Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 162890 times)

0 Members and 13 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #405 on: July 20, 2017, 12:45:36 PM »
.

Dr. Hugh White's CV,which you yourself found, . He is not on the Home Office's register of pathologists, and therefore has to include on his CV that he does work for coroners.


So why does it say he is... here then?? : And that was in 2008!

Quote
Dr Hugh White, the Home Office forensic pathologist who was asked to carry out a second post-mortem on her body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/3452599/Receptionist-died-after-having-a-facelift.html


Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #406 on: July 20, 2017, 04:25:10 PM »
A coroner is a lawyer. He/she does NOT perform an autopsy or a post-mortem, nor even go near the body. There is no reason for a coroner to visit the scene of the crime. His/her task is to hold an inquest and examine witnesses in a coroner's court and issue a verdict on whether a suspicious death was a result of natural causes, an accident, or the result of the actions of third parties who should be prosecuted. These witnesses will normally include the pathologist(s) who performed the post-mortem examinations.

Paul Forrest, the suspended coroner, is not a doctor. He is a lawyer. As far as I recall, you posted some worthwhile source material some time ago on the function of coroners' inquests and the official excuses for adjourning them.

Maria Voisin did not "sign" Joanna's death certificate. She is, however, the designated "informant". The identity of the physician who certified the cause of death ("Compression of the neck") is not stated on the certificate. The registrar is named as S. L. Thomas.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #407 on: July 20, 2017, 04:31:39 PM »
So why does it say he is... here then?? : And that was in 2008!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/cyprus/3452599/Receptionist-died-after-having-a-facelift.html
Presumably he was taken off the Home Office's panel after 2008. Perhaps that is why Dr. White could be persuaded to take part in a complicated arrangement with Dr Russell Delaney and Jennifer Miller whose purpose seems to have been to mislead the public and the jury about the fate of the pizza. What other conclusion can we draw, since he did not himself testify to the nature of the work he carried out on Joanna's body, and Dr Delaney was extremely furtive about Dr White's role? Had he been associated with the defence, as you so stubbornly believe, then it would have been the defence pathologist Dr Nat Cary who mentioned him in court, not prosecution witness Dr Delaney.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #408 on: July 20, 2017, 06:14:19 PM »
Maria Voisin did not "sign" Joanna's death certificate. She is, however, the designated "informant". The identity of the physician who certified the cause of death ("Compression of the neck") is not stated on the certificate. The registrar is named as S. L. Thomas.

Quote
author=Leonora link=topic=8060.msg417753#msg417753 date=1500546467]
You are very stubborn, nor do you pay attention, Nine. You are right, however, about Coroner Paul Forrest, who lost his case in the High Court against Bristol. There is a can of worms there, in full public view. During his suspension, Maria E. Voisin was acting as the Coroner for Avon & Somerset. Hers is the name on Joanna's death certificate. Her deputy assistant coroner was Terry Moore, who also rated a mention in connection with the release of the body.


I misunderstood your previous quote obviously.....


Doesn't that strike you as odd.... That who ever pronounced her dead is not on the death certificate ??? There must be two certificate then leonora....


have you seen this certificate leonora??/ because right up until the 11th February 2011... Dr Forrest was still the Coroner .....


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #409 on: July 21, 2017, 09:30:43 AM »
I think I have found what has been staring us in the face all this time ..


I just found this in an article, which got me thinking:....

Quote
Another neighbour, Liz Lowman, said: ‘He said he saw two to three people leave the communal basement flat entrance talking in mild quiet tones. He does not remember what sex they are or what they look like.’

Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... None of us know what it really looks like inside..... and we are all very much aware of the Front Door of Dr Vincent Tabak... But then when I read that comment... I started to think about it.....

And why maybe CJ... second witness statement is so hush hush..... CJ did see something on the night he came home... what or who he saw is a different matter all together.... But more to the point is where he saw them....

The Basement flats we know something about... But I believe after reading that statement... That It's quite possible that there is another exit from Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... That leads directly to the Communal front door...

