Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 162870 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #240 on: July 03, 2017, 06:23:49 PM »
Sorry CPS.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #241 on: July 03, 2017, 06:28:28 PM »
Park street is virtually a straight road so I don't think he was lost.

No.... let me rephrase that.... On Park Street... he ended up taking a wrong turn according to his Trial testimony... And had to Ring up Tanja Morson his girlfriend with directions of where to pick her up I believe ....


Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #243 on: July 03, 2017, 06:35:52 PM »
So he phoned his girlfriend up ........ so what are you saying?

Actually about 20 yrs ago I did exactly the same thing in Park St that VT claims he did. I was looking for Mark Lane and took a left hand `lane' ended up dead end and the back of some old houses. So in one way you can get lost in Park St, unless VT and me are a particular sort of idiot!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #244 on: July 03, 2017, 06:40:01 PM »
So he phoned his girlfriend up ........ so what are you saying?

Actually about 20 yrs ago I did exactly the same thing in Park St that VT claims he did. I was looking for Mark Lane and took a left hand `lane' ended up dead end and the back of some old houses. So in one way you can get lost in Park St, unless VT and me are a particular sort of idiot!


lol.... Well Maybe you do have something in common with Dr Vincent Tabak after all Nina ....  8)--)) Shame someone wasn't in court to explain to the Jury what he was saying was possible and true!!...  Think he also ended up in a dead end road too... Maybe it was "Mark Street" that he ended up in Nina...

Phone calls leave records... that is all.....


Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #245 on: July 03, 2017, 06:53:31 PM »
Okay I know as much about phones as I do computers. All I really know is that we leave a paper trail whatever we do.

So go on I'll be silly and ask you what time did VT phone his girlfriend and do mobile phone calls go through straight away? So if you say 9.29 that would have been the actual time he phoned his girlfriend. Are there sometimes little glitches where a signal can't be found and the call takes longer?

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #246 on: July 03, 2017, 07:22:09 PM »
Okay I know as much about phones as I do computers. All I really know is that we leave a paper trail whatever we do.

So go on I'll be silly and ask you what time did VT phone his girlfriend and do mobile phone calls go through straight away? So if you say 9.29 that would have been the actual time he phoned his girlfriend. Are there sometimes little glitches where a signal can't be found and the call takes longer?

Towers are what phone signals bounce off.. So his phone could give an approximation of what area he is in at anyone time...  IE Near Longwood Lane...

He didn't phone his girlfriend at 9:29Pm on Friday the 17th December 2010 as far as I know... but he could have...

9:29pm is the time the defence put him at home on their Time- Line... But I do not know... If this was some of the work carried out by Paul Cook... or Cleggs lot....


Edit... come to think about it maybe he was on his landline at around that time... Because it wasn't just his mobile phone calls that were recorded...!!!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #247 on: July 03, 2017, 07:23:29 PM »
In Fact... I do not know what Paul Cook actually did for Dr Vincent Tabak.... apart from not getting him BAIL... Or even making a BAIL APPLICATION....

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #248 on: July 03, 2017, 07:40:09 PM »
Okay so without blinding me with loads of tables, do you have a location timeline for VT on the evening of the 17th?

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #249 on: July 03, 2017, 07:42:05 PM »
Please don't take us off piste now by changing the subject to Paul Cook and bail.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #250 on: July 03, 2017, 07:51:15 PM »
Please don't take us off piste now by changing the subject to Paul Cook and bail.

Well I'm not really off piste... As he was apart of Dr Vincent Tabak's original Defence...

So Nina... may I ask you what it used to look like inside The Bristol Ram 2010 ?? And where in relation to the toilets and the exit did Joanna Yeates sit...?? Is it a large pub??

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #251 on: July 03, 2017, 07:53:57 PM »
lol Never been in the Bristol Ram.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #252 on: July 03, 2017, 08:27:48 PM »
Okay so without blinding me with loads of tables, do you have a location timeline for VT on the evening of the 17th?

I don't own loads of tables.....

Well a timetable of sorts... Because I cannot tell you exactly because I am not privey to Dr Vincent Tabak's statements..

So using the information I have managed to gather.. I only really need to cover between 8:50pm and 10:13pm on Friday 17th December 2010... As the Prosecution suggested that by the time Dr Vincent Tabak was at Asda he already had Joanna Yeates in the boot of his car.... Or between 9:00pm and 9:30pm depending on whether you go with the prosecution or The Defence.... Or... a combination of the two....


The Prosecution... Now I'm doing this from memory... or else I would need to trawl through all of my posts...

The Prosecution I believe have Joanna Yeates Killed between 9:00pm and 9:30pm on Friday the 17th December 2010... But... they also have Dr Vincent Tabak in his house for 1 hour approx before he went to Asda....

Many people have summised this is when he went back round to Joanna Yeates house to clean up....

Now The Defence... The Defence have Dr Vincent Tabak remaining in his Flat until 9:29pm... They have him seen at 10:13pm... And Asda is mentioned.... Now I have deduced that they only possible reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen at 10:13pm had to be on the ASDA CCTV Footage.... which of course they have blurred the timestamp from...

I say this is 10:13pm and ASDA CCTV... because if Dr Vincent Tabak had been picked up on any other CCTV Footage... It would have been played to the Court... And I'm sure the Prosecution would have objected if The Defence came up with a Time of 10:13pm that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen... when it could be proven... If it was a witness who saw Dr Vincent Tabak at 10:13pm... Then I'm sure they would have been called to court to verify this timeline.... And as NO-one was there to help Dr Vincent Tabak... I believe that I can deduce the TimeLine had to come from the ASDA CCTV Footage... (Which he entered on two occasions)..

