Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 163146 times)

0 Members and 22 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #435 on: July 26, 2017, 11:48:22 AM »
Here we go..... Good old wiki.....

Quote
Results of sister projects

Driveway
Sound:   driveway     (help, file) on the driveway driveway an access road to a greater road He picked up the wrong driveway and reached the southern highway

A Driveway would lead to a greater Road..... And The Drive in Dutch gets translated to "The Ride"....

So what would the Dutch call the land at the side of a building, you drive your car on to Park.....

Not The Drive..... (IMO)



https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=+De+oprit&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&go=Article&searchToken=87uc9p6di86n82ojq8vg3f706


https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=De+rit&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&profile=default&fulltext=1&searchToken=brl7vx8grr06hnsgriox9y29

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #436 on: July 26, 2017, 12:23:43 PM »
I think First and Foremost when ever we look at what Dr Vincent Tabak, says or doesn't say.....

 Is that he is A Dutch National First and Foremost....  Even if he can speak English Fluently!!!!!


Edit....   Makes me question CJ again..... In The lost Honour of CJ.... he is letting people know, when he asks Dr Vincent Tabak if they call jump leads.. Jump leads in Dutch... CJ... Is allowing everyone to know .. that Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National... And won't say everything the same way as the English do..... (IMO)....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #437 on: July 26, 2017, 12:57:14 PM »
The Dutch Brother  In-law has replied to my text again....

To understand how I asked the Dutch brother in-law... I'll explain about the road next to my house...
Next to my house is a cobbled road... It's a drive.... It's private...  It comes off the main road.... My door opens straight onto this cobbled road .... (The cobbled Road is the length of the house roughly..)

So I asked The Dutchie , what he would  call The cobbled road outside my house.....


My question...
Quote
A driveway in English.. means a road leading up to a private house... what would the Dutch say...??

And text him again before he replied so he understood what type of road I meant.....

My Question....
Quote
What would you call the road outside my door... the cobbled road??

His reply to both questions in one text:

Quote
I would call it parking rather than Driveway. Your cobbled road I would call street.

So when Dr Vincent Tabak say:

Quote
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.

I believe Dr Vincent Tabak means the DRIVEWAY/DRIVE..... (IMO)....

And thats why we find him making... what at first appeared to be a confusing statement... next.....
Quote
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.


Because Dr Vincent Tabak backed the car out of the designated Parking Space (On The Street/The Drive).... meaning that was the reason The Back of the car was facing "Canygne Road"........ There is no other explaintion for it .... (IMO)....

Again.... We Must not forget that Dr Vincent Tabak is A Dutch National.........

EDIT.... There are no other houses on my cobbled road... I own the cobbled road....(but give access).. I have the only door onto it.... My neighbours have front doors and backdoors..... I have a side door onto the cobbled road.....

It does how ever get used as shared access for my neighbours to park around the back of the building... which my Dutch Brother In-Law has seen when he has stayed....


Edit... Just to clarify.... The cobbled road is enclosed..  no other house are on the opposite side of it... just my garden...



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

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #438 on: July 26, 2017, 03:10:08 PM »
I have attached an image of where the cars are parked at Canygne Road in the carpark.... I have circled the area Dr Vincent Tabak would use...

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak move the car when the boot faces Canygne Road, just to put a body in the boot.... When it would be just as easy to put the body in the boot of the car where the car is parked ... Especially as he apparently has had no problem carrying a dead weight around a flat and between flats .....

He wouldn't...(IMO)..

He moved the car for the reason he gave..... For it to warm up before he had to get Tanja...

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #439 on: July 26, 2017, 03:48:34 PM »
I have just noticed something on that diagram.....

I have attached the image again and circled the shed.....

The shed is located at the end of the building and not in The Garden.....  Blocking access to Joanna Yeates flat....

So how would Dr Vincent Tabak walk down past Joanna Yeates Kitchen window?????

Was there more than one shed at 44 Canygne Road ????

