The Defence Will State Their Case

[Real justice]

If This upsets anyone I will remove it, I think it’s important to understand what a sick and despicable human being this man is, anyone defending this is as sick as him.

The Dutch-born engineer, formerly of Bristol, faces a total of six charges - four of possessing indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child and two of making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child at levels one, two, three and four.


There are five levels of seriousness for offences involving indecent photographs of children, which start with images depicting "erotic posing with no sexual activity".

Category four images depict penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.

[Caroline]

If This upsets anyone I will remove it, I think it’s important to understand what a sick and despicable human being this man is, anyone defending this is as sick as him.

The Dutch-born engineer, formerly of Bristol, faces a total of six charges - four of possessing indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child and two of making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child at levels one, two, three and four.


There are five levels of seriousness for offences involving indecent photographs of children, which start with images depicting "erotic posing with no sexual activity".

Category four images depict penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children, or both children and adults.

Lots of information here for anyone interested https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

So Tabak actually made his own images? 

[Real justice]

Lots of information here for anyone interested https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

So Tabak actually made his own images? 

Looks that way Caroline, anyone who thinks he never got a fair trial is talking rubbish, the judge and our system bent over backwards to help him, even down to the fact, someone posted online while the jury was out about Tabaks interest in this sort of thing, this person got arrested and threatened with prosecution for revealing said information.  Only in this Country could that happen.



The attorney general is considering whether to take action over a tweet revealing Vincent Tabak's interest in hardcore pornography that was posted during his trial.
During the four-week trial orders were in place to stop the media reporting Tabak's interest in pornography depicting women being strangled during sex.
It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.

But during the trial a man was arrested after he posted a tweet revealing the existence of the pornography.
The tweeter is a British man, believed to live in Gloucestershire.

[Caroline]

Looks that way Caroline, anyone who thinks he never got a fair trial is talking rubbish, the judge and our system bent over backwards to help him, even down to the fact, someone posted online while the jury was out about Tabaks interest in this sort of thing, this person got arrested and threatened with prosecution for revealing said information.  Only in this Country could that happen.

He clearly is one disturbed individual.

[Real justice]

The prosecution had tried to persuade the judge, Mr Justice Field, to allow it to present the jury with evidence of the pornographic material found on Tabak's computer.
The judge would not agree, accepting the argument from Tabak's counsel, William Clegg QC, that knowing about the pornography would not help the jury decide if Tabak was guilty of murder but would make it impossible for them to treat him fairly.

[jixy]

Great posts Real Justice!

[[...]]

A little more background..

Dean Armstrong QC


London, UK
Barrister, Cyber Security Law
36 Commercial

Biography

Dean Armstrong QC is a highly experienced practitioner who has been involved in some of the highest profile cases of the last decade, including R v Darwin (the canoeist case), R v Asil Nadir, R v Tabak (murder of Joanna Yeates in Bristol), and the cases involving the collapse of the News Of The World newspaper. He has also provided advice to those involved in the “Cash for Honours” inquiry and the Leveson inquiry.

He has been a regular commentator on legal matters both for Sky and BBC TV as well as on the radio. Dean is a specialist in City and financial crime and regulation, fraud and confiscation and where civil and criminal law meet.

Having been employed by blue chip corporates and major City Solicitors, he has a City background and has advised on mergers and acquisitions, directors and shareholders rights and obligations, and set up the regulatory regime for a major multi-national.

In recent years he has become increasingly involved in all matters cyber and he is co-author of Cyber Security Law and Practice, an authoritative and thorough textbook in this new area. Dean lectures extensively on this subject and in recent times, has been asked to speak to high profile entities on GDPR. Dean is also the Chairman of the Elias Partnership which help organisations & senior managers achieve a legally defensible position in face of GDPR and the Senior Managers & Certification Regime (SMCR) and has advised the Law Commission on proposed changes to domestic data protection law.

https://www.themarque.com/profile/dean-armstrong-qc


Never knew that Dean was involved in The Leveson Inquiry...  I wonder who he advised...

[jixy]

A little more background..

https://www.themarque.com/profile/dean-armstrong-qc


Never knew that Dean was involved in The Leveson Inquiry...  I wonder who he advised...

