Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 163113 times)

0 Members and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #255 on: July 04, 2017, 10:34:50 AM »
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.

I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.

Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #256 on: July 04, 2017, 12:16:19 PM »
I am going to have to Do this in Parts... "Part 1".....

I remember ....Wikipedia... The font of all knowledge.... And Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent use of this tool for his understanding of virtually everything that was Law Related....

I was trying to understand how someone can apparently "Plead Guilt: to "Manslaughter"  and not be given any

(A): Reduction on sentence

(B): A plea bargain

(C): Enter the type of Manslaughter your pleading too...

(D): End up at trial with the jury making their minds up with two options only.... That been Guilty of "'Murder" or not...

I did mention this a while ago... I believed that something didn't appear quite right with that option being (D):...

The Law as I have found out is very difficult to comprehend... As I am finding out whilst writing posts...  So for Dr Vincent Tabak to apparently look at Wiki, the font of all knowledge for his get out clause ... On one day and have no clue as of English Law seems preposterous...

Lets start with Wiki's definition of "Manslaughter In English Law"..... which apparently was one of the searches done by Dr Vincent Tabak on the 22nd December 2010

Quote
n the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"). In England and Wales, the usual practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option (see lesser included offence). The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.


There's a mind field already.... " Mens Rea "... Latin... I wonder how Dr Vincent Tabak's Latin is these days ???

Quote
Mens rea in criminal law is concerned with the state of mind of the defendant. Most true crimes will require proof of mens rea. Where mens rea is not required the offence is one of strict liability. There are three main levels of mens rea: intention, recklessness and negligence.

Was Dr Vincent Tabak's case "NOT" A True Crime ????

My post last night was concerned with the type of Manslaughter That Dr Vincent Tabak apprentley pled Guilty too...

(A): Voluntary Manslaughter

(B): Involuntary Manslaughter.

Or As I have discovered the type of Intent...

(C): Direct intent:

(D): Oblique intent:

Now I'm wishing I took that NVQ that was on the left hand side.... So my understand of "Manslaughter Charges" would make this a lot easier to write..!!!!

Quote
Direct intent:
 
The majority of cases will be quite straight forward and involve direct intent. Direct intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a result which in fact occurs. Eg D intends to kill his wife. To achieve that result he gets a knife from the kitchen, sharpens it and then stabs her, killing her. The conduct achieves the desired result.
 
 

And:..
Quote
Oblique intent:
 Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result. Eg D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
 

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have any Knowledge of English Law.. So how would looking at WIKI apparently equip him with anything??? WIKI is useless for such information... when you need Government Guidelines to quantify the information... (IMO).. And  not just Good Old Wiki's say so.....


One thing I will say about the wiki pages is they were edited in June 2017... I'm sure when I looked a while ago you couldn't find some of that information... I'm sure it wasn't worded that way.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #257 on: July 04, 2017, 12:17:13 PM »
Part 2.......

Back to the Intent.... Direct Or Oblique???

Quote
Oblique intent:
 
 Oblique intent is more complex. Oblique intent can be said to exist where the defendant embarks on a course of conduct to bring about a desired result, knowing that the consequence of his actions will also bring about another result. Eg D intends to kill his wife. He knows she is going to be on a particular aeroplane and places a bomb on that aeroplane. He knows that his actions will result in the death of the other passengers and crew of the aeroplane even though that may not be part of his desire in carrying out the action. In this situation D is no less culpable in killing the passengers and crew than in killing his wife as he knows that the deaths will happen as a result of his actions.
 
 
The courts have struggled to find an appropriate test to apply in cases of oblique intent. In particular the questions which have vexed the courts are:
 
Should the test be subjective or objective?
What degree of probability is required before it can be said that the defendant intended the result?
Whether the degree of probability should be equal to intention or whether it is evidence of intention from which the jury may infer intention

Is this the reason that "Intent" was never used for Dr Vincent Tabak... Did they not included "Oblique Intent" in the eyes of the Jury??

If Lawyers have struggled on how to apply Oblique Intent... How would a Jury manage to comprehend such a concept??

Quote
Subjective or objective test
 
 
A subjective test is concerned with the defendant's perspective. In relation to oblique intent it would be concerned only with whether the defendant did foresee the degree of probability of the result occurring from his actions. An objective test looks at the perspective of a reasonable person. Ie Would a reasonable person have foreseen the degree of probability of the result occurring from the defendant's actions.
 
It is arguable, that since intention requires the highest degree of fault, it should be solely concerned with the defendant's perception. In addition, intention seems to be a concept which naturally requires a subjective inquiry. It seems somehow wrong to decide what the defendant's intention was by reference to what a reasonable person would have contemplated. However, originally an objective test was applied to decide oblique intent:

So subject or Object.. Well Dr Vincent Tabak did not use an Object unless you want to class his right hand as such... When I read about him using his right hand ..I wondered ff he was actually left handed ??? I digress..