I started to think how, before they where turned into basement flat you would have accessed those basements.... And quite simply there has to be a way to access them from inside the building.... There no two ways about it....(IMO).. Yes you can now access them from outside.... But I am almost positive you can still access Dr Vincent Tabaks flat from inside as well.....

In the corner of Dr Vincent Tabak's flat is an area that I have marked on the image I have attached... I believe that this is the area where there would be access to the Communal front door that we see CJ.. coming in and out of....

So Yes... Dr Vincent Tabak could have used the little gate... But not by going past Joanna Yeates flat... But By coming through 44 Canygne Roads front door and going diagonally across the grass.. as The Yeates had said they had seen a couple going diagnoally across the grass in an interview ....

 Why else would they do that just to get to their glass plated door? why wouldn't they just walk straight up the path and walk past Joanna Yeates flat to get to there's....There has to be a reason they walked diagonally across the grass... And I believe it is so they can reach the communal front door...

There has to be internal steps from Dr Vincent Tabaks flat to the main front door.... All basements in those Victorian houses have internal access... It's just like cellar access.... No-one is going to go outside to get to their cellar now are they??

So the same has to apply to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat.... (IMO)... It's the internals of the building you need to consider.. And really we don't see loads of Police going in and out of Dr vincent Tabak's flat do we ... No.. we see them always use the Communal front door.... !! We just assumed it was because of CJ... And not one  of us stopped to think that maybe thats how they had gained access to Dr Vincent Tabak's flat...

So maybe Dr Vincent Tabak did come out of the communal front door.... maybe Joanna yeates had gone in the communal front door to get her mail...  But did they come out of the communal front door at the same time together ... Or was Joanna Yeates actually already with someone and Dr Vincent Tabak was just leaving to go to ASDA for his shopping....

So yes... I can see why they would want of keep CJ's statement quite... Because if he mentioned Dr Vincent Tabak coming out of that door and he had to go to trial to be a witness... everyone would know that Dr Vincent Tabak had another exit out of that building... therefore not needing to go past Joanna Yeates flat to access the little gate ....(IMO)...


Is the green tarpauling there just to stop people seeing that the Police are not going in and out of Dr Vincent Tabak's flat through that door?? It's very possible !!



 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4nS0epQ9g

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #410 on: July 21, 2017, 10:24:25 AM »
How are the Police still Forensically Examining the Property of CJ... once they have released him... They have had 4 days at this point to take what ever they need from CJ's Flat....

But they keep coming in and out of that front door with bags and bags of stuff.... They have the keys to the building.... Dr Vincent Tabak is no longer staying there.... So who's items are they taking out of the front entrance of that building????

They let CJ go... they knew they had nothing on him.... So why are they still going in and out of that front door !!!!

On the 5th January 2011... They are still coming out of that Front door with items .... That is 7 days after CJ's arrest
and 4 days after they have released him.... They still wouldn't have access to Cj's flat after they released him... They should and would have got all of the Forensics from the flat in those days that CJ was in custody... (IMO)..

On the third image.. We see the Forensics coming out with camera equipment.... Is this when they photographed Dr Vincent Tabak's flat??? Remember DCI Mark Luther showed the court images from inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat... And we never saw them go down the side of the building with anything!!


If we really think about it... there are NO media photo's of them going to Dr Vincent Tabaks flat with camera's etc.. by means of accessing it down the side of the building.... No Forensics with bags and bags of stuff walking up the side of that building from Dr Vincent Tabak's front door...

And they wouldn't be walking past Joanna Yeates flat with all of Dr Vincent Tabak's stuff either.... So how do they take things from Dr Vincent Tabak's flat without the media seeing it ?????

Straight through the front door..... (IMO)... Meaning they were forensically searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before he was arrested.... (IMO)... !!

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #411 on: July 21, 2017, 10:33:12 AM »
I believe they were searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before they arrested him.....

Look closley at the circled image I have attached.... That forensics officer has a Laptop in her hands... Now we know CJ didn't have a laptop... So who's laptop is she carrying.... along with what looks like a briefcase or Orgainizer..

They (IMO)... were already searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... and gaining access to it internally.... (IMO)...!!!!

