Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 48001 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2880 on: November 03, 2018, 12:02:26 PM »
In light of what The Leveson revealed.... and what others has stated since trial

* CCTV footage at Nero cafe.....

* Trainer with blood spots behind the  kick board under the sink.....

* The Yeates contradicting themselves

* CJ hearing/seeing people at the gateo n 17th Deceber 2010

* CJ talking with Dr Vincent Tabak on the day of a light dusting of snow

* CJ having Dr Vincent Tabak move his car from the drive

* Builders removing the door that was Joanna yeates

* Builders not wearing protective clothing

* Builders wiping their noses on gloves and not changing them

* The Yeates walking around the second scene of crime on the 27th December 2010

* The Yeates laying flowers before they have identified their daughter on Longwood lane

* The date the phone call to the Police changed from Sunday 19th December 2010 to Monday 20th December 2010

* The  washing pile of clothes that Mr Yeates saw

* The business phone of Dr Vincent Tabak

* Ann Reddropp looking at Dr Vincent tabak beofre he was even a suspect, before the Holland interview

* The media walking all over the first scene of crime whilst Joanna yeates was still a Missing person

* The media at the back videoing Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat beofre he was a suspect

* The Sobbing girls phone call

* BDP announcing on 24th December 2010 that Joanna Yeates had been found dead

* 4 Fire Appliances being used over 4 days, including a rescue boat

* An actor clearly being seen in the middle of this inquiry

* The Prosecution were really looking for a serial killer, with the police looking at the Glenis Caruthers Case.

* Why The Yeates believed that their daughter had been abducted

* Why the Yeates were banging on car boots when they arrived at Canygne Road

* Why the Police say they found the receipt from Tesco's when Mrs Yeates says it was her who found the receipt..

* Why there was no CCTV footage from Clifton Suspension bridge

* Why the private CCTV wasn't shown

* Why Chris Yeates was in a hole of despair on the 19th December 2010 , when Joanna Yeates wasn't reported
   missing until the 20th December 2010

* Why forensics are being done on the bay windows of a flat purported to be Dr Vincent Tabak's whilst Joanna
   Yeates is a Missing person

* Why every detail of this crime was already in the papers before trial...

* Why Tanja Morson wasn't questioned??

* Why the images in Asda do not look like Dr Vincent Tabak

* Why the kitchen tiles in the kitchen were painted in between her being Missing and found dead!

Again as always i could keep going.... But in the light of what I have found, wouldn't it be more prudent for William Clegg to bring his clients case back up for review... To say that now he believes his clients plea and tale on the stand could not be true.....

A challenge Bill.... Take a look at this case properly and then tell me you did all you could for your client!!

Maybe it should be you taking this case to the CCRC!!


Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2881 on: November 03, 2018, 12:42:02 PM »
From one of my posts... CJ's statement

Quote
“The police said they were intending to organise a
video identification parade. It turned out to be an attempt
to widen the investigation illegitimately. My
solicitor said it was the only time he had told a policeman
that his lack of candor was deceitful.

Then......

Quote
4. What does that mean?

Well, that’s a little subjective, but case law has shown the following to be a problem:

*Photos or descriptions where identity is at issue – ie the defendant claims it was not him who committed the crime and the prosecution has eyewitnesses whose testimony has to be tested by way of an ID parade. They must rely on their memory of the offence, not a photo helpfully published by the media. This action cause the record fine for contempt (so far) £80,000 for the Sun and £20,000 for Kelvin MacKenzie as editor.


Therefore... The action must be for identifying CJ... and not vilifying CJ... (imo) He had not been picked out of any ID parade...


What came first the ID parade or the papers images??  No-one could then ID CJ... for anything after that... whether he was innocent or not.... whether he was a witness or not..... (imo)

Edit.... And if they ever did an ID parade of CJ was it before or after he dyed and cut his hair??


https://davidbanksmedialaw.com/2011/11/22/contempt-of-court-and-how-to-avoid-it/

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg469886#msg469886

Offline Stephanie

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2882 on: November 06, 2018, 12:11:26 PM »
Slightly less probable solution than average. BUT it does raise the issue of whether or not the self serving bottom feeders moved Yeates’s body from its original point of discovery for reasons we cannot determine. In all it appears to be a red herring, if the body was moved, so what. The question is why would the judicial system be so determined and so collaborative in framing Tabak. Answer; it has to be protecting itself. The system always protects itself from its own failings and prevents exposure of its previous failings. If the system knew of the presence of a single unidentified individual that had led to the wrongful conviction of multiple crowd pleasers, then it will do anything it can to prevent its failings becoming public. End of story. They celebrate their complicity and rejoice in convincing the gullible masses. Pity the choir boys.

Who are the "bottom feeders?"

Offline Stephanie

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2883 on: November 06, 2018, 12:46:08 PM »
But if Dr Vincent Tabak asked questions of the jury or pointed out fact , we wouldn't know...  It was never reported.

Are you familiar with Dutchman Romano van der Dussen Nine?

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sally-anne-bowman-killer-confesses-rape-which-innocent-man-served-11-years-jail-1506714

Sally Anne's mother, Linda Bowman, who is supporting Romano's appeal against his convictions, earlier expressed her dismay that if the Spanish authorities had investigated the case more thoroughly, her daughter might still be alive.

"I am absolutely appalled," she said. "An innocent man has spent 11 years of a 16 year sentence in prison for a crime he did not do. I feel very strongly that if the Spanish authorities had done their jobs properly, my Sally Anne would be alive. He did not assault those three women in Spain - Sally Anne's killer did. He is someone's son and he is locked up for something he didn't do


I have been doing all I can in my capacity..... I have no other way in which to highlight what I believe is wrong with this case...

Hence, here I am...

And have you thought about contacting prisonLAW?

https://www.prisonlaw.nl/prisonlaw-s-objectives

"PrisonLAW is an independent legal organization focused on assisting Dutch prisoners abroad
. PrisonLAW’s main objectives are providing legal information and fighting human rights violations. In short: PrisonLAW seeks a new chance for justice. The provision of aid and services to detainees can be accomplished by creating a constructive cooperation with several parties in The Netherlands and the host countries concerned. PrisonLAW aims at helping prisoners enforce their rights to aid and services. In this regard PrisonLAW holds the detainee to be the central figure. The detainee decides what kind of aid he or she needs and what services might be useful. PrisonLAW cannot take part in the judicial proceedings of a foreign country. This means that matters such as establishing a judicial decision, answering the question of guilt and determining the punishment rest with the local authorities. On a diplomatic level PrisonLAW will strive to secure the fair trials of Dutch prisoners in the host country in question.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 12:55:05 PM by Stephanie »

Offline Stephanie

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2884 on: November 06, 2018, 01:13:50 PM »
Are you familiar with Dutchman Romano van der Dussen Nine?