If Joanna Yeates flat is described as having it's own private entrance why would Dr Vincent tabak be able to walk past her window... And on saying that....

If Joanna Yeates and Greg needed to get their car from it's designated Parking Space... They surely would have seen alot more of Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson... as they would have walked around the back to get to their designated car parking space regularly passing Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat Door.... (If Dr Vincent Tabak lived in that Flat)... (IMO)..

I don't believe that was the direction Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon accessed the Car...  maybe this diagram is accurate... and a shed actually blocked off access to the back of Canygne Road...


Edit I have attached 2 more images...  They clearly show that the SHED blocks access to the back of 44 Canygne Road....

meaning Dr Vincent Tabak could not have walked past Joanna Yeates kitchen window to gain access to the little gate....


Double Edit... Looking at image 2...  Because the path going down to the flat door is sloped... It would stop the people from the building behind seeing anything outside Joanna Yeates flat.. making that area more private....

Anyone from the back buildings who heard what they describe as a scream.... SEE NOTHING!!... And it's possible to see why with the shed blocking off the pavement.... (IMO)...


[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #440 on: July 26, 2017, 04:37:11 PM »
Just another thought about the shed at the bottom of the building.... If Dr Vincent Tabak could somehow squeeze past for instance....

Then why isn't there ever any Crime Scene Tape stopping anyone from access Joanna Yeates Flat from the back of the building where the shed is located???

Police either appoint a Police Officer outside a Crime scene or Tape off The Crime Scene.... So Why Isn't  there either an Officer permanently parked at the bottom of that pathway... or crime scene tape... stopping access????

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #441 on: July 26, 2017, 05:15:56 PM »
Just another thought about the shed at the bottom of the building.... If Dr Vincent Tabak could somehow squeeze past for instance....

Then why isn't there ever any Crime Scene Tape stopping anyone from access Joanna Yeates Flat from the back of the building where the shed is located???

Police either appoint a Police Officer outside a Crime scene or Tape off The Crime Scene.... So Why Isn't  there either an Officer permanently parked at the bottom of that pathway... or crime scene tape... stopping access????
Shed is part of a wall built with old or weathered bricks.

I googled it when I came home and it does look like a shed made of wooden planks.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #442 on: July 26, 2017, 06:53:53 PM »
A view from the back at another address showing the Green Tarpaulin around the back of 44 Canygne Road ...... Notice how it's in an L shape... It doesn't got all the way to the end of the building.... It stops at Joanna yeates Bedroom window ....

A little strange .... Is something in the way ???

First Image shows them erecting it .....

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #443 on: July 26, 2017, 08:50:58 PM »
Anyone any thought about the publics awarness of the fact that Dr Vincent tabak 'Pled "Guilty to Manslaughter"? 5 months before the trial commenced in October 2011 ??

Also that it was never entered into whether it was 'Voluntary" or "Involuntary" Manslaughter
What I think is neither here nor there, but facts ought to be respected. When a defendant has been charged, the CPS normally briefs a lawyer to assemble the case against the defendant, and then presents this case to the defence lawyer. On this basis, the defence lawyer advises the client on how to plead at the plea hearing. The Crown then decides how to proceed with the arraignment on the basis of the plea entered.

So far, there is nothing in itself unusual in a jury being confronted with a defendant whose plea is already familiar to them. However, a defendant would normally plead Not Guilty unless he knew that the Crown had such a strong case against him that he would certainly be convicted when his case was brought to trial. If he expected to lose, then his lawyer would secure the prior agreement of the Crown to a remission of sentence in return for a Guilty plea.

The first thing that is weird about this case is that the trial revealed that the evidence against Vincent Tabak had been derisory, so, obviously, Mr Clegg should have advised him to plead Not Guilty. The second weird thing is that, even though they knew nothing of the evidence against him, many of the press, the general public, and presumably the persons who would form the jury too, were astonished at his Manslaughter plea, yet all but a handful of us came to accept that he must have killed Joanna, even after they learnt how derisory was the evidence against him.