Quote
Lord Bridge's test on oblique intent:

"First, was death or really serious injury in a murder case (or whatever relevant consequence must be proved to have been intended in any other case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act? Secondly, did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of his act? The jury should then be told that if they answer yes to both questions it is a proper inference for them to draw that he intended that consequence."
 

Well that a bit of a revelation... We at a "Murder Trial"... we have "The Defence" trying to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak did not 'Intentional" kill Joanna Yeates... That his action's were 'NOT" meant...

Then we have "The Prosecution"... Would say that he deliberately killed her... and that he must have known that his action would have caused the death of Joanna Yeates and The pain and suffering she went through....


I have "Two Problems Here ".... Firstly the Jury only had only a "Murder" charge to consider...Knowing that The Defendant had already pleaded Guilty to "Manslaughter"... They.. being the Jury "DID NOT" know what type of 'Manslaughter Dr Vincent Tabak actually pleaded Guilty to...

 Yet The Defence and The Prosecution appear to be using all the elements relating to A "Manslaughter " Charge... (IMO)...

Even as so far as to use what appears to me to be The 'Oblique" Intent... which not even Lawyers can agree on it use... So how on gods green earth are the jury going to be able to understand all of the legal talk happening in the court room...

And Clegg letting his client sit there without an Interpreter... Except apparently one for medical terms.... I just want to LOL at this point... It's OMG... How is Dr Vincent tabak supposed to understand English Law... If even English Lawyers cannot agree on 'Oblique Intent"????

Quote
Lord Lane CJ:

"the jury should be directed that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case."

Okie Dokie... That's a mine field... How can a jury infer anything ..if they are NOT of the Understanding what 'Oblique Intent Is"???  were the words "Oblique Intent" ever uttered in the Court Room at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.... I'll go with "NO"...(IMO)..

Quote
"Did you intend to kill her?" Clegg asked. "No definitely not," Tabak said.

He was then asked: "Did you intend to cause her serious harm?" "No, definitely not," he replied.

Why is "Clegg" talking about The Intention when "The Type of Intention" was never established or.. Explained to the Jury???


Then The Prosecution...
Quote
"You proceeded to strangle her, intending, in my judgment, to kill her.

And...
Quote
"On your own evidence, after an acquaintenceship of only a few minutes, you moved to kiss Joanna and I am quite satisfied that you did not intend to stop there and intended to go much further.

So.... The Prosecution... allow the jury to understand that Their expertise is far superior than the use of The Law'... I'll explain my reasoning...

"The Jury were only given The Prosecutions beliefs... which is not "Law"... If the Jury were not already aware of the types of "Intention" that could be applied to "A Manslaughter" case and should have been applied in this case ...(IMO)... because it had never been established what type of 'Manslaughter Plea" Dr Vincent Tabak had entered into... But the Jury were all too aware that he had apparently admitted to "Manslaughter"

The Jury are asked to make a decision on whether or not the Defendant Intended to Kill Joanna Yeates or Not...

Well how can that be ????

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tabak-guilty-of-joanna-yeates-murder-2377119.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/20/vincent-tabak-apologises-joanna-yeates-parents

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #258 on: July 04, 2017, 12:18:09 PM »
 Part 3.....

I still do not understand "HOW"..... How Dr Vincent Tabak could enter a "Guilty To Manslaughter Plea" at "The Old Bailey".. without any provision.... Without 'The Defence" bashing out a deal with 'The Prosecution"...

Dr Vincent Tabak whom up until he attended the very strange "Old Bailey Hearing"... Lets not forget .. The Very same 'Old Bailey hearing , that was listed twice on the same day at the same time at two different Court Rooms for Two different sorts of Hearing....  Which I don't know about anyone else i find this information Mind Blowing!!!

We Have an Intelligent Placid Dutchman" whom apparently went to read Wiki.. to give him the tools to be able to deal with this situation.... Now.. you would have though a "plea " agreement would be made... You would have thought that the Judge would have decided sentence.... You would have thought 'The Type Of Manslaughter" he was admitting too... would have been entered at 'The Old Bailey"....


But... The Old Bailey trial was highly unusual and Irregular... (IMO)...

But I know why "The Type of Manslaughter" was never entered into at the "Old Bailey....(IMO)..

It's because.... At that point in May 2011... no-one not even the defence had any idea of apparently  "HOW" Dr Vincent Tabak had Killed Joanna Yeates... You see it sort of makes sense now but "NOT QUITE"....!! This is Extremely Important... And I'm unsure legally where this would put... help Dr Vincent Tabak.... But I am hoping....


So they "The Defence were "NOT" ready for "Trial as they had indicated to Judge field in May 2011 as for him to be able to set a trial date.... The defence had  "NO" explantion on paper as to "HOW" Joanna Yeates met her death come to that point... neither did "The Prosecution"!!!

