ???

I'm trying to understand 'The Courts role... to send this case for "A Plea and Case Management Hearing."...

They listed it as two things

(A): For Mention

(B): Plea and Case Management Hearing

Which I stay with (B)... If it was a "Plea and Case Management Hearing" and Obviously... we have Dr Vincent Tabak out of the "BLUE" pleading "Guilty" To Manslaughter.... Then The Defence and Prosecution alike should have been aware of this.... (IMO)... That why I was surprised 'A GoodYear" wasn't applied....

But also if when they appeared at "The Old Bailey" They all were under the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plea...

When a case is to be sent for PTPH to the Crown Court the
Magistrates should expect the parties to provide information on any
relevant communications between them in accordance with the duty
of engagement (CrimPR 3.3).

Where guilty pleas are indicated the Magistrates should consider
ordering a PSR. Separate guidance on this has been published.
Where not-guilty pleas are indicated the magistrates should explore
with the parties:

 Whether the defendant is prepared to plead to other
 In brief terms what are the issues in the case, what evidence
and issues are agreed and what is likely to be disputed?
 What information, or other material, is required by either of
the parties to facilitate an effective PTPH?

So A Guilty Plea... must have been Indicated....  So was A "Pre- Sentence Report" ever ordered ???? Or were they all aware that 'The Plea" was a was 'A POINTLESS EXERCISE" for Dr Vincent Tabak ???? As "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit Insisted That It Was A Murder Charge"???

The venue had changed... It was supposed to be at "Bristol Crown Court"... So they all must have been aware... (IMO)...

So with Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea... The Judge:

At the PDH, arraignments will normally take place. If the defendant pleads guilty, the judge should wherever possible proceed to sentencing.

What stopped that ???? This is why I do not understand Dr Vincent Tabak entering 'A Plea"...  It seems ludicrous (IMO)...

Not only did "The Prosecution" not accept this "Plea."...  "A Trial Date was set"....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #177 on: July 02, 2017, 11:50:22 AM »
Part 2.....

Now this is were it gets Interesting to me.....

Readiness for trial or appeal
3.10.—(1) This rule applies to a party’s preparation for trial or appeal, and in this rule and rule
3.11 ‘trial’ includes any hearing at which evidence will be introduced.
(2) In fulfilling the duty under rule 3.3, each party must―
(a) comply with directions given by the court;
(b) take every reasonable step to make sure that party’s witnesses will attend when they are
(c) make appropriate arrangements to present any written or other material; and
(d) promptly inform the court and the other parties of anything that may―
(i) affect the date or duration of the trial or appeal, or
(ii) significantly affect the progress of the case in any other way.
(3) The court may require a party to give a certificate of readiness.

It says it all..... in "Hushed Tones"....

Dr Vincent Tabak as we are aware  never had any 'Good Character" witness's... In actual fact.... Dr Vincent Tabak really had "NO" witness's at all.... which if you think about "A Plea and Case Management Hearing"... that was all signed sealed and delivered by 5th May 2011... Then what had 'The defence " done for their client ????

By The time they are all at "The Old Bailey"... every witness, every statement, every piece of "Evidence"... should be in place....

How was that possible????

Because if we remember it was supposed to be a "For Mention" hearing.... Which wouldn't need every witness, every statement and every piece of evidence in place...

William Clegg had not that long before taken over the case.... So... what did he have time to check????

"Brotherton's" rubbish about a confession... did "NOT" come into this hearing.... There was No evidence of "This Supposed Confession"...

So we literally have an extremely short space of time for the preparation of this case... and the Interviewing of witness's...

(IMO).. The Defence never Intended to call... CJ.... They never Intended to call Tanja Morson.... They never Intended to call anyone who could give a "Good Character" witness statement for Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)...

Come to think of it.... CJ is never mentioned by name anywhere as far as I can tell..... So I do not believe that The Defence ever had a statement from CJ.... Or The Prosecution for that matter.... The only statements that CJ ever made (IMO)... were the Police Interviews ....

Which makes sense now as to "WHY" he's always referred to as "The Landlord"... I hadn't thought of it before... At first I thought it was because Dr Vincent Tabak was possibly referring to The Land Lord of The Pub... But on thinking about it now... It must be because they didn't have a statement from CJ...

And don't you think they should ???

