Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 592723 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1350 on: March 15, 2018, 01:37:56 PM »
You also have to consider his nationality, hardly the easiest of peoples. I think he's wiped the floor with the numpties, he'd certainly have the arrogance bred into him, that's why his sentence was so harsh, hardly a pre-planned event even if you went along with all the bull. Nope, sorry but the system wanted revenge, that case was put where the sun don't shine and plod couldn't fish it back out with a bent coat hanger.

A weirdly prejudiced posting there. I've been to Holland a few times and have always found the people to be very friendly and accommodating.

The system wanted revenge for what?

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1351 on: March 15, 2018, 01:40:05 PM »
 Sorry for the long posts.. I believe they hold vital information...(imo)
Part1..

How did William Clegg collect evidence for Dr Vincent Tabak's trial and who did he have helping him with these complex issue?? 

* Did he collect GPS Coordinates?

* Did he collect the evidence from the phone company of the logs from the text messages and phone calls?

* Did he have an Independent Computer Analysis, check and verify Dr Vincent Tabak's Laptop

* Did he have a Independent Scientific Analysis, check the DNA that apparently linked Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna
   Yeates murder?

* Did he check whether or not it was Physically Possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to actually Lift and carry a dead weight
   so many times and in the allotted time??

* Did he check the computer searches that cast doubt that they were Dr Vincent Tabak's searches when he couldn't
   make 2 of the searches as he was not in his Flat at the time... (1:46am and 1:47am on the 18th December 2010)

* Did he take witness statements from Tanja Morson? Dr Vincent Tabak's live in girlfriend.

* Did he take a witness statement from Greg Reardon??

* Did he take a witness statement from anyone whom Dr Vincent Tabak knew??

* Did He take a witness statement from CJ to asertain whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak had seen him at all??

* Did he visit Longwood Lane?

* Did he visit Canygne Road?

* Did he have his own photographs taken of Longwood Lane and Canygne Road..

* Did he notice that there were 2 area's of the wall at Longwood Lane photographed, which looked exactly the same
  but were yards apart?

* Did he not question why there were several Fire Trucks in attendance at Longwood Lane ??

* Did he not wonder why all of those Serious Crime Officers were at the scene of Longwood lane for a "Missing
   Person Inquiry??

* Did he go to Holland to talk to anyone who knew Dr Vincent Tabak??

* Did he question the Tabak family as to Dr Vincent Tabak's history??

* Did he have an Independent Psychological evaluation of Dr Vincent Tabak's mental state??

* Did he here about DCI Mark Luther ?

* Did Check that there weren't any error by LGC?

* Did he check and Interview any neighbours at Canygne Road and surrounding area??

* Did he see the images of the kitchen tiles that had been painted??

* Did see the original CCTV Footage of Joanna Yeates in Tesco's??

* Did he see the original CCTV Footage of Dr Vincent Tabak apparently on Park street??

* Did he ask to see the Private CCTV footage  from Canygne Road??

* Did he check the CCTV Footage from Clifton Suspension Bridge, to see if the Police were telling the truth as to how 
   unclear it was ?

* Did he know about the Nero Cafe CCTV??

* Did he not question the Police about The Trainer that was found under the sink at Canygne Road??

* Did he know whether Dr Vincent Tabak had taken his laptop whilst he was in Holland to make searches, that were
  used at trial??

* Did he Interview anyone at Buro Happold ??

* Did he have the Information from Buro Happolds Computers Independently Analysed??

* Did he have the Information from the Mobile phone company of Joanna Yeates phone records/.. texts.. phone calls
   etc..??

* Did he not question why Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't been cautioned in Holland in his 6 hour Interview with DC Karen
   Thomas

* Did he hear "The Sobbing Girl " telephone call??

* Did he hear Dr Vincent Tabak's call from Holland??

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1352 on: March 15, 2018, 01:40:50 PM »

Part 2...

* Did he not see that the media were all over a Scene of Crime from day one of The Investigation, walking down
  Joanna Yeates path and taking Forensic samples from Dr Vincent Tabak's Bay window, also standing in the back
  garden taking video of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, when he wasn't even a suspect..

* Did he not question were the surf boards in The Hallway were that Justice Field had spoken about at the trial of Dr
   Vincent Tabak... When he visited the Flat with the Jury?

* Was it the first time that he stepped inside Flat 1 Canygne Road on the Jury visit??

* Had he collected his own photographic evidence of Flat 1??

* Did he visit Dr Vincent Tabak in Long Lartin??

* How many actual witness statement did he take??

* Did he Interview Brotherton??

* Did he Interview the Yeates family about what the had witnessed when they arrived at Canygne Road??

* Did he view the post mortem images of Joanna Yeates ??

* Did he view the Crime Scene photo's of Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane ??

* Did he check Dr Vincent Tabak's movements from 27th December 2010 to the 22nd January 2011?

* Did he interview all the people that Dr Vincent Tabak had been in contact with in that time frame??

* Did he read the report from the Fire Service and question why they had been at the scene for 4 days??

* Did he view the CCTV from Asda in Bedminster??

* Did he look at the car park CCTV from Asda in Bedminster??

* Did he view the original CCTV Footage from The Ram Pub in Bristol??

* Did he speak to Daragh Bewell?

* Did he speak to "Civilian Officer" Andrew Mott??

* Did he speak to PC Martin Faithful??

* Did he check anybodies credentials ??

* Did he check why The Complex Crime Unit were Investigating Dr Vincent Tabak in late December 2010 when he
   wasn't even a suspect!

* Did he check the phone records of Greg Reardon to the Police?? ( We have different days of reporting of Joanna
   Yeates being "Missing"..)

* Did he check the timings Rebecca Scotts phone call with Joanna Yeates??

* Did he see the full Police Interview of Rebecca Scott with Avon and somerset Police ?/



* Did he Interview any taxi drivers if they had seen Miss Yeates that evening??

* Did he establish that Joanna Yeates was actually killed on the 17th December 2010??