I take it for granted that the prosecution would not have held back any bona fide evidence they had that would have helped their case, since they led so much "evidence" that was hearsay and not even true. So I don't understand why there weren't more sceptics who turned their attention to the soundness of the plea.

The distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter is obviously significant, if you are right about the existence of such a distinction in English law. Could it be that this distinction was covered by one of those discussions on a point of law that were mentioned in the tweets but not explained?

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 #444 on: July 26, 2017, 11:04:18 PM »
I think First and Foremost when ever we look at what Dr Vincent Tabak, says or doesn't say.....

 Is that he is A Dutch National First and Foremost....  Even if he can speak English Fluently!!!!!


Edit....   Makes me question CJ again..... In The lost Honour of CJ.... he is letting people know, when he asks Dr Vincent Tabak if they call jump leads.. Jump leads in Dutch... CJ... Is allowing everyone to know .. that Dr Vincent Tabak is a Dutch National... And won't say everything the same way as the English do..... (IMO)....

CJ, of course, never asked VT whether or not he had jump leads, as VT was still at work at the time he and his neighbour helped Greg to get his car started. That was a piece of fiction introduced for the sake of the film, just as the scene where CJ takes Greg round to VT's flat to introduce him to Vincent and Tanja is fictional.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #445 on: July 27, 2017, 09:50:32 AM »
I was aware of how a "Plea Agreement" would happen... But I would have imagined that if a "Plea Agreement" was entered into then it wouldn't happen before a trial....

And if said "Plea Agreement" had been entered into.. then it wouldn't go to trial, but go before the judge after he has looked at any mitigating factors, or the defendant previous Good/Bad character.. Been involved in other criminal activities for instance ...

Then the judge would pass sentence ....

I do not understand how 5 months This "Plea" had been entered into...  then not being accepted... and a trial date set....
Allowing for the world to know of said "Plea".....  had taken place....

I was under the impression that this "Plea" would happen at trial and not 5 months before a trial if it wasn't going to be accepted...

Leonora.... or anyone for that matter.... Can anyone give me an example of a defendant  who has "Pled Guilty To Manslaughter, months before trial... where it has NOT been accepted, and then go to trial.... where the jury already know that this "Guilty To manslaughter Plea was entered into Months prior???

It seems irregular to me....  Like I said leonora... The jury shouldn't have known that information (IMO)... till after the trial... The 'Plea was basically "The Prosecutions Case"....  without the Plea there was NO Case!!

And putting Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand also seems ridiculous ... why did the Defence do that???

There was a basic outline of a story... that was it....  If the statement that Dr Vincent Tabak had signed ...had been read out to the jury ... like 20 other statements... There wouldn't have had anything to go on.....

But instead they have a Placid Dutchman... Sobbing and unable to answer over 80 questions... which in turn makes it appear as if he is being evasive and as some have said, only sobbing for himself ........ Which only Adds to the juries opinion of him.... (IMO)..

The Defences behaviour was appauling (IMO)... They did not help their client once ...(IMO).. 

I'm trying to understand this....

Quote
If a defendant wishes to be sentenced on a basis which is not agreed, the prosecution advocate should invite the judge not to accept the defendant's version unless he or she gives evidence on oath to be tested in cross-examination. The Criminal Practice Direction [2013] EWCA Crim 1631 which came into force on 7 October 2013 states that in such circumstances the defence advocate should be prepared to call the defendant and, if the defendant is not willing to testify, subject to any explanation that may be given, the judge may draw such inferences as appear appropriate.

So according to this... It is The Judge who doesn't accept the "Plea".... And therefore we have Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand explaining his version of events..... In the vain hope that he will get a reduced sentence...

It's like a game of Russian Roulette....

So why did "Ann Reddrop" Head of The Complex Case Unit... let everyone know that they were not accepting this "Plea"... when it was for the judge to decide, whether or not is was accepted!!!