So between 9:29pm and 10:13pm we have 44 minutes... 20 minutes warming up his car on the Drive... And approx 23 minutes to get to ASDA Via The B4051....

Another thing that needs to be remembered is the houses around the back that over look 44 Canygne Road... Now the Police have in some pictures...Of the outside lights on... And if the outside is lit up... And all the Screaming is going on that the witness's gave statements to... Do you not think it would be possible for some of these witness's to see what was going on just yards away.... And be of an even greater risk to moving a body on your own so many times...??

Dr Vincent Tabak... did not have the time to kill Joanna Yeates (IMO)...  And they all knew it and did nothing about it..... !!!!


So to summaries... If Dr Vincent Tabak was in the house for 1 hour before he went to Asda... According to The Prosecution.... we arrive around  his start time of 8:45pm to around 9:00pm before waiting 1 hour to go to ASDA depending on his Journey...

We then have The Defence putting Dr Vincent Tabak in his flat at 9:29pm... So logic has to dictate... That Dr Vincent Tabak did not leave his flat before 9:29pm and after starting his car engine remained in his flat until his journey to ASDA in Bedminster..... Which the Prosecution were happy to concede....

Both QC's now making it Impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have committed this crime.... (IMO)...




Edit.... This is where the tenants of 44 Canygne Road could have been useful to the Defence or Prosecution.... Surely they would have heard a Car engine running on the drive.... Surprised Neither Council called any of these tenants for verification..... !!



Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #253 on: July 03, 2017, 10:51:15 PM »
We've been sat here for months talking about this case and Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Plea of "Guilty to Manslaughter"...

Now... that has got me thinking ...

The offence of manslaughter

Quote
Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups. These are described as:
 voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of
murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and
 involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where
death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.

So which 'Manslaughter did Dr Vincent Tabak Plead Guilty too???

(A): Voluntary Manslaughter ??
or
(B): Involuntary Manslaughter ???

Looking at the description for "Manslaughter as a Plea.".. I am guessing.... And this is only because at the Trial The Defence stated that Dr Vincent Tabak "Did Not Intend to kill Joanna Yeates."....

Quote
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.

And from The Justice Gap

Quote
The only issue in the trial was intent and not sexual motive. That depended on the level of force and the time it would take to kill.

The Prosecution..

Quote
Mr Lickley said Tabak had intended to kill the landscape architect or cause her really serious harm because he gripped her throat for long enough and hard enough to end her life.

So looking again at The Old Bailey... which Manslaughter Plea did Dr Vincent Tabak enter into????

(A) Or (B)...

Or was it just your Common or Garden Manslaughter Plea...

Where you don't have any guarantee of an acceptance of your "Plea".. and put yourself at the Mercy of a Jury ready to find you guilty of a more serious charge .... Because The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit has you on her Radar and will not let you go to court for anything less than "Murder" and has never had any intention of accepting the "Manslaughter Plea" that you have just sat in her lap....... Whilst your own Council just looked around the room and said... Ok ..trial it is then.... (IMO).. Not securing any plea deal before The words "Guilty to Manslaughter".. were uttered

This is "WHY"  there were no Psychological assessment made and presented at Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial... (IMO)... They didn't need to as he never entered 'A Voluntary Manslaughter Plea ".... (Common or garden Variety was his choice apparently)

 So why waste good tax payers money for a Defence... when Dr Vincent Tabak was only entitled to receive a "Base Metal" Service????

He didn't plead "Guilty" To "Manslaughter" with diminished responsibilities... (Common or Garden variety was his choice apparently)...

Neither did he plead 'Guilt to "Involuntary" Manslaughter.... (Common or Garden Variety was his choice apparently)...  Although William Clegg was letting The Jury Know that this was possible by his description of what were supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's actions.... Leaving the Jury to wonder if that NVQ on "Manslaughter Law they thought they might gain ....would  be a good idea, if ever they were to be picked for jury service on a "Murder Trial"....it may come in handy......

No......He just went for  'Pot Luck "Manslaughter" on the ground that he thought that England had a fair Judicial System... And everyone would see straight through the fact that it was impossible for him to commit this "Murder"...

So my question must be.... How can you provide a Jury the opportunity to decide whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have committed " Voluntary Manslaughter verses "Involuntary Manslaughter.... "When The question of either type of "Manslaughter was never put to them... only a description of intent was ever provided .... I believe ...

And only a "Charge of Murder" was what the Jury had to decide upon...  How can a Jury Make an Informed Fair above board decision on "The Guilt" of A Defendant... when in reality... They were never aware of the type of "Manslaughter Plea Dr Vincent Tabak had entered into apparently.... ??

You are now in the realms of expecting a Jury to know `Law" and with their vast knowledge on the subject decide from amongst the EVIDENCE.. that was put before them... That Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates whether it was intentional or not.... Because apparently an NVQ in "Understand Law on "Manslaughter pleas before you become a juror are available to your left hand side....

Therefore giving you the legal knowledge you must need to  be at liberty to decide a Defendant fate when your only choice is "Guilty' to Murder.... And a little "manslaughter will be thrown in... Which you have all read about in the paper back in May 2011... But please don't let that influence you.. put that to one side and get ready with you NVQ's because we are about to test you on your knowledge of "Manslaughter In Law" without full direction or knowledge of whether the defendant pleaded Guilty to either catergory....... .(IMO)...

Do you know something.... I always thought that NVQ stood for "Not Very Qualified"....


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275776

http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/

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


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 #254 on: July 04, 2017, 06:50:15 AM »
Nine Agains point about the true perpetrator being protected is something that we are going to focus on for a while. It is highly likely that we have identified the individual and the conditions leading to his protected status, from our point of view he couldn't be better placed to avoid prosecution.

AH

Now, this sounds interesting --------