What about the the questions you have been asked? Many times you have demanded answers from other members but when you get asked anything you just deflect or ignore

[[...]]

What about the the questions you have been asked? Many times you have demanded answers from other members but when you get asked anything you just deflect or ignore

My post wasn't a question, more really that I was surprised about The Leveson connection..

I answer questions all the time Jixy, you chose to pretend I don't... 

[jixy]

My post wasn't a question, more really that I was surprised about The Leveson connection..

I answer questions all the time Jixy, you chose to pretend I don't... 

Dont you like to twist things? where did i say YOUR post was a question! No you dont actually answer questions as stated yesterday. When a question is posed, you reply with a huge repetitive posts that rarely refers to any part of the question

Take yesterday! some have waited days for a reply from you. Real Justice put all the facts out there that you bring up over and over  in some weak defence for Tabak. You post without a word because the facts speak for themselves about Tabaks guilt and what kind of low life man he is!

[[...]]

Dont you like to twist things? where did i say YOUR post was a question! No you dont actually answer questions as stated yesterday. When a question is posed, you reply with a huge repetitive posts that rarely refers to any part of the question

Take yesterday! some have waited days for a reply from you. Real Justice put all the facts out there that you bring up over and over  in some weak defence for Tabak. You post without a word because the facts speak for themselves about Tabaks guilt and what kind of low life man he is!

Days....      You are all in agreement and have not once legitimately explained how everyone was allowed to know that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011, before he took to the stand in his trial in October 2011..

How not only the jury knew of this fact before they became jurors, but the entire world was probably away of this fact..

And then the papers were taken to court for contempt, in July 2011, it stated there that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty....

No fade factor time allowed in this case as it was in the media in one form or another from Joanna yeates Missing to the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak..

I do not understand how that is possible...

What happened to Presumed Innocent, or Burden of Proof....

Neither which applied in this case (imo)

Guilty when he took the stand, and The Defence provided the proof of Dr Vincent Tabak's actions, by having him take the stand and explain how he apparently did it.... Ridiculous... 

Having their own client take the stand to explain a story that anyone could have stated, by what had been revealed in the papers and social media at the time.. Is hardly proof that he committed said crime... CCTV of a car on Park Street, without identification of license plate and driver, is proof of someone driving down Park Street...

CCTV in an ASDA supermarket, is proof of someone shopping,

Media images of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat in December 2010 when Joanna Yeates is Missing, Media images and video, of Flat 2, before anyone knew of a crime is a little strange, seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak cannot have been suspected of anything at that time... So why the video and images of HIS FLAT!!

I have already pointed out that Crimewatch had Dr Vincent Tabak's car on their program, all very convenient.. (imo)

Computer searches that can be interpreted in many ways, computer searches that cannot have been made from his computer if he was out of his Flat at the time...

Insinuating that these searches were in someway proof or insinuating guilt... is ridiculous.... It's ambiguous...

Ambigous,...That isn't good enough...

Try asking an off turf accountants what they feel about ambiguous bets, and I'm sure they will tell you they would probably see it as a type of fraud... The onus is on them realistically, but clarity of said bet, will ensure what was meant..

The same with searches or text messages,... Clarity of the information is needed to understand the context of any text or search, it may appear to bolster a case, but it needs to be proven that the intention of the person searching the internet or sending the text was meant in the way it has been perceived...


I have given an alternative example of what Dr Vincent Tabak's text could have been interpreted as... Proving one needs clarity...

Laws in this country need clarity... ambiguity should not be accepted, as it means that a law that was meant for a certain purpose, can then be applied to something entirely different, and the layman would have no idea that this has happened, believing the instruction they are given.. And relying on the expertise of said individuals..

Having ambiguity (imo) erodes the rights of citizens and the fairness of the laws in the land...

[jixy]

Days....      You are all in agreement and have not once legitimately explained how everyone was allowed to know that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011, before he took to the stand in his trial in October 2011..

How not only the jury knew of this fact before they became jurors, but the entire world was probably away of this fact..

And then the papers were taken to court for contempt, in July 2011, it stated there that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty....

No fade factor time allowed in this case as it was in the media in one form or another from Joanna yeates Missing to the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak..

