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...