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #412 on: July 21, 2017, 11:04:16 AM »
Is this DCI Mark Luther.... That Policeman looks like he's in charge to me ....  This is the day after CJ is released... Mark Luther did show photographs from inside Dr Vincent Tabak's flat and at this point I don't believe they should still be searching CJ's flat.... (IMO)..

So is  that Policeman I have circled Mark Luther.... what ever rank he maybe ?????

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #413 on: July 21, 2017, 11:41:22 AM »
I believe they were searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat before they arrested him.....

Look closley at the circled image I have attached.... That forensics officer has a Laptop in her hands... Now we know CJ didn't have a laptop... So who's laptop is she carrying.... along with what looks like a briefcase or Orgainizer..

They (IMO)... were already searching Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... and gaining access to it internally.... (IMO)...!!!!
Are we sure it was a laptop that Christopher Jefferies didn't have? He has stated (though not under oath) that he doesn't have a television, but surely he has a computer? Weren't the police obliged to retrieve his more necessary possessions for him, once he had been released on bail and told firmly by his own lawyer to lie low indefinitely?

Is it possible that the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was a ploy to enable the police to use his keys to gain access to Vincent Tabak & Tanja Morson's flat without their knowledge nor consent? Surely the young couple took their laptop with them to Holland, both to send and receive e-mails (amongst others, to VT's friend in China on New Year's Eve), and to follow the progress of the Joanna Yeates murder inquiry, which was not reported at all in the non-English speaking countries?

What would the police have been looking for? Did they suspect Vincent or Tanja of planning a terror attack - which, of course, requires an understanding of the movement of crowds of people inside or outside buildings?

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #414 on: July 21, 2017, 12:39:16 PM »
I was looking at Cars that were removed from Canygne Road during the investigation.... I found this image interesting...


The information upon this images says that the Police are removing the car to get to the drain.... I don't think that would be the case ... personally.... Why not just get the driver to remove the car?? They would need permission to remove that car... You mean to tell me it has taken them until the 5th January to search that drain near her home.... Don't believe there is a drain there either ... To be honest... It look like there are NO drains down that part of the road .... (IMO)..


In fact looking closley at both pictures .... There is a little doorway in the wall where there is a silver car parked... You can see it as they take the blue car away...

On The Google images there is NO CAR PARKED There... And there is NO drain in the space where the silver car would have been....(IMO)...

So you have one of two choices.... (IMO)...

(A): It is Dr Vincent Tabak's Car... or car the he used ....

(B): Its Joanna Yeates car....

Because there doesn't seem to be a valuable reason to remove a random car of a street in that fashion.... (IMO)..

I have added 2 images... The Newspaper Article Image.. And a google image of the same place now ....


The Newspaper article implies that the car is taken from a different Street... when it is still Canygne Road .. that The car is removed from ....

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #415 on: July 22, 2017, 10:09:24 AM »
I was looking at Cars that were removed from Canygne Road during the investigation.... I found this image interesting...


The information upon this images says that the Police are removing the car to get to the drain.... I don't think that would be the case ... personally.... Why not just get the driver to remove the car?? They would need permission to remove that car... You mean to tell me it has taken them until the 5th January to search that drain near her home.... Don't believe there is a drain there either ... To be honest... It look like there are NO drains down that part of the road .... (IMO)..


In fact looking closley at both pictures .... There is a little doorway in the wall where there is a silver car parked... You can see it as they take the blue car away...

On The Google images there is NO CAR PARKED There... And there is NO drain in the space where the silver car would have been....(IMO)...

So you have one of two choices.... (IMO)...

(A): It is Dr Vincent Tabak's Car... or car the he used ....

(B): Its Joanna Yeates car....

Because there doesn't seem to be a valuable reason to remove a random car of a street in that fashion.... (IMO)..

I have added 2 images... The Newspaper Article Image.. And a google image of the same place now ....


The Newspaper article implies that the car is taken from a different Street... when it is still Canygne Road .. that The car is removed from ....
Photos are Canynge Square.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #416 on: July 22, 2017, 01:01:50 PM »
Well... I learnt something today a quote from Twitter....