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/sally-anne-bowman-killer-confesses-rape-which-innocent-man-served-11-years-jail-1506714

"During his trial at the Old Bailey in 2008 he claimed he found Miss Bowman dead and had sex with her corpse after a drink and drugs binge.

Dixie’s confession to Romano Van der Dussen’s lawyer Rachel Imamkhan about the rape came when she visited him in prison while preparing an appeal case for Mr Van der Dussen.

https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/13337229.Sally_Anne_Bowman_s_murderer_confesses_to_brutal_rape_that_another_man_has_served_12_years_in_prison_for/

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2885 on: November 07, 2018, 08:47:25 AM »
From The Sally Ramage papers.....

Quote
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
‘definition’ before the words ‘sexual conduct’. The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.


Now the term 'Sexual Conduct' has always had me baffled, it appeared to be wrong... The lay person would know it as Misconduct....

But seeing as I have been looking at twitter... I decided to see if anyone had tweeted about "Sexual Conduct' I believe it is a term used within the Police etc... So of course my obvious choice for the tweet is MTW....


Quote
Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
 
@mwilliamsthomas

#childprotection -Headlands School has now had 5 members of staff face criminal proceedings in relation to inappropriate sexual conduct

8:16 AM - 2 Feb 2010

Now MTW was a Police Officer as we know..... And I have said many times before that I believed that the searches were made up.....

The only way that they are not made up is if Dr Vincent Tabak worked for the Police??? Or the tweets are those of a Police officer.... Any Police Officer...

I have covered before the fact that Lickley QC, has the jury change what is written in their notes/ 1300 page document........ A No No.... (imo)

Where did the information of the searches come from.... No Computer Forensic analysis was at trial... (Yes we have the Polices own computer expert).... no-one who was independent looked at Dr Vincent Tabak' computers or computers he may have had access too....

How would a Dutch National know to search the term 'Sexual Conduct' as a legal term??  he wouldn't (imo) so why was that amongst the searches of Dr Vincent Tabak??

NB: I only used MTW as an example, as you must appreciate, he is well known and a former Police Officer he was the first person I thought may use that term in his tweets and be a useful example....

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/8534922037

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


Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2886 on: November 07, 2018, 08:59:07 AM »
It wasn't only Sally Ramage whom reported about the term'Sexual Conduct'


There were tweets about the term that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently looked up:

Quote
Rupert Evelyn

 
@rupertevelyn
 19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched "definition sexual conduct" and then "definition of sexual assault". #yeates


Jon Kay

Verified account
 
@jonkay01
 21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak denies that looking up "sexual conduct" online shows he realised the attack had been sexual.



Jon Kay

Verified account
 
@jonkay01
 21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak admits looking up "murder and manslaughter" "sexual conduct and sexual assault" on Internet in days after killing Jo.



steven morris

 
@stevenmorris20
 21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak: "I was worried if my pass could be seen as sexual conduct" Denies he was being "calculating"


steven morris

 
@stevenmorris20
 21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak also asked why he looked up "definition sexual conduct"....



Jon Kay

Verified account
 
@jonkay01
 19 Oct 2011
More
Court hears Tabak later looked-up English language definitions of "sexual assault" and "sexual conduct".

Harriet Tolputt

 
@HarrietTolputt
 19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak typed in to Google "definition of sexual conduct" and "definition of sexual assault" #joannayeates



Emma Hallett

 
@EmmaLHallett
 19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak alleged to have Googled "definition of sexual conduct",  "definition of sexual assault" and "sexual offences explained".



Richard Payne

 
@richardpayneitv
 19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak looked up average sentences for murder and manslaughter and definitions of sexual conduct and sexual assault.



Heart Gloucs.

Verified account
 
@HeartGlos
 21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak asked why he looked up online definitions of sexual conduct and sexual assault after Jo died



Katie Stallard-Blanchette

 
@katiestallard
 19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak googled 'definition sexual conduct' and 'definition of sexual assault' #VincentTabak



Jane Onyanga-Omara

 
@janeomara
 19 Oct 2011
More
#Tabak searched online for definition of sexual conduct and definition of sexual assault, court hears



Emma Hallett

 
@EmmaLHallett
 21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak denies that looking up "sexual conduct" online shows he realised the attack had been sexual. #payeates



Heart West News

 
@HeartWestNews
 21 Oct 2011
More
Tabak asked why he looked up online definitions of sexual conduct and sexual assault after Jo died


Richard Payne

 
@richardpayneitv
 21 Oct 2011
More
On Jan 11 Tabak looked up murder and manslaughter on internet and definition of sexual conduct and sexual assault.



Heart Gloucs.

Verified account
 
@HeartGlos
 19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched definition of sexual conduct and definition of sexual assault


Heart West News

 
@HeartWestNews
 19 Oct 2011
More
Tabak searched definition of sexual conduct and definition of sexual assault


Again I will ask... why would Dr Vincent Tabak search that term???

https://twitter.com/search?q=tabak%20sexual%20conduct&src=typd

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2887 on: November 07, 2018, 09:33:16 AM »
Would have posted this here, but i thought it may get lost , and I may need to refer to it again...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9448.msg500727#msg500727

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2888 on: November 07, 2018, 04:36:46 PM »
I've often wondered why MTW was interested in the Case in the beginning, he was there for the early reporting from outside Canygne Road..

Now it's a Missing persons enquiry when he first appears outside the house....

But I started to wonder if he felt there was some connection to that house and the child abuse, that appears to have plagued that address.....

I have also noticed he has some connection to Holland, and was wondering if he ever worked in conjunction with the Dutch Authorities....

Then I looked on twitter, to see what he and the Dutch connection might be....

Quote
Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
 
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Watch the press conference here that gives further details about the Dutch Nursery child abuse case- http://bit.ly/huMaav

12:58 PM - 13 Dec 2010

.......................