If we have .."The Defence" and "The Prosecution"... Not knowing "How" Dr Vincent Tabak actually managed to kill Joanna Yeates in May 2011... How was A trial date entered into.... How did ANN Reddrop state that they were never going to accept Dr Vincent Tabak's "Manslaughter Plea"... If Dr Vincent Tabak at this point had 'Not told them how he had killed Joanna Yeates ...'Intentionally Or Not"....


I think this is a Eureka moment leonora!!!!!

Think about people... How can The Complex Crime Unit Publicly State that 'They were this was always a "Murder Charge"

The quote below is Ann Redropp speaking 'Head of The Complex Crime Unit....

Quote
In May this year... Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter..But that was only part of the story.... The Crown's Case Is... And always has been... That it was a deliberate act... on his part.... And that is why we refused to accept his plea to 'Manslaughter"

Does that quote not make you go... eh???  It does me...

"If The Defence and The Prosecution" had NO Idea How Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates on 17th December 2010... How can 'The Prosecution" insist that this had 'Always" been a "Murder" and not "Manslaughter... How without knowing at The Old Bailey In May 2011... Could they happily tell the world that Dr Vincent Tabak would be facing 'A Murder Trial "

Lets quickly go back to the Two listings at 'The Old Bailey"....

The first listing I read was called  a "For Mention hearing... this apparently is where the Defence hasn't been given Instruction by The Defendant and a "Plea and Case management Hearing will be set...

Yet to our surprise... On the very same day at the very same court at the very same time... "A Plea And Management Case Hearing" was listed.... Which is mind boggling..... 

Again... problems arise.... If Dr Vincent Tabak had Not divulged how he had apparently killed Joanna Yeates... lets just split the two types of hearings a moment...

Without any instruction from Dr Vincent Tabak... we can all understand why "The"... "For Mention Hearing" would take place...  bringing with it A New Date and Time ... For The Plea And Case Management Case Hearing....

I'm hoping this is not too hard to follow....

Question again.... How would "The Prosecution have all there 'Witness's and all of their evidence in this case... Including The Statements from any Doctors on how long it would take for someone to die from strangulation... If The  Prosecution were not aware about "The "20" seconds Dr Vincent Tabak was apparently to have taken to kill her !!!!

If The Prosecution Or The Defence In May 2011 DID NOT KNOW it took "20" seconds for Dr Vincent tabk to kill Joanna Yeates... How could a trial date be set????  How could they "NOT" accept a 'Manslaughter Plea" when they DID NOT KNOW HOW SHE DIED!!!!!!

How DID THE JUDGE ALLOW THIS "MANSLAUGHTER PLEA" to be entered... when they none of The Councils Knew How Joanna Yeates died !!!!!

What is this saying!!!!!!!!!

HOW DID THE JUDGE ACCEPT THIS MANSLAUGHTER PLEA ... in a sense... So that when the came to trial the only charge facing Dr Vincent Tabak was "MURDER"????

How with absolutely "NO" Evidence... did "The Prosecution"...  have the manner of death of Joanna Yeates in their case notes in MAY 2011?? If The Defence did not know how their client apparently killed Joanna Yeates...

How did the DEFENCE... "DISCLOSE"... everything to "The Prosecution" in May 2011 as for all the Councils to be ready for a trial in October 2011... Not only that.... Knowing that this trial would last NO MORE than 4 weeks...... which I will come back too.......

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #259 on: July 04, 2017, 12:21:20 PM »
Part 4.....

How has 'The Judge... "The Defence.... "The Prosecution" All happily come to the conclusion that in May 2011.. Dr Vincent Tabak will face a "Murder Trial" in October 2011 that will last 4 weeks when... They had NO IDEA how he was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ??????

How did they know in MAY 2011... That "Manslaughter" would not be an option at trial... If they hadn't be given any details of how Joanna Yeates was apparently killed by Dr Vincent Tabak????

NONE of them could possibly KNOW..... (IMO).... Not only that... NONE of The Councils Could possibly had all of their witness statements in place... If the had NO IDEA ... how Dr Vincent Tabak actually killed Joanna Yeates....

He could have said he had assistance for ALL these LEGAL people knew... Therefore needed to interview a possible other suspect... He could have said anything.....

He could have said he was doing Handstands or Practicing Judo Moves .... He could have said anything.... Anything that goes to "PROVE" That ALL OF THE STATEMENTS COULD NOT HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN IN THE HAND OF EITHER THE DEFENCE OR PROSECUTION.....!!!!

Meaning how on earth Did the JUDGE manage to set a  trial date.. without knowing this !!!!!!!!! And a time schedule of 4 weeks ????

Because the 4 week time limit is extremely IMPORTANT.....

I will say again.... I believe that 'The Complex Case Unit..... needs to take a look at this case... and use your 21 Criteria to Prosecute those who need Prosecuting.. In This Case !!!!!

Was any of this legal ????

How were Dr Vincent Tabak's RIGHTS affected by this underhand use of Law??? .... (IMO)...