* How did he establish that Joanna Yeates reached her home ??

* Did he question the removal of the Intercom Panel??

* Did he question random builders being allowed onto a Crime Scene on the 29th December 2010 to remove Joanna
  yeates door??

* Did he question why the press were allowed to print that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to Manslaughter when it
  wasn't accepted by The CPS and should never have been known to the public till after the trial..

* Did he check to see if the blind worked in Joanna Yeates kitchen Flat??

* Did  he check whether it was possible for Joanna yeates to see Dr Vincent Tabak through her kitchen window...

* Did he go to Canygne Road at night to see if the lights worked on an evening outside Flat 1??

* Did he check who the Renault Megane was registered too?

* Did he ever see Joanna Yeates car??

* Did he see Bernard ??

* Did he go and look at the main house at 44, Canygne Road??

* Did he check Dr Vincent Tabak's credentials ??

* Did he check what time and place Tanja Morson's Christmas party was at??

* Did he check if Dr Vincent Tabak attended the party??

* Did he speak to the media ??

* Did he check when Dr Vincent Tabak returned from Holland??


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1353 on: March 15, 2018, 01:41:43 PM »
Part 3....

* Did he check what mode of transport Dr Vincent Tabak took to Holland??

* Did he confirm that Dr Vincent Tabak was actually in Holland at this time ??

* Did he confirm that Dr Vincent Tabak went to Cambridge ??

* Did he talk to Tanja Morsons family??

* Did he ask Gunter Morson about the twitter message??

* Did he time how long it took Joanna Yeates to reach Canygne Road after her shopping trips and visit to the pub??

* Did he look at the Hophouse Pub CCTV from inside it's premises??

* Did he know what the last positive sighting of Joanna Yeates was ??

* Did he Interview the Birches??

* Did he get an Independent check of Joanna Yeates stomach contents??

* Did he get an Independent blood Analysis Of Joanna Yeates blood??

* Did he Interview Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson?

* Did he Interview any other person at The Ram Pub??

* Did he speak to Robin Payne at Bargain Booze?

* Did he see the Original CCTV Footage from Bargain Booze ??

* Did he get the Cider bottles Independently tested??

* Did he view all of the Forensic Evidence that was Collected??

* Did he speak to other shop owners in the area about Dr Vincent Tabak??

* Did he see any CCTV footage of Dr Vincent Tabak riding his bike back home on from the railway station Friday
   17th December 2010??

* Did he ask any of the neighbours on both sides of Canygne Road if they knew Dr Vincent Tabak??

* Did he check which CCTV there were from The Ram Pub to Canygne Road??

* Did he check if Dr Vincent Tabak's car had been picked up on CCTV Footage anywhere besides the Park Street Clip
  on the 17th December 2010?

* Did he visit Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat before trial??

* Did he check if anyone had seen Dr Vincent Tabak on Friday 17th December 2010??

I am sure I could go on and on and on.... And the questions I pose I believe are important in disproving The Prosecutions Case against Dr Vincent Tabak...  I believe these are questions we assume would be asked or Investigated by The Defence for them to undermine The Prosecutions Case against their client...

Obviously The Hundred Questions Thread shows how "This Complex Case" needed robust Investigations done... How the evidence that was gathered wasn't used at trial... How hearsay evidence was allowed... Why I have been questioning this Case for so long....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFjm4goJco4

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1354 on: March 15, 2018, 01:59:33 PM »
Part 4....

I was watching The Rachel Nickell Case that was on TV  and Interestingly Fiona Bruce Interviews William Clegg QC in this program...

I always prefer video evidence of someone speaking and not taking someones word for it... But William Clegg surprised me greatly... The Master Defender at work...

At 34:46  on the video..

William Clegg Says talking about The Rachel Nickell Case:

Quote
But.. It went much further than that ... The Police were actually actively briefing the press, that erm.. Colin Stagg was guilty, after he had been found not guilty... They were actually telling evrybody that he was a guilty man who had got off on a technicality.

Fiona Bruce says..

Quote
Do you have Evidence that the Police were briefing the press in that way?

William Clegg

Quote
I know they did

Fiona Bruce

Quote
How?

William Clegg

Quote
They Told me. [The Press].

Well If Fiona Bruces face didn't just say it all... That last statement from William Clegg did for me....

So according to William Clegg he believes what the press tells him is the case.. And not having solid "Evidence" to support The Presses claims... Which coming from... The Master Defenders own mouth is extremely worrying (imo)...

Supporting Evidence of any claim is paramount in securing any conviction of anyone... And for The Master Defender to openly admit that he takes the word of The Press as Evidence that The Police divulged Information that Colin Stagg was Guilty is frankly shocking!!

I would have expected greater proven facts from William Clegg in his statement... Yet  he happily tells Fiona Bruce that the press have told him what the Police believe....

Is he as green as he is cabbage looking?? That is a school boy error in my opinion...  And not what I would expect from the man they have named "The Master Defender" Or Number 1 barrister....

Is someone having a giggle by naming this man this title??

Because Lord help us if The Master Defender can say on record that he as accepted the Presses word that the Police Informed them of certain Information and he takes that as gospel, rather than having evidence to back the presses claims up... Then maybe everyone can understand why we have always questioned How William Clegg actually defended Dr Vincent Tabak on The Murder Charge he was facing....

And what evidence William Clegg collected Independently to prove his clients Innocence.... Because it is not until Dr Vincent Tabak's confession at trial that anyone has any idea how apparently Joanna Yeates came to her demise...

And we know only too well that Dr Vincent Tabak had been held in one prison or another since his arrest in January 2011.. And he had kept silent all that time...

This case is a travesty from start to finish... A young woman who has been Murder.. A Police Investigation falling well short...(imo) A Defence Lawyer who Insults his own Client...

And the very same Defence Lawyer whom which we have just discovered says that the Press telling him that the Police had informed The Press... that Colin Stagg was a 'Guilty man even though the case collapsed.. Is evidence that The Police did actually Inform the Press of that Information....