Quote
Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
 
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
The  Dutch nursery empl worked at a number of different nurseries &  also did babysitting - Could be many more that 50child victims

8:40 AM - 13 Dec 2010


But maybe the defence could have used MTW expertise, he seems to have stumbled upon the Dutch's attitude to Porn..

Quote
Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
 
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
Dutch research -13yrs to 18yrs (471) more teenagers viewed adult porn likely 2 have 'recreational' attitude to sex, c it as purely function

4:38 PM - 23 Mar 2011

Recreational..... normal.... What we have to remember is the series of porn in which Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have been interested... A series called Sex and submission, which is paid per view on any TV... for adults to view.. So knowing it was a part of the Dutch way of life, does the viewing of the porn now seems as incriminating as it was made out to be.... None of the porn was brought to trial... And maybe the reason really being, was that it was part of growing up in Holland, it was normal and what he apparently viewed was legal porn to boot....

MTW then appears to have a problem with his Blackberry..... And it translated all of his text into Dutch

Quote
Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
 
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
For some reason my input language on my Blackberry changed to Dutch!!! No idea how

8:13 PM - 26 Jun 2012

Wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to have owned a Blackberry???

Now that has just given me an idea.... Is that how they translated all of Dr Vincent Tabak's text messages and emails on his phone..... They just changed the language settings????

We haven't had any verification on how anything Dr Vincent Tabak searched for or sent was translated and by whom... It has always been one of my bug bares.... How did they translate everything that Dr Vincent Tabak wrote, seeing as he was a Dutch National... And I was informed that we Dutchies google in Dutch!!

So back to my original question.... Is it feasible that MTW's interest in the case stemmed from what that Flat had been before.... Everyone knew it had been previously owned by a man that had been convicted of child abuse images etc... Was he checking everyone out in that building... Did the fact a Dutchman lived there also spark his interest??

I don't know.... But thankfully MTW likes to share his tweets, and without them the defence may never have been informed of what a blackberry can do of its own accord, and how it can be used in changing which language one wishes to view anything in..... and how it is quite acceptable for the Dutch to view porn at an early age, and how it is seen by the Dutch as purely functional.... 







https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/14303110788812800

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/217697105068830721

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/50597364288847873

https://twitter.com/search?q=%40mwilliamsthomas%20dutch&src=typd

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2889 on: November 08, 2018, 11:14:12 AM »
Criminologist questions why Chris Jefferies is still a suspect in Jo Yeates murder case
By - January 26, 2011

Quote
A leading criminologist has questioned why the landlord of Jo Yeates stills remains a suspect in her murder.

Criminologist questions why is Chris Jefferies is still Jo Yeates murder suspect

Eccentric Chris Jefferies, 66, was arrested on suspicion of murdering the 25-year-old on December 30 at the Canynge Road, Clifton, Bristol, where the two both lived.

Police obtained two extensions to keep Mr Jefferies detained for the maximum time limit but released him early on police bail, without charge, on January 1.

Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak, 32, was then arrested and charged with Jo’s murder.

But despite Tabak’s charge, Mr Jefferies has not had his police bail cancelled and is therefore still a suspect, police confirmed today.

David Wilson, professor of criminology and criminal justice at Birmingham City University, said it would be normal practice to release other suspects from bail following a charge.

Professor Wilson, who has researched many murderers including serial killer Fred West, Soham murderer Ian Huntley, and Suffolk strangler Steven Wright, said: ”I’ve not heard that the landlord Chris Jefferies has had his bail cancelled, which could be seen as significant.

”Now that they’ve charged Vincent Tabak it would make sense for police to cancel Mr Jefferies’ bail – that would be normal procedure.

”I’d expect the police to act quickly to end any misunderstanding in relation to Mr Jefferies not being released from bail.”

After Tabak was charged on Saturday evening Inspector David Horwood, from Avon and Somerset police, said: ”We’re now considering the impact of the charge on other aspects of the investigation.”

A force spokesman confirmed Mr Jefferies was still on bail but refused to comment further.

Criminologists everywhere....

What is it about this case that they all come out of the wood work??

After Tabak was charged on Saturday evening Inspector David Horwood, from Avon and Somerset police, said: ”We’re now considering the impact of the charge on other aspects of the investigation.”

So what other aspects of the Investigation?? What were they really looking at?? What was "Operation Braid"???

This case cannot be as clear cut as everyone wants us to believe.... I don't see it myself....


Joanna Yeates murder: how the inquiry will develop
12:24PM GMT 29 Dec 2010

Quote
Miss Yeates's body was found on Christmas Day three miles from her home in Bristol after being missing for eight days. Detectives investigating the murder of the 25 year-old will be looking at forensic evidence, CCTV footage and continuing to talk to witnesses in their hunt for the killer.

Mr Williams-Thomas, a criminologist, said: "The key for the police now is the two locations - where she lived and where the body was found. They will have found as much information as they can from places such as the shops she visited and the pub that she drank at through CCTV and talking to people.

"The focus forensically is these two places. At the location the body was found they will be looking for transfer of fibres or DNA in her clothes. They would look to see if there are car or footprint marks. These may have been clearer in the snow.

"Toxicology reports on the body will show whether any drugs or alcohol were used to subdue her and they will be looking for signs of struggle on her body. That will show how she was strangled. Obviously they will be searching for anybody who was in the area at the time."

Miss Yeates's body was found frozen through - a fact which will help forensic experts because it slows down the rate of decay.Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The body will be in pretty much the condition that it was in when it was dumped."

Turning to Miss Yeates's flat in the Clifton area of Bristol police are expected to focus on how she got home on December 17 and the circumstances under which she left.

Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The key to the flat is that she either went back home or someone went back to the flat with her property. It is more likely that she went back home."

The front door of the property will prove the focus for most of the forensic investigation.

Mr Williams-Thomas said: "Every contact leaves a trace so they will be looking for that in the front door. The only way in and out of the property is through that so if the killer opened it, banged it, forced it - there will be traces that can be lifted."

The front door is being removed today to be taken to a forensic laboratory for intensive light testing.

Information released revealed that the landlord saw Miss Yeates leaving the flat on Friday night with two other people.

Mr Williams-Thomas said: "I would be very confident saying that whoever killed her she knew. There's no sense that she was pulled off the street by a stranger."

He added: "To dump the body so close suggests someone who either lives in the area or knows the locality well. It suggests that the killer might have been panicked."