I keep going back to 22nd September 2011... where Dr Vincent Tabak signed s statement
 which out lined.. I believe how he killed Joanna Yeates.... Proving yet again... That in May 2011 neither The Defence Prosecution Or The Judge... knew how Dr Vincent Tabak had killed Joanna Yeates...  So inturn could "NOT" give a Trial date of 'October 2011" and a length of time it was scheduled to take... The Judge also could not decide That it was 'A Murder Case" and "A Murder Case " only that Dr Vincent Tabak would face... If he did not know the circumstances of Joanna Yeates Murder in May 2011...

Meaning he actively accepted a "Manslaughter Plea" in May 2011 without the "Intent" being Known... And not giving Dr Vincent Tabak the opportunity in October 2011 to to have the Jury decide between 'Murder" and Manslaughter" as "Murder' was the only 'Option" given to them......

And therefore not allowing any EVIDENCE to support whether "The Manslaughter" he'd apparently Pled to in "May 2011".. was either Voluntary..Or... Involuntary "Manslaughter"..And whether it was "Direct Intent" or "Oblique Intent"For it to be Voluntary Manslaughter.... Or Whether it was ..... "Diminished responsibilities" needing Two Doctors to give Dr Vincent Tabak a Psychologcal Evaluation.....

Can you ALL.... Honestly say That you believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is 'Guilty" after ready these posts???? Can you ALL say that 'The Prosecution had "ALL" The Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak.... when they could NOT have possibly have known how she came to die......

I'll say this Again and Again..... Dr Vincent Tabak was 'STICHED UP LIKE A KIPPER FOR THE MURDER OF JOANNA YEATES""... (IMO)... And I believe I can Prove with my posts how they did it.....

DURESS.... Didn't some of our old poster bring that up.... Was Dr Vincent Tabak under DURESS when he made his ADMISSION..... Well I would conclude .... YES!!!!!! (IMO)....

Smoke and Mirrors aye Jixy.... I do believe you were right with your little signature,... even if you didn't know what it referred too.... (Or maybe you did)...

And as it was said:...  'The Truth May never be known...... Well... I am going to have a DAMN good try at revealing it!!!!!!




Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #260 on: July 04, 2017, 01:16:23 PM »
Part 5......

Here I'll look at The 4 weeks for the trial.....

Quote
]Complex cases
18. 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.

Well... It had to be a "Complex Case" as Ann Redropp 'The Head of The Complex Case Unit" saw the Case through to the bitter end....

Quote
Management of cases from the Organised Crime Division of the CPS

6 March 2014 |Protocols|Criminal
23 November 2012

This guidance replaces the protocol of December 2008 which was agreed between the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (OCD) and Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS).

The OCD is responsible for prosecuting cases from the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA). Typically, these cases involve more than one defendant, are voluminous and raise complex and specialised issues of law. It is recognised that if not closely managed, such cases have the potential to cost vast amounts of public money and take longer than necessary.

Now cost if we remember rightly... was paramount To The Defence.... As Kelcey had described in his interview in the  "Law Society Gazette'...

Quote
‘We can’t supply a platinum level of service with base metal rates of pay.’ He suggested that firms be open with clients about how much the government pays and explain the constraints this puts on them.


And as Dr Vincent tabak received legal aid... He must have received a "Base Metal Service"... (IMO)...

Quote
Introduction
1. This guidance replaces the protocol of December 2008 which was agreed
between the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service (OCD)
and Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCS).
2. The OCD is responsible for prosecuting cases from the Serious Organised
Crime Agency (SOCA). Typically, these cases involve more than one defendant,
are voluminous and raise complex and specialised issues of law. It is recognised
that if not closely managed, such cases have the potential to cost vast amounts
of public money and take longer than necessary.

Now If the OCD is Part of The Complex Crime Unit and Ann Redrrop is The Head of the Complex Crime unit... were Procedures followed ??

Quote
Procedure after charge
10. Within 24 hours of the laying of a charge, a representative of the OCD will
notify the Cluster Manager of the following information to enable an agreement
to be reached between the Cluster Manager and the reviewing CPS lawyer
before the first appearance as to the DCC to which the case should be sent or
committed:
a. The full name of each defendant and the name of his legal representatives, if
known;
b. The charges laid; and
c. The name and contact details of the Crown Prosecutor with responsibility for
the case.

So which representative of the OCD notified The Cluster Manager ??? You see this is 'After" The Charges are laid... Not before....


Not In December 2010 when "The CPS" went to The Head of The Complex Crime Unit"...asked "Ann Reddrop" for advice on Dr Vincent Tabak....  I can't find anything at the moment on before an arrest......

Who else was Involved in 'Who else decides ...  To Prosecute Dr Vincent Tabak with "Ann Reddropp "The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit" at the helm of this "Simple Murder Trial"..????

Who else checks That this 'Simple Murder Case " is being Investiagted by "The Complex Crime Unit......