Do you honestly believe that is good enough as a way of evidencing Information... To take someones word without any proof that what they say is actually the truth..

That is why we have courts... To prove by  "ACTUAL' Solid Evidence that someone committed a Crime... And not on someone elses word....


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1355 on: March 15, 2018, 02:00:13 PM »
Part 5.......

Did The Defence just take Dr Vincent Tabak's word that he had killed Joanna Yeates???? Or did they put under the Microscope all the the evidence available to show how it was Impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have committed this Crime in The way it has been stated and in the allotted time he apparently had... 
Not forgetting the massive feat of removing a body by carrying it to different locations in a small window of opportunity and how difficult that feat would be as not to have any drag marks on the body...Whilst leaving NO Forensic Evidence behind at Joanna yeates Flat or any Forensic Evidence that Joanna yeates had been inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....

But... we have more from the video featuring William Clegg... and his deductions are frightening (imo)...

At 29:33  of the video Fiona Bruce says:

Quote
QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.

Bill Clegg

Quote
I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.

Well that took my breath away... where do i start with that one...

Statistically.... Where id that come from... The top of his head???  Woman have been killed in front of there children on many occasions, especially I would sumise in domestic abuse issues... So for Bill to say it is a statistic that it is extremely rare  for a mother to be killed in front of a child and make the presumption after reading the papers that , this person must have killed Rachell Nickell also in less than 3 hours is astounding.....

How the hell is it obvious?? Where is the evidence to support that the person who killed Samatha and Jasmine, also killed Rachel Nickell at that point in time??? It took years for them to finally charge Robert Napper with the murder of Rachel Nickell and good old Bill solves the crime in less than 3 hours...

Isn't it supposed to be about evidence and not what is apparently obvious.... Did Bill know where Robert Napper was at the day and time that Rachel Nickell was Murdered on Wimbeldon Common, when he so obviously discovered in 2 to 3 hours after reading the papers that Robert Napper must have killed Rachell Nickell...  Is this man for real??

I am horrified that The Master Defender makes these claims on TV about how he deduced that same man who killed Samantha and Jasmine must have been guilty of Rachell Nickells Murder...

2 to 3 hours... I have spent the best part of 15 months cross referencing every piece of Information i can find about Dr Vincent Tabak and The Joanna Yeates Murder Case....  Some days I have been at the computer for 18 hours solid... I have quoted.. screen shot... transcribed and provided links to support any information I have posted about.. Yet Bill Clegg can read the papers and know that the same person who killed Samantha and jasmine was responsible for Rachel Nickells Murder also....

Somebody give me strength....  Is the man a magician?? Why would he admit to such a thing... Is his ego that big.. That he believes what ever comes out of his mouth no-one will question because of the reputation he has....

But if William Clegg believed that the person who killed Jasmine and Samantha was Rachell Nickells Killer, then why this.....

Quote
Colin Stagg; and William Clegg QC, one of the most experienced criminal barristers in the country who holds the unique position of having defended both the acquitted Colin Stagg (in his trial for the murder of Rachel Nickell) and Robert Napper, who was eventually convicted of Rachel’s murder, in his trial for the murders of Samantha and Jazmine Bisset.

So Bill Believes that what he read in the papers about the killing on Samatha and jasmine must be the same person that killed Rachell Nickell... He discovered this after 3 hours of reading the papers in chambers... Whilst he was Defending Colin Stagg for The Murder of Rachel Nickell.. ( As The video implies)...

* Colin Stagg was arrested 7th August 1993 and was held in custody for a year

* Napper was arrested in May 1994

So we can see how it was possible for "Bill "to read about Napper in the papers as he was preparing Colin Staggs case... But without any concrete evidence, he had decided Napper must have killed Rachell Nickell...  So why would he then represent Napper???

Doesn't make sense ....

Why would Clegg defend Napper ??

Quote
MAY 1994: Napper’s fingerprints are identified from Bisset house, he is charged and his DNA sample is taken by police.
JULY: Napper is charged with two rapes and two attempted rapes.
SEPTEMBER: The case against Stagg is thrown out after Justice Ognall who refused to use the undercover officer's evidence before a jury.
OCTOBER 1995: ­Napper admits two charges of manslaughter, one rape and two attempted rapes. One rape charge is dropped but he is detained at Broadmoor Hospital.

So we do not see anything from the trial of Robert Napper....  He admits his Guilt to Manslaughter... (Where have I heard that before??)


But when we look at Dr Vincent Tabak's admission to Manslaughter, the Prosecution wouldn't accept it.... I am now going to do a "Bill" and presume with what I know and have read that The Prosecution were actually trying to show up "Bill Clegg!! (I could be wrong) But it is a conclusion I have come to with the evidence I have got...

And Bill himself did divulge on video that it was the papers he was reading that he drew the "OBVIOUS" conclusion that it was the man who had killed Samantha and Jasmine had killed Rachel Nickell...

So why did Clegg defend Napper?? I do not understand... Isn't it a conflict of Interest in some way?? What Investigations where done by Bill to prove Nappers Innocence??  Again I am doing a Bill... I am interpreting from what comes out of his mouth on video that I have linked, If Robert Napper is the person that Bill Clegg is referring to when he says that.... Whilst he was in the middle of Defending Colin Stagg..

(QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.)

Quote
I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.

Because it seems Perfectly Obvious to me, that Robert Napper is the person that Bill Clegg is referring to in that Interview with Fiona Bruce....

If Bill Clegg can deduce.... So can I...!!

Edit... Should Bill Clegg have ever represented Napper when he believed at the time of Colin Staggs trial... That the person who killed Samantha and Jasmine also had killed Rachel Nickell??

If he believed that why was he allowed to represent Napper at all?? Can someone explain if this is even legal?? As I don't know the law and no-one from the papers is telling me anything I need someone with experience to tell me whether or not Bill Clegg should have taken Robert Nappers case !!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFjm4goJco4

https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week10/rachel-nickell-untold-story

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/18/rachel-nickell-robert-napper-murder-guilty

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5758951/samantha-bisset-daughter-jazmine-robert-napper-murder/

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1356 on: March 15, 2018, 03:58:55 PM »
To add a little more.. quotes from my above posts...

