leonora.. What i am saying is i find it strange that Dr Vincent Tabak was even mentioned in the context of CJ's case against the papers... Whether or not The Lord Chief Justice divulges incorrect admissions by Dr Vincent Tabak, in my opinion is neither here nor there...
I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak's name should NOT have been mentioned at all in connection of anything to do with CJ in CJ's case...
I have always said I do not believe that Dr Vincent Tabak confessed anything... I still stand by that... But I like to see these documents that have gone before Dr Vincent Tabak's trial... That (IMO) Or prejudicial to Dr Vincent Tabak's trial..
This statement by The Lord Chief Justice is Prejudicial (imo)
On 5th May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility.
Because by saying that he has twice admitted Dr Vincent Tabaks guilt... And on re-reading that as I did.. It is basically saying that Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to Murder..
When we have no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to anything...
The pdf is from 5th July 2011 just months before the trial... Everyone had been following CJ's case and him suing the papers... Which in turn means that they would be informed of Dr Vincent Tabak's position just before trial...
leonora.. I am not falling into a trap.. I'm pointing out "WHY" It was even mentioned by
The Lord Chief Justice"...Because (imo) Again... It never should have been !!!!
What needs remembering, is that the jury were selected for Bristol crown Court for the month of October well in advance... many of them may have realised that they could end up on case of Dr Vincent Tabak... Or should I say The Joanna Yeates Case... And read up about the case and CJ's case in July 2011
Anything published in any respect to the case before trial is Prejudicial And especially saying that Dr vincent Tabak is guilty..(imo)
And this from the same document...
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing.
The Lord Chief Justice has named Dr Vincent Tabak as the man guilty of killing Joanna yeates... And re-emphasises that fact with the above quote..
No doubt The Identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates...If that isn't prejudicial... I don't know what is ! This is in July... And if anyone accepts he pleaded Guilty to Manslaughter, then they also must realise he could withdrawn that admission.. (imo)
He did not sign his enhanced statement until September 2011...
Edit.. Manslaughter on the Grounds of Diminished Responsibilities can cover a wide range of things...
Diminished responsibility is set out in s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. To rely on the defence, the defendant must be able to demonstrate the following:
An abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition.
Which provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts or omissions in being party to the killing.
Which substantially impaired his/her mental ability to either:
a) Understand the nature of their conduct or
b) Form a rational judgment or
c) Exercise self–control
That idea of Diminished Responsibilities leaves many questions... That is all leonora
Edit... Also leonora The main problem with The Lord Chief Justice saying that Dr Vincent Tabak is "Guilty"...
Is... Everyone is supposed to be Innocent until "PROVEN" GUILTY" in a court of Law... Not
Guilty until proven Guiltier.. I believe I have said this before...Isn't appearing in court supposed to start with "The Presumption of Innocence"?? No trial had taken place before the statement that The Lord Chief Justice made in CJ's case... Therefore Dr Vincent Tabak cannot be deemed to be guilty...(imo) Or "Responsible"!
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Diminished-responsibility.php