OMG... I have just had another thought.... That brain of mine needs locking up!!!

Ah.... I see light.... And I see Ann Reddrop.... Hanging herself.....


https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/criminal-protocol/

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Protocols/OCD+protocol+November+2012+_updated+Jan+2014_.pdf

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #261 on: July 04, 2017, 01:16:59 PM »
Part 6......  Or.... "Upstairs for thinking... Downstairs for Dancing"....

Ann Reddrop (IMO)... Wasn't thinking.... She was blinded by greed... (IMO)... by the Fame.. she would receive in bring to Justice The 'Persons"... guilty of killing Joanna Yeates ....

OMG.... This Just goes to Prove ...(IMO)... Why she continued right up to trail and beyond....  She's stuck her NECK OUT!!! She said publiclly That The Complex Crime Unit... as she was The Head... Always believed that this was "A Murder Case".....

But what she forgot to tell all of you nice ladies and gentlemen.... Was that they always believed that there were more than one person who committed this crime..... What they also believed (IMO)... was that it could have been a Serial killer"... Making sense of The Complex Crime Units Insistance that it was .... Always A Murder Charge!!!(IMO)...

Just digest that a moment..... How could she categorically insist that The Complex Crime Unit had... and always had believed The death of Joanna Yeates was 'Murder" and 'Always was "Murder"... If they were not looking at was must have been "A Serial Killer"....

A Serial Killer is the ONLY... Possible Way.. In which Ann Reddrop to unequivically say that "The Complex Crime Unit "ALWAYS" knew that this Charge would be "A MURDER" Charge... And NO "Manslughter Plea" bargain or anything else would be entered into..... She... (IMO)... had been going with the possibility that it wasd "Multiple People... Whom had committed "Multiple Murders... (IMO)...

Which again... begs the question..... WHY Dr Vincent Tabak Faced A Murder Charge and a A Murder Charge only..... when he was known to be as clean as a "Whistle'... NOT EVEN A PARKING TICKET!!!!!

WHAT... Evidence did Ann Reddrop believe she had against Dr Vincent Tabak that could remotley suggest that he could be "A" SERIAL KILLER?????

You see.... They really wanted CJ.. to swing for this too..... (IMO)... CJ did say that The Police had always thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded...

Well... Ann.... "WHY" in May did you still vigorously pursue Dr Vincent Tabak on A MURDER CHARGE and NOT Accept his MANSLAUGHTER PLEA.... A Manslaughter Plea that was neither "Voluntary nor Involuntary.... Just 'Pot Luck Manslaughter.... because he had NOT given his statement to how this death had occurred..!!!!

How is Jersey Ann??? Lovely weather there .. beautiful beaches ....

Ann Reddrop... (IMO)... Should have stopped pursuing Dr Vincent Tabak with this "Murder Charge" as soon as CJ was let of Bail in March 2011....

Did she have someone else in mind whom apparently must have helped Dr Vincent Tabak??? For her to pursue Dr Vincent Tabak to the bitter end???? She is seen outside the Bristol Crown Court telling The world of her Intenstions.. In The pursuit of Dr Vincent Tabak... Yet as far as I can see... She had NO LEGAL Authority... To Continue with This "Murder Charge" against Dr Vincent Tabak ... when it did NOT come under The 21 Criteria set out in The Governments rules of The Complex Crime Unit .... (IMO)...

As we see here:...
Quote
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;


I believe that all of the Disclosure should have been in The Hands Of "The Defence " and "The Prosecution" in May 2011... Which was an impossibility if Dr Vincent Tabak had not made /signed his statement until 22nd Sepetember 2011... So how was 'A Trial Date " set at "The Old Bailey by Judge Field for October 2011 in May 2011?????

All this seems highly irregular to me...  i think i'll give you time to digest these posts and I'll think a little more about them too and what they mean ......


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • Total likes: 464
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #262 on: July 04, 2017, 02:34:27 PM »
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.

I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.

Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.

Hi Nina, good to hear from you.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to believe that there are one or more unapprehended killers around.  After all, there are plenty of unsolved murders, not only in the Bristol area, but all over the world. I have just returned from holiday, and only just before I went, I heard on the news that it was possible that the wrong person had been imprisoned for a murder some 30 years ago!!

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • Total likes: 464
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #263 on: July 04, 2017, 02:39:23 PM »
As for "protecting" someone, well, I don't know, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility, in my opinion, of course.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #264 on: July 04, 2017, 02:49:54 PM »
Quote
In May this year... Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter..But that was only part of the story.... The Crown's Case Is... And always has been... That it was a deliberate act... on his part.... And that is why we refused to accept his plea to 'Manslaughter"


Ann... Answer me this..... How could you have always Known that it was a deliberate act???

You didn't know Dr Vincent Tabak's side of the story.....