There are two obvious routes from Miss Yeates's flat to the spot in Failand where she was found - over Clifton Suspension Bridge or over another bridge further down.
Both bridges have CCTV footage - however, if Miss Yeates's body was taken by car it will take police teams days of scouring footage and sending car indexes to the DVLA to eliminate vehicles.

There will also be an investigation into online contact that Miss Yeates may have had on Facebook or Twitter or by email.

Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The police will now have to build up a picture of her life over the last two or three years. Very few offences are stranger offences. If they can find that link back they may then find the offender."

Everyones an expert..... everyone knows more than the Police.... none of them are on the investigation as far as i know.... yet they are vying for attention in the media.... Personally i find it weird, but that is me....

Faces on the TV... faces we recognise and are supposed to trust their opinion.... Well their opinion is no different from mine to be honest... What makes them more knowledgable?? Their statements are incorrect, my statements may be incorrect... What facts of the case do they know??

I do not know if David Wilson did a piece to camera at the time.... I know he participated in a documentary were he contradicts his original theory.... And of course we have MWT outside Canygne Road and on Longwood Lane....

Take this comment from David Wilson..... and of course the printing of this comment by this newspaper.....

David Wilson, professor of criminology and criminal justice at Birmingham City University, said it would be normal practice to release other suspects from bail following a charge.

If CJ thought that the 3 days of vilification did damage to his reputation, he should have read more of the articles that followed.. (imo)

David Wilson, is known... he's on TV.... he will have a following, and people will believe what he says is of importance...  By making the comment he made on the 26th January 2011 after the charging of Dr Vincent Tabak and after he appeared at court... David Wilson is bringing into question, why they still have CJ on bail.... which anyone whom followed the case would see as significant... They would put two and two together and believe that CJ must have some involvement....

Yet CJ doesn't flinch at this obvious article.... He's more bothered about the photo's of him in the paper and whether or not he went into peoples flats unannounced....

He should have been concerned as to what this article is intermating... "Normal Practice"?? Suggesting that it was extremely unusual to keep someone on bail following the charge of another, suggesting that there may be more to this landlord than meets the eye, and his arrest was warranted, further investigation into him is needed.....

So why didn't this article bother CJ??


Next The article with MWT.....

Miss Yeates's body was found frozen through - a fact which will help forensic experts because it slows down the rate of decay.Mr Williams-Thomas said: "The body will be in pretty much the condition that it was in when it was dumped."

Such a generalisation..... It's not exactly rocket science..... 

Now re-reading that statement, in the light of the trial, it looks like he was accurate....

But, on the 29th December 2010 no-one knew how long Joanna Yeates had been on Longwood Lane for .... No-one knew whether or not she had been abducted....

She could have easily been kept at someones home,  and started to decay, then be dumped... anything could have happened....

So a general statement will be accurate, if the second scene of crime is actually the second scene of crime..... No-one knows how long Joanna Yeates has been on Longwood lane at that point in time.... So which dumped does he mean...  She may have been dumped in a barn covered in hay and nature started to take its course... Then moved and dumped somewhere else..... Then moved again....

By generalising about the apparent condition of Joanna Yeates body without supporting evidence, because people know who you are, they will believe your opinion... But the facts are not known at this point....

Joanna Yeates may have been kept in someones freezer..... That may be the reason that she was frozen to the core... we don't know... Because no-one knows when she was placed on Longwood Lane.....

So is it rocket science?? I'd say not....

Mr Williams-Thomas said: "Every contact leaves a trace so they will be looking for that in the front door. The only way in and out of the property is through that so if the killer opened it, banged it, forced it - there will be traces that can be lifted."

The front door is being removed today to be taken to a forensic laboratory for intensive light testing.


Now how did MWT know that the front door was being removed on that day??  which front door did he believe was going to be removed??

Has MWT got contacts within Avon and Somerset Police, telling him information?? Or did he just get info like other journalists??

The door that he has set so much stall in, that didn't even come as evidence at trial.... 

Did the fact that many criminologists were part of this investigation through the media, sway the public's opinion??

Do they sway opinion when they appear on our TV's.... Makes great telly for some.... But I believe that what happens is they reinforce the public's idea about an individual.... Based purely on their reputation.... And not based in fact....

I could have a room full of people and give them some true facts about a case, but if a well known criminologist, were to speak to the same set of people in that room and give them an opposing view based on no facts.... I bet the room would ignore what ever I had to say.... And be swayed by the well known criminologists persuasive argument...

My point being.... every known trick in the book was used to influence the public about Dr Vincent Tabak... Experts whom do not have access to investigative material and suspects of the time, making statements in the media... And these same experts making their way onto programs about this case....

Experts who we find out later have changed their opinion on what they were happy to tell us in the beginning....

They never disagree with each other.... that has become clear... we never see 2 criminologists on a program having opposing views about a case.... Now that would make for some good TV....

Every expert in their field will have opposing views.... This is why when we come to trial, both the prosecution and The defence have their own experts, experts that cast doubt on what the prosecution may be claiming.....

When it comes to trial by media, we do not get the opposing views.... we do not get experts telling us different reasons for their conclusions on the same program... We can all make generalisations... We can all put two and two together, but do we have the correct answer....

If most of the evidence in this case didn't make it to trial, then how can it be a fair trial.... If Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to something he didn't do... how would we know??

If the truth about this case ever surfaces, where will it leave these experts??

With egg on their faces??

The experts are only working with information that hey have been given, and not the full facts... there opinion is formed on very little....

The fact that David Wilson is part of a program where the facts of the case are virtually ALL incorrect, makes me wonder why he hasn't spoken up about it...

The Countdown to Murder program, where events didn't actually happen that way.... where Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around to Joanna Yeates house with Bernard the cat, where Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie in wait for Joanna Yeates to arrive home.... were we see Joanna Yeates wearing a Pink Flowered top all day on the 17th December 2010, when the CCTV footage from the Ram clearly shows her in a plain top.....

Why would he not come forward and say something??  The facts of the case are what was stated at trial by the defendant.... whether or not you believe what the defendant stated was true or not.... The prosecution may have suggested ideas, but Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted on what he stated on the stand, and that didn't include what was suggested by the prosecution... He was convicted by his tall story......

The story on a Countdown to Murder, is inaccurate, going from what was stated at trial..... why would they produce such a program?? Why didn't they stick to what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand?? There was no evidence at trial of a fight in the hallway, as depicted in this program.... No finger prints, no blood, no nothing coming from this hallway in terms of evidence..... Yet the program happily tells us this was the version of events....