Quote
Recalling my favourite quote from #Jogee :Hale: "One man's common sense is another man's stupidity"..she's going to be an excellent Pres ;)

Well what does that say about myself...  I always thought common sense was a valid guide of understanding the basics.. Yet I seem to maybe have failed...

How do I quantify 'Common Sense" ?? How do I quantify my "Common Sense"??

Now I have always said I applied common sense to my findings... But I now seem to need to question myself....

Maybe "Common Sense" is not the words I should be using... Unless...

I turned left and picked up an NVQ on "Common Sense" instead of "Manslaughter Law"... Then maybe I could quantify my responses .... *&*%


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #417 on: July 22, 2017, 02:48:18 PM »
I was trying to understand ... How the Police seemed to spend days searching CJ's Flat....

Now a search warrant as far as I am aware, pertains to certain Items that are on the search warrant in relation to a particular crime...
 I believe I am correct in thinking, that If Items are on show and are seen, then they can also take said items as part of the warrant....

Which brings me back to DCI Phil Jones.... And also my belief, that they searched Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat/ Or Maybe it's Joanna yeates Flat DCI Phil Jones is referring too...

Quote

Major Crime always comes under complex crime as far as I can tell...
There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminatedhttp://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg411592#msg411592

Well... They wouldn't have had a warrant to search CJ's kitchen units to that extent.... they were not looking for places to hide Drugs or places to hide knives... And Joanna Yeates couldn't possibly have been hidden there...

Did they have a warrant to rip CJ's flat apart at the seams ???? I doubt it...

We are then left with.. Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat or Joanna Yeates flat....

If they didn't have a warrant already to search Dr Vincent Tabak's flat as they hadn't arrested him at this point, it only leaves Joanna Yeates Flat... So did they find the trainers under Joanna Yeates kitchen Unit behind the Kickboard???

I want to look at DCI Phil Jones Statement to The Leveson:...

Quote

Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. So when the forensic lines of inquiry were completed, he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which is then when he was released from his bail without charge.

This statement from DCI Phil Jones flies in the face of Lydnsey Lennen saying they turned everything around in 48 hours... So these trainers should have been turned around in 48 hours... Did they test all of these items they collected ???? Because it takes them weeks to collect everything ...

DCI Phil Jones just says house ... and implies that it was CJ.... But House includes 3 flats belonging to CJ...

Now I am going back to say that the Trainers were located in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat...

We have to remember that the Police thought that Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ had colluded....  Now to check for blood on these trainers... would not take until march... (IMO).. And if that was the real reason they say they let CJ go and Bail was lifted... That should have been a lot sooner (IMO)...

Did the trainers come from Dr Vincent Tabaks flat ??? I'll say NO... because they would have been introduced as evidence in court...

So they had to come from Joanna Yeates flat....

DCI Phil Jones is either admitting one of two things in that statement....

(A): That they suspected CJ of being a Serial Killer

(B): CJ had colluded with Dr Vincent Tabak....

(C): They knew there was someone else who was the killer....

I'll explain....  Hear we have a bit of an apology to CJ along time after he's been released on bail... CJ has to fight tooth and nail for this apology....

Quote
"This is an unusual step to take but these were exceptional circumstances. I had a private meeting with Mr Jefferies on Friday and hope to use his experience to inform our serious crime investigations in the future."

So Serious Crime Investigations ....
Quote
Who should attend
​Candidates M​​​UST;
Be of substantive Detective Inspector rank or above or agency/Police Staff equivalent, or awaiting promotion to that rank.
Have access to the investigation of serious and complex crime.
Be PIP Level 2 competent.
Have completed in-force diversity & leadership training.

Serious Crime always come under the Complex Crime umbrella ... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/contents/enacted

So why was 'The Serious Crime Unit involved wiht The Joanna Yeates investigation ????

Back to the trainers.... Where did they secure the trainers from ....???

It cannot have been from Joanna Yeates flat... according to the Forensic Photo's we have come to know ... I say this because.. there is NO Forensic Powder on The Kickboard  of the Sink Unit in Joanna Yeates Flat....

So we are left with Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat...

Quote
Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken.In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard.