So by this "STATEMENT ANN" are you conceding that you "Always knew That Joanna Yeates" ... "WAS DELIBERATLEY MURDERED"

How can you know this Ann ????

What else did you know ANN??

I keep looking at the video statemnet that ANN reads out at the end of trial.... And even then she has slipped up....

Shes' says and I again will quote..

Quote
Vincent Tabak, became the focus of their attention following the finding of DNA on Jo's body

I will quote the next bit,,, but I'm loving this bit.... I have quoted the whole transcrpit before... Again.... skim skim skim... we all so it even when watching a video.. not really paying attention ...

Now... How can Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA have been found on Joanna Yeates body before they took a DNA sample from him in Holland on 31st December 2010.. Not only that DCI Phil Jones states that it was around. "The 20th January 2011 that they got a match to Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA???? In the Judge Rinder Program ????

How can Dr Vincent Tabak become  the focus...

Again...
Quote
Vincent Tabak, became the focus of their attention following the finding of DNA on Jo's body

How can Dr Vincent Tabak become the focus of any investigation just because they have found DNA on Joanna Yeates body.... Ann doesn't say Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA... she just say's DNA... So How could Dr Vincent Tabak become 'The Focus" of any Investigation.....

What is ANN REDDROP actually admitting to here ?????

Quote
Late in December the Police asked for assistance and guidence from The Crown Prosecution Service... That assistance has come from The  South West Complex Case Work Unit based here in Bristol.. I reviewed the evidence.. Advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Jo's murder and began preparing the case for trial

Wow... Now Ann... If DCI Phil Jones did not recieve a match to Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA sample that was apparently taken on(31st December 2010) till around the 20th January 2011... How did you manage to review the case and how did DCI Phil Jones manage to bang up a Judge to get an arrest warrant for around 6:00am in the morning on 20th January 2011...???

It's not a difficult question.... But an answer would be appreciated..... Pretty Please.......ok... Pretty Please with A Cherry On Top....

We also have to remember that the 'Crime Watch' program told us it took "WEEKS" for this sample of DNA on Joanna Yeates body to be analysed... So again Ann...or DCI Phil Jones.... please tell me how Dr Vincent Tabak became the focus of your Investigation after you had matched his DNA around the 20th January 2011 and had an Arrest warrant issued on the 20th January And The Head of The Complex Crime Unit Reviewed this Information...  leaving you with only "6" hours of Investigation time available to conclusively prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed 'YOUR MAN"??? Not only that "6" Hours in which to

(A): Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak

(B): Have CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak

(C): Have interviewed Tanja Morson in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak's movement on 17th December 2010

(D): Had checked his phone records

(E): Had checked whether or not "His" car went over Clifton Suspension Bridge on the 18th December 2010

(F): Had got all the evidence you both would need to 'Charge Dr Vincent Tabak on the 20th January 2011

(G): Typed up you reports

(H): Sent a report 'TO' ANN REDDROP

(I): Ann Redropp Reading this complex report for this complex crime.... And then "Arresting Dr Vincent tabak in '6"
      Hours"

If this wasn't so serious it would be LAUGHABLE....!!!!

Now... That has to be a record by anyones standards....

Does Ann Reddrop's admission that Joanna Yeates being Murdered and they always... according to ANN Reddrop knew that this was the case.... Is it possible that the talk of Joanna Yeates being abducted was already in Ann Reddrop's Case file ???

WHY else would she be so adament???

She doesn't flinch... She doesn't waiver..... She is as far as I can tell 100% sure that Joanna Yeates was "Murdered"... (IMO).... She was 100% sure that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this MURDER.....

And how can that be possible... How can she be 100% sure on both counts.... When according to what DCI Phil Jones says in The Judge Rinder Program... They got matched components of Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA with Joanna Yeates DNA sample around the 20th January 2011??????...

Leaving him just 6 hours to Investigate, apply for a warrant to arrest... type up his report go and see Ann Reddrop with the report... her review The Case ... and finally turn up at Aberdeen Road in the wee hours of the morning of 20th January 2010???

Now unless DCI Phil Jones has the ability to time travel... And Police Boxes are indeed Tardis's... It is an IMPOSSIBILITY for him to have Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak after they had a supposed match to the DNA found on Joanna Yeates body....

Making it... They had been looking for a scapegoat... all along... (IMO)... And they set up Dr Vincent Tabak from start to finish....(IMO)... It is the only explanation I can see...


Meaning..... as I have always said.... DR VINCENT TABAK IS INNOCENT!!!!!  They Never had a case against Dr Vincent Tabak... (IMO)... They just made it up as they went along......  "The Manslaughter Plea " at the Old Bailey should be testament  to that.... (IMO)...

So Ann.... what did you actually know about Joanna Yeates Murder that Nobody else appeared to know ????

Again... we have to come back to someone being 'Protected"... And that definatley was NOT...

 Dr Vincent Tabak .."The Placid Dutchman !!!!! (IMO)...