Did people not believe anyone would actually notice that the program was factually incorrect in accordance with what had been stated at trial... ?? was no-one concerned that someone would pick up on this fact??

All these programs appear to do is reinforce in the publics mind that the person who has been imprisoned for the crime , did in fact do the crime.... But why would you need to reinforce the public's opinion?? why would you need to tell them an untrue story??

The only use of these programs I have found... Is that the people who give interviews are shown up for the statements they made previous... Like the Yeates adding a detail we knew nothing about... "The Washing Pile"...

Do we need celebrity criminologist to tell us what the facts are??  Do we really need them to share their opinions?? Wouldn't it be more prudent if we actually had statements from those involved, rather than those who surmise...

Opinion is just that .... opinion.... we all have one.... But again I will reiterate, Should we have celebrity criminologists?? Should there be a warning placed on such programs?  Should the public be informed that what is stated is based on opinion and not all on fact... (imo)

If the public stops getting spoon feed these ideas, they may at some point think for themselves... They may question what may have taken place, and not have a biased opinion made for them by someone they trust whom they know nothing about....

15 minutes of fame... Andy Warhol I believe stated that... In the future everyone will get their 15 minutes of fame...

Well 15 minutes of fame could be a lifetime of devastation for some, those 15 minutes of fame, could be the difference between truth and fiction....

As a society we love media... we are influenced by media.... we may not all take notice, but it is ingrained in many of us....

But this case shouldn't be about media... The media shouldn't have told us all of the apparent facts of the case before trial.... The media shouldn't be parked outside a house 24/7 for a Missing persons inquiry....

The media, should not be influencing what we believe to be true, when in fact certain pieces of information were never produced as evidence...

It all appears to be about entertainment... when I wish it were based on fact... were I do not know whom to believe anymore...

Trial by media is not helpful... and this case certainly was that.... And a case that was and is still in the public eye so many years on.... But where the media appear to have failed in furnishing us with the truth.... Where the media know more than they are telling us... (never mind the police)

The media were outside Flat 2... They were on Longwood Lane when The Yeates placed flowers and crossed Crime scene tape, before they had officially identified their daughter.... Yet the very same media, didn't bring these oddities and wrong procedures to our attention... They never pointed out how odd this was and unusual this was.... even how it wasn't procedural... They ignore it.... They know ... they know what is right procedure and what is wrong procedure, but do not point out to the public, what is going on....

Maybe at the time they thought keeping quite was helpful for the Investigation..... But what about since the trial??

The media should be informative... And they should raise questions and doubts based on what they knew at the time and whether there opinion has changed... Even if it brings into question a trial.....

But that isn't ever going to happen.... Just like the criminologists we have got used to seeing on TV... They too are not going to put up their hands and state that they may have been wrong....

Until the public themselves wake up and question what happens at trial or in the media, then we are left with a biased view based on nothing but opinion... And the likes of Dr Vincent Tabak will spend time in prison for a crime that could not have been committed in the way he has stated.....

A crime where nothing at trial supported what he said.... But a public happy that someone payed the price.... It could have been anyone.... It didn't matter.... The book on the case was then closed...



https://stories.swns.com/news/criminologist-questions-why-chris-jefferies-is-still-a-suspect-in-jo-yeates-murder-case-14343/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8229691/Joanna-Yeates-murder-how-the-inquiry-will-develop.html

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Total likes: 399
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2890 on: November 08, 2018, 06:57:59 PM »
And, we were never told whether or not any forensic evidence was actually found on that front door.

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2891 on: November 09, 2018, 04:04:27 PM »
I presumed that the prosecution where aware of what the defence would say at trial...  by this statement in the media.....

Quote
The defence's version of events was read to the jury by 'Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting', as he questioned a pathologist about the wounds suffered by Miss Yeates.

The statement said: "The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back, at the middle of her back. She screamed. He put his other hand over her mouth and noise of the screaming ceased. He removed his hand from her mouth and the screaming continued. He then put his hand around her throat, which had been the hand around her back.

"He held it there for around 20 seconds. He applied no more than moderate force, on a scale of one to three of light, moderate and severe.

"He didn't intend serious injury. The action killed Miss Yeates. He accepts it was unlawful."

Home office pathologist Dr Russell Delaney said that, owing to injuries she sustained to her neck, it was his opinion Miss Yeates' killer used two hands to strangle her, although he could not rule out the use of one hand.

The pathologist told the jury he would have expected Miss Yeates to struggle, but it was not "scientifically possible" to determine the length of time that the fatal sequence of events occurred.

Referring to evidence of there being a scream, pause, scream and then noise he told the court: "I can't determine at what point in that sequence of events that the neck compression was occurring."

The case has always appeared wrong to me, having no legal knowledge ,it has been difficult to try to put together arguments of law.....

So... we have in May 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak apparently pleading guilty to Manslaughter....

We have in September 2011 an enhanced statement which Dr Vincent Tabak apparently signed....

Doesn't that constitute a person admitting guilt???

Quote
I HAVE TOLD MY LAWYER I AM GUILTY. CAN I STILL HAVE A TRIAL?

Criminal lawyers (Barristers and Solicitors) are under a duty not to knowingly or recklessly mislead the court. If a defendant informs his lawyer that he is guilty, it will be very difficult for the lawyer to represent the client at a trial without misleading the court. As soon as the lawyer suggested to the court that his client was not guilty, this would be a misleading statement. Similarly, if the lawyer had been told by his client that he was guilty, calling the client to give evidence of his innocence to the charge would mean that he was knowingly involved in misleading the court. 

The only way a lawyer could represent a defendant in this situation would by by not calling the defendant (or any witness that positively suggested the defendant was not guilty) and simply running the trial by testing the evidence, being careful not to suggest at any stage that the defendant was not guilty.

This means the lawyer could test in cross-examination the reliability of a witness's evidence (for example dealing with poor lighting conditions, a fleeting glance or other obstructions in a visual identification case) and could go on to suggest to the court that the prosecution had failed to establish that the witness's identification was reliable. However, to go further and advance a positive case would be to cross the line and mislead the court. Clearly to run a trial in such circumstances is an extremely difficult task and if a defendant who had told his lawyer he was guilty were to insist, for example, that he wanted to give evidence, call witnesses, or ensure that his lawyer clearly suggested that he was not guilty (all matters which take place in a usual criminal trial) the lawyer would have no option but to withdraw from the case. Due to the lawyer's duty of confidentiality to his or her client, the reason for withdrawing could not be revealed to the judge.