Quote
But.. It went much further than that ... The Police were actually actively briefing the press, that erm.. Colin Stagg was guilty, after he had been found not guilty... They were actually telling everybody that he was a guilty man who had got off on a technicality.

No... The case was thrown out on the first day of trial by Mr Justice Ognall...  Different from being found Not Guilty by a Jury .....  After he read the trial papers and re-read those same trial papers and deduced that there was no case....

Terminology used at trial is important... And Clegg saying that Colin Stagg was found not Guilty is an untrue... (imo)

There was no case for Colin Stagg to answer for... No Jury found him not guilty... Rather a smart Judge read the case and decided that there was NO Case....

Just for Clarification I am not pointing fingers at Colin Stagg... what I am doing is asking why Bill would say that Colin Stage was found not Guilty, when that was not the case... But what happened was the judge threw the case out instead...

Quote
For the past 16 years, Mr Stagg’s entire life has been defined by his arrest over Miss Nickell’s murder and the year he spent on remand in prison, charged with murder, before a judge caused a sensation by throwing out the charges on the first day of his trial.


You may think I am being pedantic and splitting hairs about how Colin Stagg came to be a free man at his trial... But I feel it is important that we know the difference between a case being thrown out and a person being found NOT Guilty...

It isn't until Robert Napper is convicted Of Rachel Nickells Murder some many years later that Colin Stagg finally gets an apology..
Quote
Earlier this year Mr Stagg was paid a record £706,000 in compensation for his wrongful arrest and prosecution, but it is only now that he has received something equally valuable - a public apology from the Metropolitan Police.

Crown Prosecution lawyer Rene Barclay has also written to Mr Stagg expressing "regret" that the case was brought against him.

With Napper’s confession, the world now knows that Colin Stagg was innocent all along.

It shouldn't be a confession of guilt from someone else that proves another persons Innocence.. But evidence that conclusively proves a persons guilt or Innocence and not just because someone said so.... (imo)... Therefore the wrongful arrest and incarceration of Colin Stagg should be a reminder to us all.. That hard facts are needed to arrest and convict someone of a Crime especially one as serious as Murder...  And hard evidence is used to convict the right person for the Crime that has been committed...

We shouldn't be happy to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak just told everyone what he did when there was no hard evidence to support the story he told and Bill Clegg told at trial.... We should demand to see the evidence, whether Forensically it is finger prints or CCTV Footage with the Time Stamp visible. And not just take someones word that they have committed a crime which is totally out of Character for a Placid Dutchman!!

I personally would like to see Dr Vincent Tabaks apparent statements he made and all the evidence that apparently linked him to The Murder of Joanna Yeates... And not just take someone elses word for it....

Because this case doesn't make sense... It never has... And I still stand by my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... and until someone gives me some hard evidence to prove otherwise... I will not be changing my mind anytime soon...


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3813219/Rachel-Nickell-killing-verdict-Colin-Stagg-finally-shakes-off-cloak-of-suspicion.html

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1357 on: March 20, 2018, 04:07:46 PM »
Part1..

Blatant... why is everything so blatant??

I always believe that I miss a trick.. but probably the amount of Information available out there is difficult to collate.. So I always mis-read articles or don't take all if the information in....

I have got extremely giddy in the past about The Leveson Inquiry, now if I actually look at certain statement that where made at the time that are available online, then the Information is there.. Or isn't... which I believe is really the point...

CJ.. The illusive second witness statement.. Who ever he saw or didn't see is extremely important, but the fact that this crucial piece of evidence is missing from trial is more important....  And it is the trial that should be questioned...  I wonder if that is the point... The trial and what did and didn't happen...

A huge public trial that grew massive media interest, yet with so much lacking and no-one speaking of it I keep looking for the answers....

I have been all around the houses on more than one occasion and got myself in knots trying to fathom what is wrong with this case... which there seems always to be more than one answer... I go back in my mind  to what I have read or posted about and what others have said...

No-one will confirm or deny anything and I have had to try to read between the lines to deduce what I believe to be some of the answers to this case and trial... They appear to be two Individual things... The Murder of Joanna Yeates and the Investigation also the Trial...

Back to the Leveson and CJ....  i don't know how many times I had read CJ second witness statement at the Leveson that is available on line and like many things have actually missed what has or hasn't been said time and time again...

I will quote from CJ's Leveson statement

Quote
I make this statement in my capacity as a Core Participant to assist the Inuiry in
relation to Part 1 Module 2 which deals with the relationship between the press and
the police and the conduct of each.

Where the contents of this statement are within my
own knowledge they are true and where the contents are not within my own
knowledge I indicate the source of my belief and believe them to be true. I attach as
Exhibit CJ2 a bundle of relevant documents to which this page references in this
statement refer.

Now the bundle that CJ refers to is held by the National Archive and is closed for 84 years..(image attached)

Exhibit CJ2 has fascinated me... I have every possible conclusion to what is kept within these documents rattling around my head...

Why should the contents of Exhibit CJ2 be closed?? Realisitically what CJ is referring to should have no reason to be kept from the public...

Quote
That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me. For
example, The Dally Mail published the article at pages 1 to 12 of CJ2 entitled: "Could
landlord hold the key to Joanna’s murder?". This contained the words:

Her CJ refers to page 12... The Pdf document which I am viewing is from The National Archive, but only has 11 pages... So my confusion lies with the document i have.. and the Exhibit CJ2... i am presuming that they are 2 seperate pieces of Information... But are they??

If within page 12 pf CJ's bundle is the Information about the Daily Mail's reports of the time, that information we already know.. It is not worth sealing for 84 years... It is already a matter of public record...