 Dr Vincent Tabak "The Placid Dutchman" was SOMEONES!!!!....

 Get Out Of Jail Free Card!!!! (IMO)...


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shot-ann-reddrop-crown-prosecution-service-makes-news-footage/131193037

Edit.... Is Ann Reddrop conceding that they already had the results of the DNA sample found on Joanna Yeates body by late December 2010... by her statement.... ?? And is that why you contacted the "Dutch Authorities" to interview Dr Vincent Tabak Ann????  So that Interview has to that of a "SUSPECT "Ann.... because realistically you would have NO need to Contact The Dutch Authorities in Relation to speaking to Dr Vincent Tabak.... Which again means he should of had his 'Right" read to him and cautioned.... (IMO)....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #265 on: July 04, 2017, 03:04:47 PM »
mrswah.... Beyonce isn't doing too bad is she.... Must be that NVQ she took in "Manslaughter Law".....  @)(++(*

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #266 on: July 04, 2017, 05:43:44 PM »
Hi Nine, sorry that I had to disappear suddenly yesterday, an unexpected guest that stayed and stayed.

I will read your posts later, but having just skimmed the last one before I disappeared I would have thought that VT would have pled Involuntary Manslaughter.

Morning mrswah, no sorry I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I didn't think that Bristol and the surrounding environs had anyone `big' enough worth protecting, unless you class the royals who have populated Gloucestershire.

No..... you would have thought..... 

Quote
Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter during a brief hearing at the Old Bailey in London.

Then...

Quote
During the 30 minute hearing Tabak, who was wearing a shirt and tie, dark suit and glasses, spoke in a clear voice to confirm his name and say he was happy for the proceedings to go ahead without a translator.
He then pleaded not guilty to the first count of murder, but guilty to a second count of manslaughter.


No Type of Manslaughter is Mentioned !!!!!

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

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #267 on: July 05, 2017, 09:43:30 AM »
Refering back to the 4 week trial..... which i posted about in (Part 5) Bare with me on this ... I do like a build up....

I have so many tabs open, i loose where i am... Any way back to why i brought The 4 weeks trial to the forefront..

Once it has been established that a trial is likely to take more than 4 weeks.. Council then need to apply for:

A Very High Cost Case

They are forms to fill... there are other people then involved in your case.... And I believe the Defence would definatly need to apply for a "VHCC".... as Dr Vincent Tabak was recieving a "Base Metal Service" having legal aid...

Quote
When you think a crime case is likely to last for 40 days or more at trial, fill in and send a VHCC notification request form (MS Word Document, 45.9KB) to the Criminal Cases Unit (CCU)

Do this within 5 working days of:

recognising the case as high cost
the Plea and Case Management Hearing

Well... If as we know all of the witness's we believe should have taken the stand... Then as sure as eggs is eggs, this trial would have come under the "VHCC"...

THis next part is of Interest:

How a VHCC works:

Quote
* once the case has been designated a very high cost case (VHCC), there is no opt-out for suppliers from the contracting system

 * where a case is designated as a VHCC, it will be conducted by accredited VHCC providers, apart from in exceptional circumstances

 * for each VHCC, the defence team (solicitor and advocate) will be assigned a dedicated case manager from the high cost crime team

 * it’s the case manager’s role to negotiate with solicitors and advocates what work they’ll do over the next 3 months

 * payment is made at the end of each 3 month period, as long as the work falls within the tasks and hours agreed in advance
 
* You might need further guidance on high cost case arrangements and contract documents for organisations and self-employed advocates. Further guidance on high cost case arrangements and contract documents for organisations and self-employed advocates is available.

 This Case should have been more than 4 weeks.. This case should have had tonns of witness's... It had many many written statements... And I believe it was designed to last 4 weeks... As to not have to apply for a "VHCC"... bringing into their case... A control they would loose.....

Part one of the quote...says:
Quote
once the case has been designated a very high cost case (VHCC), there is no opt-out for suppliers from the contracting system

So... they're stuck with that... But as we read further down on this web page we find out more information...

Fixed Fee Offer contracts

Quote
dvocates instructed in criminal Very High Cost Cases (VHCCs) are currently paid in accordance with Interim Fixed Fee Offer contracts (IFFOs).

Once contracted as a VHCC the VHCC Case Managers in the Criminal Cases Unit will gather information about the type of case, volume of material and likely trial length from practitioners in the case and the prosecution if appropriate.

Once validated, the VHCC Case Managers are able to draft a VHCC Substantive IFFO contract for the advocate/s representing their defendant.

Upon receipt of a signed contract the Case Manager will pay the 1st Instalment. If the trial of the defendant(s) has not started within 6 months of the contract being signed, Counsel is entitled to claim an interim 2nd Instalment payment equating to 50% of the 2nd Instalment. When the trial commences, either the balance of the 2nd Instalment or the full 2nd Instalment can be paid. The 3rd Instalment becomes due at the conclusion of the trial.