Back to The Old Bailey..... If there are NO statements from anyone... how did they come to a "Plea" ?? when in reality it should have been a 'For Mention" hearing....  Where "A Defendant" may not have given instructions...  Dr Vincent Tabak was not saying very much up until this point.... he seemed to have little or no trust of the Justice System" (IMO)... (And who can blame him)... So this Placid Dutchman has said virtually "Nothing" .. nothing to indicate possible witness's who could give "Good Character" "witness statements ".. Nothing that would show anything untoward... Nothing that would indicate that he had killed his next door neighbour... Yet he appears at The Old Bailey and goes....  "Yep... I did it".... really ???

Do people really believe that a man who has said nothing to indicate his guilt... A man who has done nothing to indicate his guilt... (Dumping his laptop).. A Man who did not abscond back to his native Holland... Where procedures would have put a holt on setting any date for trial as the hoops they would need to jump through could take quite some time .... This Placid Dutchman... who freely returned to England would suddenly out of "Nowhere" Pleas 'Guilty To Manslaughter" ???

What had "The Prosecution and "The Defence " discussed to get to the point that they were all ready for trial ?????

And a discussion must have taken place.... (IMO)... which means again ..."WHY" would Dr Vincent Tabak plead "Guilty " To Manslaughter" if the judge wasn't going to go straight to sentence ??? If the very same Judge was "NOT" going to give any reduction to his final sentence for making such a "PLEA"....
It makes NO SENSE!!! (IMO)..

Which means... by The 5th May 2011.... Every single witness and piece of evidence was ready for trial... which means.. that Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea was known well in advance... And I can't accept that....

I cannot accept that an Intelligent man would make a plea to his "Guilt" without any provisions in place.... I cannot accept that 'William Clegg" QC.... rolled over and allowed his client to go with such a plan... William Clegg.. A distinguished Professional who would fight tooth and nail for a defendant charged with war crimes... Yet simply says ...  "Ok he did"... (IMO)... let move on to trial......

What is this case saying???? Why all The Untruths??? Why All The deception??? Why The Circus???

Do the general public really understand what went on in This Case ??? Because it seem highly irregular to me....

I think Dr Vincent Tabak should get a Retrial...  I believe certain individual's need investigating in relation to this case.... (IMO)...

Think I need to come back to these witness statements.....  "Good Character" statements in particular...

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #178 on: July 02, 2017, 11:51:09 AM »
Part 3.....

I'm going back to "The Good Character" witness statements........

Question.... did anyone make A Good Character Witness statement ever ????? Personally I do NOT believe that ever happened.... Which is important....

A list of people I can think whom could have been called as 'Good Character Witness's ...

(A) Tanja Morson

(B): Tanja Morson's Mother would called the Dutchman 'The Lovely Vincent"

(C): Gunter Morson"

(D): Tanja Morson's Father

(E): Cora Tabak

(F): Marcel Tabak

(G): Erik Blokhuis ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Friend In Holland)...

(H): Any professional from The University in Holland

(I): Anyone from Buro Happold

(J): Any of The residents from the flats at 44 Canygne Road

(K): Of Course CJ....

(L): Mr Massoeurs  (A Neighbour of Dr Vincent Tabak's from Holland

(M): Any Neighbours he knew from his Bath address

Basically there should be statements in Dr Vincent Tabak's case file from all of these people (IMO)... If The Defence ever bothered to interview them to be possible "Good Character" witness's...

If by the time they have reached "The Old Bailey" in May 2011... And this is when "The Porn" was first mentioned as to Dr Vincent Tabak's 'Bad Character" I can't really see either..... The hearing I believe was 30 minutes... Which with all the relevant information that needed to be in place... " The Porn" may not have had chance to be aired!! (IMO)..

And therefore if The Defence have their Good Character Statements... That in turn means that 'The Prosecution" have all their "Bad Character" statements also... ???

(A): The Prostitutes that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently solicited in this country..
(B): The Prostitues That Dr Vincent Tabak solicited in America
(C): Female colleagues he may have made advances upon previously
(D): Female friends or acquaintances he may have made advances upon previously....

All of these statements should be with The Prosecutions case files ...(IMO)... If The Bad Character evidence was ever real and true.... (IMO)... That's why I still don't believe that their was ever any Porn... (IMO)... I personally believe "The Porn" was a ruse... As to not have to produce "Good Character" witness statements for Dr Vincent Tabak....(IMO)..

 Where were all the "Good Character" References?? Are they in "The Case Files of The Defence ???? Even if they were not used they still should be there (IMO)... because it is not until what appears last minute that Dr Vincent Tabak, pleads "Guilty to Manslaughter"...