The only way a lawyer could represent a defendant in this situation would by by not calling the defendant (or any witness that positively suggested the defendant was not guilty) and simply running the trial by testing the evidence, being careful not to suggest at any stage that the defendant was not guilty.


The fact that we are well aware 5 months before trial that Dr Vincent Tabak has pled guilty to Manslaughter, means that the DEFENCE is aware of said guilt!

Therefore how did Clegg defend him still??

When did Clegg become his representative??

The only way a lawyer could represent a defendant in this situation would by by not calling the defendant (or any witness that positively suggested the defendant was not guilty) and simply running the trial by testing the evidence, being careful not to suggest at any stage that the defendant was not guilty.

So why call Dr Vincent Tabak to the stand??? 

This case is bizzare... Everything is the opposite way around... nothing makes sense....  why would you call the defendant?? 

So without Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand , the evidence that was presented was 'ZERO" zero evidence to test....

Clegg did cover himself slightly there, by his statements he made to the jury...

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

No witness's were called to give any positive information about the defendant.... No Good Character witness's, no witness's to corroborate what Dr Vincent Tabak did that weekend or his girlfriend Tanja Morson attending trial, the most obvious person whom could testify to Dr Vincent Tabaks mood, behaviour, or anything about him...

if a defendant who had told his lawyer he was guilty were to insist, for example, that he wanted to give evidence, call witnesses, or ensure that his lawyer clearly suggested that he was not guilty (all matters which take place in a usual criminal trial) the lawyer would have no option but to withdraw from the case.

Well his Lawyers must have known of the guilty plea.... everyone else did....

Why didn't Clegg etc... withdraw from the case??

In my mind, it's like everyone has gone out of their way to deliberately show this trial up as being completely unfair and not legal... They have gone above and beyond, to show that they will bend the rules and run a trial based on the opposite of what the law dictates.....

Why??

I have covered nearly everything, on this case... well everything I can think of at this moment in time.... 

I will come back to this..... But it is plain..... wrong .... wrong ...... wrong!!!!! (imo)(of course)

https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/#What-is-a-Newton-Hearing?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg498453#msg498453

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2892 on: November 09, 2018, 06:26:37 PM »
William Clegg's book "Under The Wig".......


Quote
Catherine Baksi

 
@legalhackette

NEW ON LEGAL HACKETTE'S BRIEF: William Clegg QC discusses the ‘crisis’ in criminal justice, ‘squalid’ courts, ditching wigs, mental ill-health among barristers, and his book, Under the Wig, ghost-written by one of his former clients. https://legalhackette.com/2018/10/05/legal-hackette-lunches-with-william-clegg-qc/

Now who was the ghost writer??? Anyone know???  Former Client???



https://twitter.com/legalhackette/status/1048114382763413504

Offline Nine

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2893 on: November 10, 2018, 07:32:28 AM »
WHAT IS A BASIS OF PLEA?

Quote
Imagine you are guilty of an offence and have decided to plead guilty, but the case put forward by the prosecution is more serious than what you accept actually happened.

In these circumstances, you can still plead guilty but can do so on a proposed basis (a basis of plea) which the judge and the prosecution can either accept or reject.

The purpose of the basis of plea is to remove various aggravating features of the case which would lead to a higher sentence.

If the basis of plea is accepted by the prosecution and by the judge, the sentence will proceed on the version put forward by the defence.  If the basis of plea is rejected by the prosecution and the judge thinks that the version of events it puts forward is sufficiently more serious than the version put forward by the defence (so as to justify a higher sentence), then there will be a mini-trial (without a jury in the Crown Court) for the judge to decide on the facts of the case.

This type of mini-trial is called a Newton Hearing.  In reaching a decision on the facts at a Newton Hearing the judge will have to be satisfied so that he/she is sure that the prosecution version is correct.  If sure, the judge will then sentence on the prosecution version, but if less than sure the judge will sentence on the defendant’s version.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the judge is entitled to reject a basis of plea which he/she considers to be absurd.  If the judge takes the view that the basis put forward by the defence is patently absurd then sentence will take place on the prosecution version of events without a Newton Hearing taking place.  The judge is the final arbiter on whether or not a basis of plea is accepted and is entitled to reject a basis even if accepted by the prosecution, although this would be quite rare.

Imagine you are guilty of an offence and have decided to plead guilty, but the case put forward by the prosecution is more serious than what you accept actually happened.

In these circumstances, you can still plead guilty but can do so on a proposed basis (a basis of plea) which the judge and the prosecution can either accept or reject.


I read articles, trying to understand, how everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled Guilty to Manslaughter on the 5th May 2011 and how the public were informed of this on that day... How the public were also informed that The Prosecution were not accepting the plea to Manslaughter and how a trial would take place....

I feel I must be thick as two short planks... I cannot get my head around why the public, knew from the 5th May 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter.... Not only that ,but ... the public, were told on a daily basis throughout trial that Dr Vincent Tabak had plead guilty to Manslaughter....

But if my understanding of this article is correct, then shouldn't Dr Vincent Tabak have just been faced with the judge and a mini trial without a jury... (A newton hearing)

If the basis of plea is accepted by the prosecution and by the judge, the sentence will proceed on the version put forward by the defence.  If the basis of plea is rejected by the prosecution and the judge thinks that the version of events it puts forward is sufficiently more serious than the version put forward by the defence (so as to justify a higher sentence), then there will be a mini-trial (without a jury in the Crown Court) for the judge to decide on the facts of the case.

The fact is the plea was put forward, and was rejected by the prosecution..... We were all told...  So why did we have a full trial with jury in tow??

Shouldn't it have been a Newton hearing??? Should a Newton hearing have taken place???

Do we take from that that the Defence didn't put forward their version of events at this hearing ,and the prosecution rejected the plea on that basis??

But if so, why the trial..... why didn't a Newton Hearing take place??

There is no evidence presented at trial, by the prosecution, to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Longwood Lane on Friday 17th December 2010... They only have Dr Vincent Tabak's word on the stand that he was there on that day... Yet Dr Vincent Tabak lies, according to the trial... so why believe what he states on the stand as true....