So there would now be another body deciding on the "Legal Aid"

How to appeal a VHCC decision

Quote
LAA case manager and the defence team negotiate hours for each stage of the case in advance. If they can’t reach agreement on hours for a specific task, there’s a right of appeal.

The process and timescales are set out in section 6 of the VHCC specifications.

Appeals: crime high cost cases covers VHCC panel arrangements and decisions

The main reason i have introduced all of this Information... Is because we know about the trial in being a 4 week trial as early as "May 2011"

Quote
"Tabak has entered a plea to manslaughter however this has not been accepted by the Crown.
"Until this trial takes place it would be inappropriate and potentially prejudicial for us to comment further."
The trial is expected to last four weeks.

This information is hugely important I would say.... There is NO WAY that they should know as early as MAY 2011 that this trial would take 4 weeks.... (IMO)... Dr Vincent Tabak had not given his version of events to anyone at this time.... He didn't sign his statement until 22nd Setember 2011... So how by May 2011 would anyone know that this trial would last for 4 weeks... Not knowing what witness's Dr Vincent Tabak may need or want as part of his trial...

So maybe you can see why i have brought the 'VHCC" into this case.... "By The Defence applying for "VHCC" we then get brought into the mix a Criminal Case manager from the criminal Case Unit... Who no doubt would start to ask 'QUESTIONS"!!!!

Questions that "The head of The complex Case Unit would not want asking.... (IMO)...

(A): Why is The Complex Case Unit Involved in this "Simple Murder Case ??

(B): Where is The Evidence against The defendant???

(C): Why are you applying for VHCC when The defendant hasn't made an admission??

(D): Which witness's are going to be called ??

(E): Why has This man been arrested ??

(F): We like to poke around cases and made sure that it is a valid case to get funding... So far nothing you have
       shown us warrant's any funding as this case should be thrown out....

A bit of poetic licence on (F):... But you get my drift... There would have been other people who would have had a vested interest in how the money was spent and they would have overseen this case...

Well... The Head of The Complex Case Unit would not want that now would you Ann.... (IMO)..

Could you imagine that if someone independent actually looked over this case what they would have said about it.... Probably the same sort of things that I have been saying all along!!!! (IMO)...

This is why I believe another reason that The Head of The Complex Case Unit was involved in this case... It gave her control...It stopped people poking around this case and questioning it's validity... But it still begs the "MASSIVE QUESTION.......

How could they know in May 2011 that this trial would last only 4 weeks?? when Again I will say... they ALL had no idea of apparently how Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ????



So I am going to ask again.... WHO entered Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty Plea"??

When was it decided that he was Guilty of Manslaughter by The Councils...  They had NO information from Dr Vincent Tabak at this point,.... So how would "The Prosecution NO that "Longwood Lane" on a search was not done because Dr Vincent Tabak was possibly visiting friends in the area around that Christmas period...

I want to look at the searches again I think.... In the light of the information that I believe I have uncovered.... Because I believe the work on the searches was done at an early opportunity... And again The 1300 page document was ready in May... Which I believe casts an even bigger doubt... (IMO)..

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #268 on: July 05, 2017, 01:52:48 PM »
Hi Nina, good to hear from you.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories either, but I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to believe that there are one or more unapprehended killers around.  After all, there are plenty of unsolved murders, not only in the Bristol area, but all over the world. I have just returned from holiday, and only just before I went, I heard on the news that it was possible that the wrong person had been imprisoned for a murder some 30 years ago!!

Hi mrswah, hope you had a good holiday. It was just that you seemed to be agreeing with AH's post which prompted my post to you. Probably misunderstood it.

You're right there are plenty of unsolved & MOJ and I expect that Bristol has its fair few. Never said that this was a wonderful crime free city to live in. Bristol certainly has its problems.

Did you see Catching a Killer 01/06 on ch.4? Amazing really in its likeness to the Joanna case. Missing for a full week-end then police notified. Turned out to be the husband, but Thames Valley Police allowed a certain amount of access so the procedure was very interesting I thought, although probably heavily edited.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1034
  • Total likes: 464
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #269 on: July 05, 2017, 01:59:49 PM »
Hi mrswah, hope you had a good holiday. It was just that you seemed to be agreeing with AH's post which prompted my post to you. Probably misunderstood it.

You're right there are plenty of unsolved & MOJ and I expect that Bristol has its fair few. Never said that this was a wonderful crime free city to live in. Bristol certainly has its problems.

Did you see Catching a Killer 01/06 on ch.4? Amazing really in its likeness to the Joanna case. Missing for a full week-end then police notified. Turned out to be the husband, but Thames Valley Police allowed a certain amount of access so the procedure was very interesting I thought, although probably heavily edited.

No, I didn't see it Nina----but I will look out for it on "catch up", You Tube, etc. Might be too late now. I used to watch far more telly than I do these days----seem to fall asleep in the evenings. Old age!!