Within the bundle we get this

Quote
"Bachelor Chris Jefferies, 65, apparently told police he saw three people,
including Miss Yeates, walking away together and talking in hushed tones. ’"

I am presuming that CJ's second witness statement to The Police is held within this bundle.. But i do not believe that it is...

We have no way of knowing how many pages are within Exhibit CJ2 and for all I know they may be blank.. There could be 1300 pages there of nothing.... But it draws our interest because it has been sealed... And time and time again that important piece of evidence that CJ saw people at the gate never made it to trial....

Whether CJ saw the milkman, the postman, Carol Singers, any occupants of the household, should not be an issue and should have been disclosed... If I was Dr Vincent Tabak's lawyer CJ would be one of the first people that appeared on the stand to establish whether or not whom he saw had any relevance to Joanna Yeates disappearance or not... We don't even know if CJ saw Dr Vincent Tabak that evening... yet it has been suggested that he may have done....


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1358 on: March 20, 2018, 04:08:15 PM »
Part 2...
It brings me back to Clegg... Did he read CJ's 2nd witness statement... Everyone knew that CJ had been arrested and the relevance of what the reasoning behind his arrest should be paramount to The defence...(imo)

Clegg The Master Defender it's a joke to me, because it is not funny when you have someones life in your hands and what you do or do not do will set in motion a series of events, which peoples liberty are at stake..

The TV program "Rachel Nickell The Untold Story" featuring "Bill Clegg" Master Defender has me questioning everything again..

Clegg says in the program that with 2-3 hours of reading the papers, he had worked out that The man that killed Samantha and Jasmine also killed Rachell Nickell... WoW.... How can Clegg deduce that from reading some papers that are not related to the Rachell Nickell case??

The Murders were very different and the only common denominator that I can see from what Clegg goes on to say, was that a child was present at the scene of both crimes..
Quote
On 3 November 1993, Robert Napper forced his way into Ms Bisset's one-bedroom basement flat in Plumstead, stabbed her by the front door, and sexually assaulted and suffocated Jazmine. He dragged Ms Bisset's body into the lounge, stripped it and disembowelled the corpse, taking part of it away as a trophy. Napper arranged her body on a cushion, stabbing, cutting and carving her body more than 60 times, leaving her as if "gift-wrapped like a present".

Did Clegg see these horrific pictures when he read the papers??

Quote
What happened to Rachel Nickell?
On July 15, 1992, Rachel was walking with Alexander on Wimbledon Common when serial sex offender Robert Napper lurched from bushes and attacked.

The killer stabbed Rachel 49 times in the frenzy and sexually assaulted her in front of her son before fleeing.
Little Alexander was found pleading for his mum to get up.

Rachel's throat had been slit, with cuts on her hands showing she had put up a fight. Many of her other injuries were inflicted after she was dead.

Her jeans and pants were pulled down to her ankles after she had been sexually abused.
Little Alex had stuck a piece of paper on his tragic mum like a plaster "to make mummy better".
No one had heard her scream.

From the description alone of these two horrendous Murders in my mind if the perpetator was the same person, they appear to have change "MO"... and although Napper was a rapist, he appears to have jumped from that to extremely violent Murders in a relatively short space of time...

To me nothing from these violent attacks are similar... I am no expert, but the similarity stops at the point of children being present...

* One Murder out doors

* One child Murdered

Just a couple of examples of where they differ...

* Was the same knife used?

* Did Napper bring a knife to  Samantha Bisset's or use one of her knives?? 

* Was her throat slit??

* Did Napper know any of the victims?

* Why suffocate Jasmine??

* What window of opportunity did Napper have??

* had he been watching Samantha Bisset??

The few question i raise I believe are just the start and i don't want to do the list I have done for Dr Vincent Tabak and end up completely off topic, but i am sure i could produce a list just as comprehensive as the lists and questions i have asked about Dr Vincent Tabak...

And there is the point.... How on earth did Clegg on reading the papers decide that these  murders were committed by the same person??

He's a Lawyer not a Detective... I can understand someone like myself getting it wrong as I keep saying i have no experience in these matters.. But common sense should tell everyone that jumping to the conclusion that Napper had killed Rachell Nickell after a read of the papers that were not related to the Rachell Nickell case, no-one could deduce that the same person who killed Samantha and Jasmine had also killed Rachell Nickell..

Does Clegg have a crystal ball?? An all seeing eye?? what knowledge could Clegg possibly have  to know who killed Rachell Nickell at that juncture??

He can't have... He knows as much as me about that conclusion at that time..  Which is nothing!

Which brings me back to CJ... and questioning whether "nothing" was held in the Exhibit CJ2... who is to know seeing as they have been sealed??

I am beinging to wonder whether who was at the gate is of importance or rather that The Investigations by the Defence appeared to be lacking... By not checking if the people at the gate were of relevance to Joanna Yeates disappearance or not... It should have been the first port of call for Clegg (imo).. establishing if Joanna Yeates left her home... Which of course would prove that Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill her when they said he did in court...

I can only come to one conclusion that is Perfectly Obvious ... which is akin to what Clegg said about Rachell Nickell and that is Clegg had not Interviewed anyone of importance in this case... He had not read what CJ's second witness statement contained... He was slack at best... (imo)


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1359 on: March 20, 2018, 04:08:34 PM »
Part 3....

Is it libilous to question what someone may or may not have done?? Because I want to question exactly what Clegg did for Dr Vincent Tabak's Defence... And with what i have investigated for such a long time, I have come to a conclusion just like Clegg came to a conclusion with what he read...

It appears to me that Clegg did nothing for Dr Vincent Tabak... (apart from seal his fate... imo)
Whether you agree with me or not is your “Prerogative”... but i am deducing from what was available at the time and what happened or didn't happen at trial....

Clegg happily deduces that the person who killed Samantha and jasmine Bisset also must have killed Rachell Nickell because it was a "Murder" and a child was present..

If he is The Master Detective he obviously believe he is, then why didn't he Detect in The Case of Dr Vincent Tabak??