This case has brought me to tears many times.... And I am not forgetting The Poor Yeates Family in this... I sit here frustrated at what appears to have happened in this case.... And what on the surface Initialy to some appeared to be a legit case... becomes more and more of a travesty, the more I look at it... And the Placid Dutchman... lost in an English Legal System he never had any chance of Comprehending... Especially once "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit, put herself at The Helm of this Investigation and Prosecution of "A Placid Dutchman" being charged with what essentially is.... "A Simple Murder Case".....

Have they all gone beyond their remit??? Have they Not followed procedure???

As far as I can tell I would say so... though as you can tell I am no legal expert... But common sense and logic tells us... Too many untruths were told.... Too many individuals of Importance used their role to bury The Dutchman... (IMO)... Too Many Individuals could not keep "THEIR" story straight... and too many indiviuals showed up our legal system for what it is capable of.... which (IMO)... Is the appaling treatment of A Dutch National whom had great hopes and dreams in this "Free" Country of ours... Who's life was ready to take off in his personal and professional aspects... who could have enjoyed all the freedom's we all take for granted...

Yet... Someone,.. wanted Dr Vincent Tabak to pay for Joanna Yeates death...  And the real question you should all be asking yourselves is:

"WHY".... why go to such great lengths to convict "A Placid Dutchman" of a Crime he denied most vigorously for so long... To appear at The Old Bailey and suddenly change his Plea... When his appearance should have been for A "For Mention" hearing....

What possible motive did "The Head of The Complex Crime Unit have in her pursuit of this "Placid Dutchman"???

What possible motive did William Clegg have "Not" to Defend his client to the best of his "Ability"??? (IMO)..

What possible Motive is there for us all having "The Wool Pulled Over Our Eyes" ?? because In My Opinion... It well and truly has been..... And that's a shocking state of Affairs...

EDIT.... If William Clegg went to "The Old Bailey" without any "Good Character References" does that suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak was "Under Duress" to make "A Plea" ?? when The "Plea" was of "NO" actual benefit to him WHATSOEVER????

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #179 on: July 02, 2017, 12:37:29 PM »
Which court Room did Dr Vincent Tabak attend at The Old Bailey when The Court Serve Listings give TWO different Court Rooms ?????

Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:32 AM
Aha - Courtserve listing for Bristol Crown Court refers to it being the Plea and Case Management hearing.
Court 1 - sitting at 10:00 AM


So is it

(A):"Court Room 1"

(B) "Court Room 2


(C): Neither as I didn't mage to find a listing for Dr Vincent Tabak  on The Archive of Cases heard at The Old

That also makes an interesting possibility.... Where is it listed that Case Number:.... U20110387  Dr Vincent Tabak's appearance at The Old Bailey... other than on the original "Court Serve" website....

Someone needs to seriously check That Number... And what it refers to because I cannot find any reference anywhere other that the web slueths websites in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak's Old Bailey Case Number .... Oh yes... and which court was he at???

How is it possible to be listed not only for TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HEARINGS.... But at TWO DIFFERENT COURT ROOMS??????

Question.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was was always due to appear via "Video Link"... which court Room was set up for this Video link???

Did any of the media attend "The Hearing"????  can anyone anywhere tell us With absoulute certainty... which court Room did Dr Vincent Tabak appeared in at The Old Bailey...

I have just had another thought.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was only supposed to appear at The Old Bailey "For Mention"... Then his family would have been explained too why their would have been no possible need for them to attend this hearing.... Nothing much would change.... I presume that they would have been directed as to where to obtain the information to the hearing at "The Old Bailey"...

Where the Tabak family deliberately wrongly informed that this case was to be a "For Mention Case"... thus their attendance would not be needed as it was via video link and nothing at this point untoward would happen to Dr Vincent Tabak ????

The only benefit I can see for having TWO different hearings listed... Is to DUPE The Tabak Family (IMO)... because I honestly cannot see any advantage other than that for Two listings to have been listed on Court Serve for Dr Vincent Tabak's appearance at The Old Bailey.....(IMO)....


Edit...... I was Just thinking that it was slightly odd that the "Plea And Management Case Hearing does not list the Defendants Case Number.....

So Offically did Dr Vincent Tabak have A plea and Management Case hearing or just "A For Mention".. Hearing ????

Or..... Is the Plea and Case Management hearing under a different case number again????