So DCI Phil Jones is talking about there initial Forensic search I believe... Because he would have said Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... Now... Did they search Dr Vincent Tabak's flat at the same time they were looking at CJ's Flat??? without said warrant for Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....

Because the Forensic Pictures tell us it wasn't Joanna Yeates Flat... !!

Or.... Is it Joanna Yeates Flat and they knew who's profile it was ???  There's not a lot of options left..... (IMO)...


(I have attached image of Kickboards in Joanna Yeates Flat...)

http://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Learning/Professional-Training/Investigation/Pages/Management-of-Serious-Crime-Investigations.aspx

http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/joanna-yeates-police-apologise-christopher-jefferies

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #418 on: July 22, 2017, 03:14:56 PM »
                                 The Right To A Fair Trial

Quote
The Right to a Fair Trial means that people can be sure that processes will be fair and certain. It prevents governments from abusing their powers. A Fair Trial is the best means of separating the guilty from the innocent and protecting against injustice. Without this right, the rule of law and public faith in the justice system collapse. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of a just society.

How could Dr Vincent Tabak's trial be classed as a fair trial.... 

The presumption of Innocence

Quote
A fundamental element of the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent unless and until proved guilty following a fair trial. This is why the responsibility falls on the state to prove guilt and to discharge the presumption of innocence.

So my question is:... How can you attend your own trial as a guilty man.. "Guilty of Manslaughter"... When the basis of a fair trial is the presumption of Innocence ????

Meaning how was the trial Fair????

OMG... there must be something about this trial that legal bods can see has hasn't been followed within the Law ....



https://www.fairtrials.org/about-us/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/the-presumption-of-innocence/

https://www.fairtrials.org/about-us/the-right-to-a-fair-trial/

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #419 on: July 22, 2017, 03:37:43 PM »
I know I had posted before about "Guilty" until proven "Guiltier".... And I think this is an extremely important matter....

Everyone in Bristol and beyond knew or was aware of The Joanna Yeates 'Murder Case"as it was all over The National media...... And therefore any Juror that would be selected would have been more than aware that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently... "Pled "Guilty " to Manslaughter in May 2011...

When we come to court... Dr Vincent Tabak should be on the stand as a defendant who has the presumption of "Innocence"....

Even if.. he had "Pled " Guilty to "Manslaughter " In May 2011"  that information should have been kept away from the general public and potential Jurors until the end of the trial....

It's a bit like when they take previous convictions into account on sentencing....

The Jury should Never have been informed that Dr Vincent Tabak had "Plead Guilty to Manslaughter until after their verdict.... (IMO)...

Then the trial would have been somewhat fairer... But they are informed through the media ... and they are also the "Prosecution"... (I Believe)...

Quote
Nigel Lickley suggested to Tabak that, rather than being invited
in, as Tabak had told the court, he may have knocked on her door with an excuse that the
cat had strayed into his flat and Tabak fiercely rejected this scenario. The Defendant
admits manslaughter but denies murder.
He repeatedly apologised to Yeates' family and
boyfriend, Greg Reardon, his own family and his girlfriend Tanja Morson.

Denying Dr Vincent Tabak the "Presumption of Innocence" at his own trial... Therefore making this trial wholly unfair and a breach of Dr Vincent Tabak's human Rights... (IMO)....

Basically ... The media should have never been allowed to tell the world that Dr Vincent Tabak had "Pled" Guilty to Manslaughter" unless.. Ann Reddropp accepted said.. "Guilty Plea".... But she wanted the world and his dog to know that they would never accept this "Manslaughter Plea"....

Meaning that Dr Vincent Tabak could Never have a Fair Trial As They had already prejudiced any jury... With the divulging to the world in May 2011 as to Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt... And reaffirmed this "GUILT" to the Jury in October 2011 at Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial as they had already known what had happened at The Old Bailey in May 2011....!!!! (IMO)..

So on that basis alone Dr Vincent Tabak deserves a retrial... As the "Conviction in My Opinion" is unsafe ...!!!

Edit...All through the trial... Th media reports that Dr Vincent Tabak denies "Murder" but admits to "Manslaughter".... How should we all know this before the verdict has been announced !!!!

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