Why didn't he go onto find the killer??

Ordinarily as leonora has pointed out before, the first suspect is always the partner/ boyfriend, followed by friends and associates and anyone Joanna Yeates may have been in contact with... Meaning the people at the gate were paramount!

But as far as I can see Clegg appears to have failed on all counts.. He seemed happy with a Scape-goat as many have described Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo) Because I cannot see from the evidence we have what actual work Clegg put into this case...  What Investigations and cross referencing he made whilst he was representing Dr Vincent Tabak....

Its a crowd pleaser isn't it.... A huge juicy case.. everywhere everyone waiting in anticipation as to why a Placid Dutchman, would for no apparent reason, kill his next door neighbour he didn't know... It has been said before... Why "Sh*T on your own door step.... And that it literal... Why would you?? If Dr Vincent Tabak had been out and about taking photographs... why didn't he stalk the street for his victim?? Instead of doing it on his own doorstep... makes no sense... And why would Joanna yeates let him in to her home!

But the story that is told at trial kind of fits  what some may believe to be what took place, but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that it isn't the case...

There was no proof that Joanna Yeates arrived home... The private CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders viewed tells us she cannot have reached home... Yet Clegg appears happy that Joanna yeates was killed in her Flat because Dr Vincent Tabak said so at trial...  But that cannot be true..(imo). So Dr Vincent Tabak cannot have killed Joanna Yeates..period!

Are the events at trial more to do with Clegg than Dr Vincent Tabak??  And what wasn't presented and who wasn't present tells us more about Clegg than Dr Vincent Tabak...

I'll tell you what it reminded me of... In America there are lawyers who never actually go to trial on Murder one cases and they plea bargain their client out so the real evidence never makes it to a jury and the defendant takes the stand to tell us his version of events as to what took place in the vain hope that he/she will get a reduction in their sentence... These lawyers don't ever complete a trial of someone accused of Murder.. They just pleas bargain cases always....

But the difference with Dr Vincent Tabak, although he tried to plea, that didn't happen.... The Prosecution wouldn't accept it, when they should.... So does that tells us more about Clegg than Dr Vincent Tabak???
If Dr Vincent Tabak didn't speak, what evidence did Clegg Investigate for his client?

You can't just assume because he was in the same building as Joanna Yeates that he must have killed her.... especially when there was no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was anything other than Placid..

So many other potential people in Joanna Yeates life could have been the killer before Dr Vincent Tabak was on the list of suspects...

This is the case with NO Evidence... But a tall story on the stand... with No evidence to back this story up...  And a host of possible suspects  who could have possibly fit the bill before Dr Vincent Tabak could...

So where was Clegg?? I mean where was his head at?? Why didn't he get this case thrown out! Why did he persist in taking to it;s conclusion when there shouldn''t have been one in the sense that a conviction occurred without evidence to support that conviction (imo)...  The most unfair trial ever...

For someone whom is described The Master Defender he should have had that case thrown out quick sharp... He hadn't even apparently recieved the 1300 page document until the 7th October 2011 which contained the text messages , email etc of four people...

But he happily allows for this trial to continue when it is Perfectly Obvious to me he didn't know what was in those 1300 pages to  prove or disprove his clients guilt.. He just continued with the case as if it didn't matter..... Well it does!


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1360 on: March 20, 2018, 04:08:51 PM »
Part 4...

I am now going to ask the question, what evidence did Bill Clegg read?? What Investigations did Bill Clegg do for his client??

I can only conclude he didn't... but that is my opinion... Because if the 1300 page document contained the text messages of 4 people and possibly the search information then that tells me he didn't look himself at the case before he went to trial... Or had limited information upon which he relied upon for him to conclude that Dr Vincent Tabak had killed `joanna yeates.. Because thats what this trial seems to me... Clegg believed that Dr Vincent tabak was guilty....

Clegg had ample opportunity (imo) to argue why Dr Vincent Tabak shouldn't be held on remand... I still don't understand with what evidence he was charged with.... Shouldn't Clegg have argued that this Client be released on bail?? 

Did Clegg see the statement from Brotherton before trial?? As we know Dr Vincent Tabak didn't confess he killed Joanna Yeates to Brotherton... Dr Vincent tabak didn't confess anything....  And the claims made by Brotherton are spurious at best.. Which a GOOD Defence Lawyer should have shot down in flames....

But the persistence that this NAFF case goes before a jury without proper evidence is odd... Where there other powers in action at this point... Is it more about Clegg than Dr Vincent Tabak this trial,?? because it is the only Obvious conclusion i can draw.... Because (imo) Clegg failed his Client time and time again... By not challenging anything that The Prosecution brought forth... He doesn't challenge anything but agrees with them, which is evident at trial...

I cannot remember the phrase that leonora said... But it was along the lines of " something for the greater good"... And was that what this trial was about?... Clegg seems inept to me... Yet his reputation apparently says the opposite... The lack of supporting evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates is shocking, but a baying public will be happy to see anyone swing for the crime... just like they were happy when Colin Stagg was arrested..

But they do not question the obvious or the basic like did he actually commit the crime... they just want someone to pay... anyone to pay...

As the general public are we allowed to question the abilities of a lawyer.. do we just accept because we have been told someone is brilliant at their job that they are.... I cannot see any evidence that Clegg was brilliant at his job when he defended Dr Vincent Tabak (imo).. quite the opposite in fact... And if Colin Staggs case  is anything to go by ..Clegg didn't need to defend him as the case was thrown out...

Same with napper... Napper pleads guilty to manslaughter..... So where does the title of "Master Defender come from??? It has to be a p*ss take... (imo), because he appears to have failed completley with Dr Vincent tabak and didn't have to go to full trial with Stagg...

Was the point of the trial to show up Clegg's inability as a Good defence Lawyer?? I am starting to question if that was the case.... At every juncture Clegg failed his Client (imo)... And Dr vincent Tabak taking the stand is evidence of that.... If Dr vincent tabak says nothing like he had done all along and doesn't take the stand to explain himself away and this absurd notion that he killed Joann yeates... Then there is no case to answer....