So...if that information is how it unfolded... Dr Vincent Tabak.. had... No Explanation as to what happened to Joanna Yeates ... he only signed his statement on the 22nd September 2011.. I believe ...

Therefore I can see how it would have gone to trial in a way.... But the question is WHY... If they had NO EVIDENCE... why enter the "Plea" in the first place ????

There would be NO real need to argue sentence on a "Manslaughter Plea" (IMO)... The admittance of Guilt should have reduced the sentence in the first place... 

To me the above QUOTE, would only be of use to someone whom Pled Guilty to Murder .... Which of course Dr Vincent Tabak didn't....

Question... Did Clegg argue sentence ?????  I don't think so... 

Which also brings another question... If The Judge followed what it says in the QUOTE... Then why wasn't Manslaughter given to the Jury as an option????

I'll say this because... If it was all about length of possible sentence, therefore a jury should have heard any mitigating circumstances, the jury should have had an opportunity to make a decision on "ALL" evidence ...

But therefore... shouldn't the trial have been a "Manslaughter trial"???

I have just noticed this .....

Quote
Where the defendant pleads guilty but wants to be sentenced on a different basis to that disclosed by the prosecution case:

a) the defendant must set out that basis in writing, identifying what is in dispute;
b) the court may invite the parties to make representations about whether the dispute is material to sentence; and
c) if the court decides that it is a material dispute, the court will -

(i) invite such further representations or evidence as it may require;
(ii) decide the dispute.


So the defendant at First wants to be sentenced on a different basis.... And we come back to what is not agreed... Very interesting this quote....

Lets look at (a)....
Quote
a) the defendant must set out that basis in writing, identifying what is in dispute:

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't set anything out in writing.... He only signed the statement... in September 2011...

What is in writing that Dr Vincent Tabak disputed ????? The only thing he could dispute would be "The Porn"... And when did the Prosecution disclose that !!!!!

This is bizarre....

Ok.... If my understanding is correct....

Dr Vincent Tabak is at The Old Bailey... he enters the infamous "Guilty to Manslaughter Plea.. "... which should have been accepted ..But obviously wasn't ... But the argument is about length of sentence...

Then it''s the judges turn... To say he  is not happy and this is going to trial.... Needing to argue out about other material... possibly the 'Porn"..

So where is it in writing from Dr Vincent Tabak that he disputed 'The Porn" before he arrived at the Old Bailey??

There is "NO" Other Material that could possibly be argued out.... The Prosecution presented Nothing In the way of Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak... So what would need to be argued out????

I have found something else ... that makes me question.... Dr Vincent Tabak's "Guilty to manslaughter Plea".... And Everyone knowing about it before trial

From PART 3
CASE MANAGEMENT


Quote
(4) In respect of each count in the indictment—
(a) if the defendant declines to enter a plea, the court must treat that as a not guilty plea
unless rule 25.11 applies (Defendant unfit to plead);
(b) if the defendant pleads not guilty to the offence charged by that count but guilty to
another offence of which the court could convict on that count—
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;

So If my understanding is correct... Dr Vincent Tabak's Plea should have been seen as "NOT GUILTY" as The Prosecution didn't accept this ....

Quote
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;

So why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak seen as NOT GUILTY...

Therefore if this is how it is seen in LAW... Why did they Tell The world that Dr Vincent Tabak had Pled Guilty To Manslaughter?? when if my understanding is correct... He is seen as "NOT GUILTY" !!!!

Meaning they prejudiced the jury before the trial.... (IMO)..

And if we go back to the judge wanting to hear the evidence to decide sentence... Then the Charge Dr Vincent Tabak should have been facing in court would have been The Charge of "Manslaughter" and NOT of "Murder" ....(IMO)..

But what do I know ... !!


EDIT..... I can only see the Judge wanting The Defendant to explain himself in court if he was going to decide on The Sentence for "Murder.".. Because i cannot see how he would need a jury when it came to mitigating circumstances for "Manslaughter"... That would be The Judges discretion.... (IMO)

They appear to have combined every rule in the book.... (IMO).. And used each part of said rules to Convict Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)...