There is no evidence presented at trial that Joanna Yeates was killed in her Flat, apart from Dr Vincent Tabak telling us on the stand that she was at home, when this occurred....

There is no DNA evidence presented by The Prosecution of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat..

There is no DNA evidence presented by the prosecution, of Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat..

So the prosecutions evidence , must suggest that the offence was more serious than the defences argument... But as far as i can tell, the prosecution had no evidence to suggest that.... No witness's to state that it was premeditated, or that Dr Vincent Tabak had been stalking Joanna Yeates for instance....

We have a man, whom has been home a matter of days, that according to trial, did not know his neighbour, had been away for the majority of the time his neighbour had moved in next door, and on the first night, she is alone, without any reason for him to know she was alone, he goes around to his neighbours house and kills her....

He has been invited in according to his tale on the stand, they converse, she then tells a complete stranger, she doesn't know, that she is alone.... She was already worried about being alone, but apparently that seem to have not been of a concern, when she saw a man she had never meet....

It doesn't make sense....

Shouldn't the prosecution be able to prove how Dr Vincent Tabak gained access??

We get the depiction in a program, of Dr Vincent Tabak forcing his way into the flat with Bernard in his arms... This was a theory i believe of how he gained entrance.... surely there should have been evidence in the hallway of the fight that ensued, blood...DNA.. finger prints.... Finger prints on Joanna Yeates front door?? The door that was removed for evidence, should have been at trial, showing us that Dr Vincent Tabak had not only entered the flat but closed the door behind himself...

I would understand this better, if when it came to trial, The prosecution, brought forth evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat.... And Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... The Prosecution were happy to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak had Joanna Yeates in his flat for an hour, before he went to ASDA... So shouldn't there be evidence of this....

Shouldn't there be evidence of body fluids in either of the flats??

Going back for one moment.... DC Karen Thomas states that it was Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics that had her being suspicious of Dr Vincent Tabak.... We heard he was concerned when the door of Joanna Yeates had been removed.....

This suggesting he is forensically aware....

This suggests that Dr Vincent Tabak must have touched the door...... And he was aware that he did......

So, if he is a man that knows about forensics, then why would he carry a body around to his own home for an hour before moving a body to his car??  Why not put her directly into the boot of your car?

He is apparently forensically minded that he bins the bicycle cover, and ditches the sock... Covering his tracks all the way.... It's his first Murder... he is an amateur, he has no record, nothing.... So he's either cunning and forensically minded, or he has never done anything like this before.... So why bring a body into your own home??

Why would decomposition, be an issue?? why would looking that up be a problem, when a body is outside in freezing temperatures??

If Dr Vincent Tabak is a dangerous man that is a serial killer as was suggested in the beginning, that who ever murdered Joanna Yeates was this type of person, why didn't they wait to gather evidence to prove that.... The evidence brought to trial by the prosecution is flimsy at best.... If it hadn't been for the fact that we get the guilty plea, in May 2011, then the prosecution had no case....

But going from what the article states, then should there have been a trial by jury anyway??

There is no CCTV putting Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere when this crime was to have taken place, apart from a trip to ASDA... Shopping isn't a crime... But suggesting he went shopping with her in the boot of the car sounds dramatic.... Where's the CCTV of him arriving in the carpark?? Travelling to ASDA in Bedminster?? Travelling on any road... The Park Street footage is useless... It doesn't clarify , who is in a car and what car and registration that car is.... It could be anyones car.... And the CCTV footage of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders has made us aware of , with cars and people milling around, doesn't make it to trial.... The CCTV footage that should clearly indicate that Joanna yeates arrived back at Canygne Road, after she had left The Ram pub...

The CCTV footage that should show Zoe and Florian Lehman, walking to the party and what time they arrived... The CCTv footage that should show Dr Vincent Tabak arriving and leaving Canygne Road in his car at any given time... The CCTV footage that should show who left or arrived at the small gate, that CJ has made us aware of...

The most important piece of footage that could and should clarify many questions, missing from a trial of a man ,whom has admitted to killing Joanna Yeates...

If the Prosecution cannot prove that Joanna Yeates was killed at home as was told on the stand, why accept that was the story from the defendant?? They accepted that after he killed her he went and took her to his home and sat there for an hour.... Well..... If he lives next door, show us the footage of him arriving or leaving his home....  At least that would prove something....

Or at least shows us the Canygne Road footage of Joanna Yeates arriving home...... But i do not believe that they can... If Colin Ports statement at The Leveson has anything to go by.... He states that the last sighting of Joanna Yeates is at The Hop House Pub......

Now that is either on her way home before 9:00pm... or it is after that time.... Suggesting that she went home and left again.... So which is it??

The only way to settles it would be to see the CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders speaks of.... But for some reason that appears to be a problem, for some reason that was not brought to trial as evidence.... for some reason the jury were not shown this evidence....

I don't understand why.....

Am I just babbling.... Have I got this all wrong..... It makes no sense...

Everything about what should happen in law, doesn't appear to follow...(imo) Thats what I can see anyway... I am confused why no-one else points this out...




https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2894 on: November 10, 2018, 11:27:35 AM »
WHAT IS A BASIS OF PLEA?

Imagine you are guilty of an offence and have decided to plead guilty, but the case put forward by the prosecution is more serious than what you accept actually happened.

In these circumstances, you can still plead guilty but can do so on a proposed basis (a basis of plea) which the judge and the prosecution can either accept or reject.


I read articles, trying to understand, how everyone already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled Guilty to Manslaughter on the 5th May 2011 and how the public were informed of this on that day... How the public were also informed that The Prosecution were not accepting the plea to Manslaughter and how a trial would take place....

I feel I must be thick as two short planks... I cannot get my head around why the public, knew from the 5th May 2011 that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter.... Not only that ,but ... the public, were told on a daily basis throughout trial that Dr Vincent Tabak had plead guilty to Manslaughter....

But if my understanding of this article is correct, then shouldn't Dr Vincent Tabak have just been faced with the judge and a mini trial without a jury... (A newton hearing)

If the basis of plea is accepted by the prosecution and by the judge, the sentence will proceed on the version put forward by the defence.  If the basis of plea is rejected by the prosecution and the judge thinks that the version of events it puts forward is sufficiently more serious than the version put forward by the defence (so as to justify a higher sentence), then there will be a mini-trial (without a jury in the Crown Court) for the judge to decide on the facts of the case.