* No evidence putting Dr Vincent Tabak at Joanna Yeates Flat

* No evidence at what time Joanna yeates may or may not have been killed

* No evidence of how she became to be killed

* No evidence that Dr vincent tabak was violent

* No evidence that Joanna Yeates was in The Car that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak drove.

* No evidence if any sexual activity had taken place between Joanna yeates and anyone else

* No coobarrating evidence from Tanja Morson as to what she was doing at anytime with or without Dr Vincent
  Tabak.

* No evidence that the blind in the kitchen was broken

* No evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna Yeates

* No evidence as to whether Tanja Morson knew Joanna Yeates,..

* No evidence showing us the inside of Dr Vincent Tabaks flat

* No evidence of a struggle taking place inside Joanna Yeates Flat

* No Evidence of Joanna Yeates being inside Dr Vincent Tabak's flat

* No body fluids inside Joanna yeates Flat

* No Body fluids inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat

* No evidence of what happened to the pizza

* No evidence as to what happened to The Missing Sock

* No evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak could actually lift a dead weight so many times in the alloted time.. ( could he
  even lift a dead weight)

* No Time Stamp evidence on CCTV footage

* No evidence of when Joanna Yeates actually died...

* No evidence as to who was really the last person to see Joanna yeates alive

* No questioning peoples credentials

* No Calling any witness's for Dr Vincent tabak

* No medical report on Dr Vincent Tabak's mental state...


The list is endless... and it shouldn't be... As The Hundred questions thread indicate.. Which so far has over 1000 questions and i could add more.....   Nothing Clegg does at trial gives me confidence... Confidence that he fully represented his client.... He disparages his client , he makes the jury believe that his client must be guilty by his own lack of support for his client... It was Clegg's own words that brought me to question Dr Vincent tabak's guilt when he states....

1:  his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.

2:  “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”

3:   And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.

4:  He had told “lie after lie to the police.

5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.

6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.

7:  “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.

8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me

Those same 10 comments that are at the start of this thread... They were enough for me to sit up and listen and start to look more closely at the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak....  My lack of education cannot be confused with stupidity.... I for one wouldn't want someone as my Defence lawyer who could make statements such as these.... Anyone could easily confuse those statements as being made from The prosecution... But they are from The Defence... which is extremely worrying...


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1361 on: March 20, 2018, 04:10:33 PM »
Part 5...

Why didn't Clegg give Dr Vincent Tabak a full and deserving Defence? Why does it appear that he hasn't Investigated anything with regards to Dr Vincent Tabak? Did he think it would be an open and shut case ???  Did he not bargain on Dr Vincent Tabak being a very clever man??

Did common sense not prevail??  If a highly educated man has committed a serious crime such as Murder, and the only apparent evidence connecting him to said Murders are his apparent Confession and a list of searches done on a computer... Then this highly educated man would have dumped said computer in the largest body of water when he went to Holland to visit his family...

If he kept the sock as a trophy and wanted to get rid of that evidence then he too could have dumped that in a body of water in Holland... Same with the pizza box.... Dr Vincent tabak's car is NOT searched until he is arrested... So all of the evidence.. Bicycle cover/ sock /pizza etc... could have been disposed of in Holland... which is the logical option for an educated man , whom apparently was not flustered by what had taken place....
No-one was looking in the car.... Dr Vincent tabak could have had it valeted in Holland if he was so worried that there may be a minute piece of evidence left behind... Now that would be covering his tracks.... But we don't get this....

We get Dr Vincent Tabak behaving like an imbicile.. unable to cover his tracks apparently and not only that, volunteering the supposed method and demise of Joanna Yeates. He's apparently cooly shopping in Adsa after this murder buying nothing of importance... Nothing that would indicate he had committed a crime... If he is that cool and collected... why didn't he just dispose of everything in Holland, instead of leaving it on his doorstep in some bins somewhere in Clifton...

What or who should we be questioning when it comes to this case?? I personally am questioning Clegg's ability as a Defence Lawyer, because he doesn't appear to be up to the job....(imo) We as the general public believe that those in a position of power are qualified to be in those positions of power... But this case says otherwise (imo)..

Andrew "Civilian " Mott... not qualified to give evidence at trial as to what condition Joanna Yeates body was or was not in... Same with PC Martin Faithful.... Anyone who could quantify evidence in this case seem not to be at trial with the exception of the limited testimony of Dr Delaney and Dr Carey.... And instead we are left with Dr Vincent Tabak admitting without evidence to back up what he is saying , that he killed and disposed of Joanna yeates in the manner stated in court....

I'm sorry but for me it is not good enough..... I''m now questioning Clegg's ability to be a Criminal Defence Lawyer... I am now questioning When he passed all his exams in relation to Criminal Law he may have done I don't know.... Lawyers specialise in different aspects of Law... Clegg seems to have every aspect of law under his belt and i don't know how....

Quote
Overview
William Clegg QC frequently advises foreign governments, international corporations, trade unions and individuals resident here and abroad in relation to all aspects of regulatory offences, compliance, corporate manslaughter, health and safety corruption and sanctions. Has acted for Balfour Beatty, B.E.A. Sainsbury, Mabey & Johnson, Barclays Bank and the Alstom Group.

Has appeared on over 125 cases in the Supreme Court, Administrative Court and Court of Appeal which can be accessed using Lexis Nexis search engine.

Frequently works in partnership with lawyers abroad and  has acted with lawyers in the United States, Brunei, Dubai, Russia, The Netherlands, Spain and Bosnia.

Also practices in the field of general crime and has defended journalists employed by “The Sun” and the Head of Security at News International on charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and for paying public officials for news stories.

He also defended in numerous cases of current and historic allegations of sexual abuse, murder, manslaughter and general crime.

William Clegg has both chaired and appeared before public inquiries including the inquiry into Ashworth Special Hospital.

