The Defence Will State Their Case

[Real justice]

Jixy.. Honestly the child images is a difficult one.... And my reaction to that kind of behaviour is I literally want to chuck -up....

I cannot understand how anyone can view such images, I do not understand how the Police, Prosecution or the defence manage to look at such images...

But I tried to tackle this case rationally, whether you think I have or not... And believing that Dr Vincent Tabak was innocent of the Murder of Joanna yeates, I had to ignore the later charges....

That is why I was so offended when I was called AA....

But, if I rationalise it, and question why the conviction came so much later, then I have a few options...

If these charges laid on file.. Dr Vincent Tabak could potentially be arrested when released on these charges, so maybe the defence were doing him a favour...

Or it was for shock value and would virtually guarantee, no-one touching the case with a barge pole...

No-one should be in prison for a crime they did not commit... No matter what you may think of them..

The court heard how the paedophile had stored more than 100 images of children on the computer, with the youngest among them of younger than 10.  10 years old, please don’t defend this.

[[...]]

The court heard how the paedophile had stored more than 100 images of children on the computer, with the youngest among them of younger than 10.  10 years old, please don’t defend this.

I'm interested in the Joanna Yeates case... And what happened there...

Also refer back to mrswah's post you quoted...

No-one is defending the abuse of children..

[APRIL]

Sure, but it still didn't play a part in the murder trial!

Maybe not, but it can't be said, that as it appeared he was viewing these images prior to murdering Joanna, that he hadn't been affected by them.

[APRIL]

I'm interested in the Joanna Yeates case... And what happened there...

Also refer back to mrswah's post you quoted...

No-one is defending the abuse of children..

An omission to acknowledge them is a form of defense of them.

[jixy]

I'm interested in the Joanna Yeates case... And what happened there...

Also refer back to mrswah's post you quoted...

No-one is defending the abuse of children..

All the excuses you have made that Tabak couldnt possibly be responsible for such an horrific crime cos he is smart clever placid etc etc kind of gets blown out of the water by his choice of viewing so its still all connected.

[[...]]

You could apply that to any case, it’s not the police who searched his computer it would have been specialists who searched chef his hard drives, his works computer his phone etc , you have been given reasons why it wasn’t bought up at trial, not the fault of the police or the CPS, the defence asked for them to be removed, the judge removed them because of the fear of Tabak winning an appeal on the grounds that the evidence could be classed as prejudice against him.  If it doesn’t sit well with you, it doesn’t sit well with me, because they should have thrown the lot at him, but I’m afraid our Law doesn’t work like that.

Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?

Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?

Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...

This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....

[mrswah]

I don't necessarily trust computer evidence, unless I know that the defence team has seen exactly what the prosecution team has seen. Anyone can say that anything was on someone's computer. Same with DNA, when the sample is used up in the enhancing process, so that the defence can't verify it. I do trust CCTV, and consider it to be very good evidence, providing that the correct dates and times accompany the recordings!!!

[nina]

We were told by the news and papers that VT had been looking at porn before murdering Joanna Yeates.

One of the pictures of the porn was a woman in a pink top, just like Joannas. So after watching this he walked past Joanna's kitchen window and saw her in a pink top.

Doesn't take a lot to think what he was thinking does it?

This was the snuff porn he was watching, according to the media, not the child porn.

Both equally repulsive.

[Real justice]

I don't necessarily trust computer evidence, unless I know that the defence team has seen exactly what the prosecution team has seen. Anyone can say that anything was on someone's computer. Same with DNA, when the sample is used up in the enhancing process, so that the defence can't verify it. I do trust CCTV, and consider it to be very good evidence, providing that the correct dates and times accompany the recordings!!!

Oh right, so you don’t trust anyone with a confession, you don’t trust DNA and you don’t trust computer evidence, I would say that one or all these three things are what forms the basis of most prosecutions around the world now days.

[APRIL]

Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?

Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?

Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...

This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....

How many more times will it become necessary to remind you that THERE WAS NO CASE FOR THE CROWN TO PROVE? There was no point to be made. There was nothing to be proved. Tabak had admitted his guilt. He'd said he'd killed Joanna. Having experts in court to say why would have been futile and irrelevant.

[Real justice]

I don't necessarily trust computer evidence, unless I know that the defence team has seen exactly what the prosecution team has seen. Anyone can say that anything was on someone's computer. Same with DNA, when the sample is used up in the enhancing process, so that the defence can't verify it. I do trust CCTV, and consider it to be very good evidence, providing that the correct dates and times accompany the recordings!!!

What makes you think the defence didn’t see what the prosecution seen regarding Computer?  Just because YOU haven’t seen the time on the cctv doesn’t mean it wasn’t there, the cctv cannot be used as evidence unless time and date is present, it’s a no brainer.  If it was allowed anyone could bring a cctv picture up of any said person and then apply whatever time they want.  It’s stupid to even consider this.

[Real justice]

I think anyone with any sense would know this

You should also make sure that the time and date of the recording is clear, and that the footage is stored securely so that it cannot be tampered with.

[Real justice]

Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?

Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?

Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...

This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....

NB, most cases now involve the police removing electronic devices, rape victims will now have their phone searched.  The specialist was in court I believe?

Vincent Tabak’s, credit card details was in on some sites, that is no accident trust me

So great was Tabak’s addiction to depraved sexual images that he admitted an “ordinary day” included entering a porn website almost the moment Miss Morson walked out of the door for work at 7.30am.

[Real justice]

Therefore the qualifications of said expert should have been taken into account, and on saying that was it the same expert whom looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches that were used in the trial of the Joanna Yeates case?

Or has there been a myriad of people having access to the computer of Dr Vincent Tabak, in their specialist subject?

Said computer analyst should have attended the trial in October 2011, to give their analysis of this computer, but I do not believe this took place...

This is why there should be proper protocol of the handling of electronic devices etc, used in any trial....

They run specialist forensic software to preserve everything, then it’s looked at by IT specialists, 

[mrswah]

How many more times will it become necessary to remind you that THERE WAS NO CASE FOR THE CROWN TO PROVE? There was no point to be made. There was nothing to be proved. Tabak had admitted his guilt. He'd said he'd killed Joanna. Having experts in court to say why would have been futile and irrelevant.

So, if someone living in my street is killed tonight, and I say I'm guilty, I'm automatically going to be believed, am I??? Nobody is going to check and discover that it cant possibly have been me, because I wasn't in the neighbourhood at the crucial time? Doesn't seem a very satisfactory way of doing things------