The fact is the plea was put forward, and was rejected by the prosecution..... We were all told...  So why did we have a full trial with jury in tow??

Shouldn't it have been a Newton hearing??? Should a Newton hearing have taken place???

Do we take from that that the Defence didn't put forward their version of events at this hearing ,and the prosecution rejected the plea on that basis??

But if so, why the trial..... why didn't a Newton Hearing take place??

There is no evidence presented at trial, by the prosecution, to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Longwood Lane on Friday 17th December 2010... They only have Dr Vincent Tabak's word on the stand that he was there on that day... Yet Dr Vincent Tabak lies, according to the trial... so why believe what he states on the stand as true....

There is no evidence presented at trial that Joanna Yeates was killed in her Flat, apart from Dr Vincent Tabak telling us on the stand that she was at home, when this occurred....

There is no DNA evidence presented by The Prosecution of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat..

There is no DNA evidence presented by the prosecution, of Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat..

So the prosecutions evidence , must suggest that the offence was more serious than the defences argument... But as far as i can tell, the prosecution had no evidence to suggest that.... No witness's to state that it was premeditated, or that Dr Vincent Tabak had been stalking Joanna Yeates for instance....

We have a man, whom has been home a matter of days, that according to trial, did not know his neighbour, had been away for the majority of the time his neighbour had moved in next door, and on the first night, she is alone, without any reason for him to know she was alone, he goes around to his neighbours house and kills her....

He has been invited in according to his tale on the stand, they converse, she then tells a complete stranger, she doesn't know, that she is alone.... She was already worried about being alone, but apparently that seem to have not been of a concern, when she saw a man she had never meet....

It doesn't make sense....

Shouldn't the prosecution be able to prove how Dr Vincent Tabak gained access??

We get the depiction in a program, of Dr Vincent Tabak forcing his way into the flat with Bernard in his arms... This was a theory i believe of how he gained entrance.... surely there should have been evidence in the hallway of the fight that ensued, blood...DNA.. finger prints.... Finger prints on Joanna Yeates front door?? The door that was removed for evidence, should have been at trial, showing us that Dr Vincent Tabak had not only entered the flat but closed the door behind himself...

I would understand this better, if when it came to trial, The prosecution, brought forth evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat.... And Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat... The Prosecution were happy to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak had Joanna Yeates in his flat for an hour, before he went to ASDA... So shouldn't there be evidence of this....

Shouldn't there be evidence of body fluids in either of the flats??

Going back for one moment.... DC Karen Thomas states that it was Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics that had her being suspicious of Dr Vincent Tabak.... We heard he was concerned when the door of Joanna Yeates had been removed.....

This suggesting he is forensically aware....

This suggests that Dr Vincent Tabak must have touched the door...... And he was aware that he did......

So, if he is a man that knows about forensics, then why would he carry a body around to his own home for an hour before moving a body to his car??  Why not put her directly into the boot of your car?

He is apparently forensically minded that he bins the bicycle cover, and ditches the sock... Covering his tracks all the way.... It's his first Murder... he is an amateur, he has no record, nothing.... So he's either cunning and forensically minded, or he has never done anything like this before.... So why bring a body into your own home??

Why would decomposition, be an issue?? why would looking that up be a problem, when a body is outside in freezing temperatures??

If Dr Vincent Tabak is a dangerous man that is a serial killer as was suggested in the beginning, that who ever murdered Joanna Yeates was this type of person, why didn't they wait to gather evidence to prove that.... The evidence brought to trial by the prosecution is flimsy at best.... If it hadn't been for the fact that we get the guilty plea, in May 2011, then the prosecution had no case....

But going from what the article states, then should there have been a trial by jury anyway??

There is no CCTV putting Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere when this crime was to have taken place, apart from a trip to ASDA... Shopping isn't a crime... But suggesting he went shopping with her in the boot of the car sounds dramatic.... Where's the CCTV of him arriving in the carpark?? Travelling to ASDA in Bedminster?? Travelling on any road... The Park Street footage is useless... It doesn't clarify , who is in a car and what car and registration that car is.... It could be anyones car.... And the CCTV footage of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders has made us aware of , with cars and people milling around, doesn't make it to trial.... The CCTV footage that should clearly indicate that Joanna yeates arrived back at Canygne Road, after she had left The Ram pub...

The CCTV footage that should show Zoe and Florian Lehman, walking to the party and what time they arrived... The CCTv footage that should show Dr Vincent Tabak arriving and leaving Canygne Road in his car at any given time... The CCTV footage that should show who left or arrived at the small gate, that CJ has made us aware of...

The most important piece of footage that could and should clarify many questions, missing from a trial of a man ,whom has admitted to killing Joanna Yeates...

If the Prosecution cannot prove that Joanna Yeates was killed at home as was told on the stand, why accept that was the story from the defendant?? They accepted that after he killed her he went and took her to his home and sat there for an hour.... Well..... If he lives next door, show us the footage of him arriving or leaving his home....  At least that would prove something....

Or at least shows us the Canygne Road footage of Joanna Yeates arriving home...... But i do not believe that they can... If Colin Ports statement at The Leveson has anything to go by.... He states that the last sighting of Joanna Yeates is at The Hop House Pub......

Now that is either on her way home before 9:00pm... or it is after that time.... Suggesting that she went home and left again.... So which is it??

The only way to settles it would be to see the CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders speaks of.... But for some reason that appears to be a problem, for some reason that was not brought to trial as evidence.... for some reason the jury were not shown this evidence....

I don't understand why.....

Am I just babbling.... Have I got this all wrong..... It makes no sense...

Everything about what should happen in law, doesn't appear to follow...(imo) Thats what I can see anyway... I am confused why no-one else points this out...




https://www.defence-barrister.co.uk/is-it-ever-worth-pleading-guilty/

Yes Nine, you do have it wrong because you're not separating the two very DIFFERENT charges. Tabak admitted to 'manslaughter' and NOT 'murder'. The above means (for instance) that in such instances were there might be a burglary and it is suspected by the prosecution that there were aggravated circumstances; the defendant agrees to plead guilty to the burglary but won't admit to threatening the victim. The case of 'aggravated burglary' in this instance is more serious so may warrant the mini trial. The aggravated behavior is part of the burglary offense whereas murder is NOT part of manslaughter - they different entities for obvious reasons and is the reason Tabak faced a full trial by jury.