What the overview states on 2 Bedford Row's website only covers the basics... It doesn't tell us How and when he was qualified in representing Defendants in Murder trials.... And I apologise for my ignorance, if that is what it is ... But shouldn't you be qualified to represent such clients!

We have lawyers who specialise in different aspects of law for a reason, because no one lawyer could possibly know the Law on everything.... And (imo) Clegg's past record for Defending someone accused of Murder isn't evidence of his ability to Defend Dr Vincent Tabak in this case....  Saying that the high profile cases are evidence of the ability to defend.. are evidence of Clegg's ability to be a Good defence Lawyer doesn't stack up (imo)....

Now if he had done a trial  such as OJ Simpson.. then i could clearly see that he was more than capable... But we have nothing like that.... We should have had... The lack of evidence supporting Dr vincent tabak was none existent (imo) and that should have lead to the trial of the century not happening... But that is not the case... It was like a damp squib... The ends only gave us a conviction and not Justice.... (imo)

It is only my opinion that I believe that Clegg isn't qualified to Defend anyone on a serious charge such as Murdrer... And I have a right to have my opinion.... He had proved to me that he is incapable of defending anyone in that position.... And as Clegg himself has said... It's Pefectly Obvious!

It is perfectly obvious that this case needs looking at again... And Perfectly Obvious that people should question what qualifications Clegg has to Defend Murder cases... Because if i can still find fault with this case and no-one will speak of this case... It is perfectly Obvious that it isn't really about Dr Vincent Tabak and whether or not he killed Joanna Yeates... But about the lack of  Defending his Defence lawyer did... (imo)

We are  at the mercy of people in positions of power and we rely on their education and knowledge to assist us... We are supposed to believe that the truth will prevail and the person who is representing us is fit for such a position... But again I will say for me personally, The Defences lack of Investigating and lack of supporting evidence, suggests to me they didn't have a scooby.... When at the very least Tanja Morson should have taken the stand and not forgetting CJ whom Dr Vincent tabak was apparently trying to implicate....

I could have defended Dr Vincent Tabak better.... I have no formal qualifications, but that doesn't change the fact that I could have Investigated fuller, what Dr Vincent Tabak could or couldn't have done in relation to this crime... Or questioned the evidence that The prosecution brought forth... Or the lack of evidence from the Police linking Dr Vincent Tabak to this crime...

It doesn't change the fact that i could question more than Clegg appears to have done, I shouldn't still be able to post anything on this case... It's frightening to know that someone who has your life in their hands hasn't covered the basics as far as I can tell... But is applauded for there greatness...

So who should we be questioning??? I for one want to question Clegg... Because it appears that not enough was done to Defend a Placid Dutchman who apparently didn't say anything until trial... And therefore i want to know where the evidence is that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates... Because the prosecution didn't have any evidence to support that claim....

And Clegg is left holding the baby... He puts his client on the stand when he shouldn't in my opinion... because without Dr Vincent Tabaks testimony there is no case to answer for!!! (imo).

From what has been made available in this case, I think it only stands to reason why people would question it.... And personally i do not know how Clegg came to be known as The Master Defender... I find myself questioning that opinion especially since Dr Vincent Tabak's Case as of October 2011...

No-one has questioned Cleggs ability.... But maybe they darn't or can't... But I'm just  the general public...  And i feel we should all start to question what we are told.. instead of relying on what we have heard, because it is my opinion if we just accept any version of events without evidence to support it... Anyone of us could find ourselves in Dr Vincent Tabaks's position... And that is a scary thought!!!


http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/28b474f733f0437e895ea7b0ed4a496d
https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/mother-and-child-died-together-in-ritual-slaughter-6837683.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3580773/rachel-nickell-murder-killer-robert-napper-son-alex-hanscombe/

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1362 on: March 22, 2018, 08:51:16 AM »
Does anyone have a list of the 80 questions that Dr Vincent Tabak failed to answer??

The Headline from The Mirror

Quote
Jo Yeates murder trial: Killer Vincent Tabak failed to answer 80 questions

Puzzling....

Quote
Prosecutor Nigel Lickley QC told the jury in his closing speech: “There are more than 80 ‘can’t remembers’ in his evidence.

“Sometimes we can’t remember but sometimes it’s a case of won’t remember because it doesn’t suit our purpose to remember. It’s calculating – a convenient device to avoid giving an answer.”

Or a case of he doesn't know because he didn't do it!


Do they mean 80 questions put to him at trial or do they mean 80 questions he was asked when Interviewed by the Police ???
If it was at trial, where are the list of 80 questions.... anyone know ??



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-killer-87830

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1363 on: March 22, 2018, 02:03:30 PM »
Does anyone have a list of the 80 questions that Dr Vincent Tabak failed to answer??

The Headline from The Mirror

Puzzling....

Or a case of he doesn't know because he didn't do it!


Do they mean 80 questions put to him at trial or do they mean 80 questions he was asked when Interviewed by the Police ???
If it was at trial, where are the list of 80 questions.... anyone know ??



https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-killer-87830

The first line of the article says: "Joanna Yeates's killer deliberately avoided answering more than 80 questions in the witness box, his trial heard yesterday." (Emphasis is mine!)

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1364 on: March 22, 2018, 02:14:07 PM »
The first line of the article says: "Joanna Yeates's killer deliberately avoided answering more than 80 questions in the witness box, his trial heard yesterday." (Emphasis is mine!)

Baz... It is not that I am not aware that it says it in the first line of the article...  Doesn't mean it's correct though... 

Take @skynewsgathers tweet at trial

Quote
12:10 PM - 19 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Mark Luther now giving evidence in the #Tabak trial. He is the officer in charge of the case.

Now we know that DC Mark Luther is a figment of someones imagination....  He was not in charge of the case... Doesn't exist...
So me asking whether it was actually put to Dr Vincent Tabak at trial these 80 questions by the prosecution, isn't an unreasonable response...

I would like a list of these 80 questions please  8)--))

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial_Continues