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-03.pdf

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/#a02


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #446 on: July 27, 2017, 10:19:11 AM »
Just to satisfy my insistance that it is unheard of..

That A Jury would be aware of the fact that the defendant pled 'Guilty to Manslaughter".. Months before a Murder trial... And everyone knew this before the trial commenced...
 
Could someone give me a link to a trial that happened in the same way.... Where everyone was aware of this fact that the defendant had "Pled Guilty to manslaughter" months before said "Murder" trial was due to take place....And before the Jurors sat for the first time .... Because I don't think there is such an example....

But I could be mistaken..... !!


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #447 on: July 27, 2017, 10:45:47 AM »
Ok... here's another thing to ponder.....

Where was Dr Vincent Tabak held before he appeared at Bristol magistrates Court???

Quote
If however, you are to be charged with an offence and the police decide you should still be kept in custody, you will be taken to a court to decide whether or not to release you on bail before the trial.

Dr Vincent Tabak should still have been held at The Police Station as far as I can tell....

No application for Bail was ever entered into... Why??

But he appeared in court on the 24th January 2011

Quote
Paul Cook, counsel for Mr Tabak, confirmed that his client wished to apply for bail.

Dr Vincent tabak was then:

Quote
Mr Tabak was taken from the court in the back of a police van, rather than a closed prison vehicle. He sat alone, without a prison officer.

So where did they take him?????

January 26, 2011   | by SWNS Reporter
Quote
Tabak, 32, is now in Gloucester prison 30 miles up the road from where he was being held in Bristol.

If Dr Vincent Tabak has not applied for bail... How can they hold him in "Gloucester Prison"... Or any prison for that matter before Bail has been applied for ??...

I could understand him been held at the Police Station... But Not "PRISON"...

His first appearance at court should have been for Bail whether it was accepted or denied... (IMO)... So how do they manage to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison before he has applied for bail?????


Quote
Tabak, 32, is now in Gloucester prison 30 miles up the road from where he was being held in Bristol.

It only says he was being held in "Bristol".... That could mean the Police Station!!!


Edit.... Not only That he is sent to Long Lartin... before BAIL is 'Accepted "or "Denied".. How does that work!!!


Double Edit.. Now don't got telling me it was for his own safety... because CJ was out on Bail at this time.... And they didn't let the world no he was Innocent... They didn't release CJ from Bail until March 2011..

So why was Bail NEVER applied for ??????



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8280005/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-enjoyed-normal-family-Christmas.html

http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-moved-prison-over-attack-fears-14290/

https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-EW-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2&member=1


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #449 on: July 27, 2017, 12:00:40 PM »


The distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter is obviously significant, if you are right about the existence of such a distinction in English law. Could it be that this distinction was covered by one of those discussions on a point of law that were mentioned in the tweets but not explained?

Yes... There is a distinction In Law between "Voluntary Manslaughter and "Involuntary Manslaughter"...

But my joking about an NVQ in "Manslaughter Law".. was to point out... That not only must the Jury understand the charge is Murder.... And find Dr Vincent Tabak Guilty of Murder... as this was there only option... But having been made aware That Dr Vincent Tabak had already "Pleaded Guilty to Manslaughter "

They then would need to have a comprehension of "Manslaughter in Law"...(IMO)..  As to distinguish between whether it was a Voluntary or Involuntary act.. on Dr Vincent Tabak's part... And once they understood that,.. Then they could make a the choice ....

The evidence didn't prove "Murder ".. (IMO)...  So did the Jury use the fact they knew about the Manslaughter Plea back in May 2011... affect the way they decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was 'Guilty' of Murder in October 2011???

And if NO Evidence was brought to show whether it was "Voluntary or Involuntary"... You are therefore expecting a Jury.. To understand "Manslaughter In Law"... (IMO)...