I do not understand how that is possible...

What happened to Presumed Innocent, or Burden of Proof....

Neither which applied in this case (imo)

Guilty when he took the stand, and The Defence provided the proof of Dr Vincent Tabak's actions, by having him take the stand and explain how he apparently did it.... Ridiculous... 

Having their own client take the stand to explain a story that anyone could have stated, by what had been revealed in the papers and social media at the time.. Is hardly proof that he committed said crime... CCTV of a car on Park Street, without identification of license plate and driver, is proof of someone driving down Park Street...

CCTV in an ASDA supermarket, is proof of someone shopping,

Media images of Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat in December 2010 when Joanna Yeates is Missing, Media images and video, of Flat 2, before anyone knew of a crime is a little strange, seeing as Dr Vincent Tabak cannot have been suspected of anything at that time... So why the video and images of HIS FLAT!!

I have already pointed out that Crimewatch had Dr Vincent Tabak's car on their program, all very convenient.. (imo)

Computer searches that can be interpreted in many ways, computer searches that cannot have been made from his computer if he was out of his Flat at the time...

Insinuating that these searches were in someway proof or insinuating guilt... is ridiculous.... It's ambiguous...

Ambigous,...That isn't good enough...

Try asking an off turf accountants what they feel about ambiguous bets, and I'm sure they will tell you they would probably see it as a type of fraud... The onus is on them realistically, but clarity of said bet, will ensure what was meant..

The same with searches or text messages,... Clarity of the information is needed to understand the context of any text or search, it may appear to bolster a case, but it needs to be proven that the intention of the person searching the internet or sending the text was meant in the way it has been perceived...


I have given an alternative example of what Dr Vincent Tabak's text could have been interpreted as... Proving one needs clarity...

Laws in this country need clarity... ambiguity should not be accepted, as it means that a law that was meant for a certain purpose, can then be applied to something entirely different, and the layman would have no idea that this has happened, believing the instruction they are given.. And relying on the expertise of said individuals..


Having ambiguity (imo) erodes the rights of citizens and the fairness of the laws in the land...

Once again repetitive twaddle

Nothing that happened to Tabak re his plea is unusual or happened just to him  Get a grip. If that is all you reply after Real Justice posts then I think you posts are for attention not to defend an guilty man

[[...]]

Lots of information here for anyone interested https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children

So Tabak actually made his own images? 

Yes, on first glance this stood out..

Viewing the Images
As above, it is important that prosecutors are familiar with the nature of the images in a case and have a proper understanding of what comes within each category but it is not mandatory for prosecutors to view the images in all cases in order to prosecute.

In cases involving low-risk offenders it should be unnecessary for prosecutors to view the images. In low-risk cases, the SFR need only describe the selected representative images (see above). As set out above - when images falling outside of the CAID database are the subject of the proposed charge prosecutors may in limited circumstances have to view the images. In most cases the police case summary will suffice. These images may also need to be made available to the judge and defence unless agreement is reached that this is unnecessary.

but it is not mandatory for prosecutors to view the images in all cases in order to prosecute.

How is that even possible??

Who tells them that these images are of what category??

In what case do prosecutors not need to look at these images....

If a prosecutor is prosecuting a person and has the ability to deprive someone of their liberty, shouldn't they have at the very least looked at the evidence in question....

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/indecent-and-prohibited-images-children


I admit it cannot be a pleasant experience for the prosecutor, but surely they should have viewed any evidence that could be brought against any individual, in any prosecution....

[[...]]

Once again repetitive twaddle

Nothing that happened to Tabak re his plea is unusual or happened just to him  Get a grip. If that is all you reply after Real Justice posts then I think you posts are for attention not to defend an guilty man

Why on god's earth would I want the attention?
What made you come to that conclusion?

If I wanted the attention, I would have my name and address attached to every post, with my face splashed there so you all know whom I am....

[jixy]

Why on god's earth would I want the attention?
What made you come to that conclusion?

Look over the last few days posts, you sure dont interact. You just ramble on even when facts are fully explained ot you in great detail. People ask for your reply, you ignore. Simple

Oh and as for the filth he likes to look at HE ADMITTED IT! ACCEPT IT FOR GOD SAKES!!!!!! ........