Interesting Billy your post is quite revealing, you make a long post on things that have already been explained about Computers, surprisingly you never mention CONTENT. The content of the Computers doesn’t seem to bother you, the fact he’s a paedofile and admitted to this possession, (Vincent Tabak admits possessing indecent images of children) now my Old friend Jim Clemente would rip your post apart, he’s a profiler, your only worry in all this, He never searched in the Dutch language only for one word?
Your not suggesting, his girlfriend knew about his dirty sexual pervertion are you Billy, Nah Nah Nah Billy no woman with half a brain would be that stupid, well other than the evil Myra Hindley of course.
Anyway I’ve got to dash over to Amsterdam to see my Dutch sister in law, I’ve got to be back for Footie this afternoon
Why is A profiler relevant?
How could any profiler determine the why for of what I write and why I write it? based upon what?
What other information have I viewed which maybe warranted said response?
How could any profiler determine at what point someone may have made a comment to me, ?
Did someone ask me to search for something?
As for the links to the youtube music. for which reason did i do this??
Was I trying to convey something else??
What influences during my time writing on here, have I had in relation to said music video's?
Are the music video meant as a joke?
There could be many many factors...
Profilers appear to me to be generalisers, who have been dramatised world wide, who make decisions (imo) based on what they believe they know, and everyone ends up in a box.....
It is easy to box everyone up, and present said people to juries as a certain type of person, it appears to add weight, to the evidence that is presented at trial,.. profilers belong on TV, and a warning should be given, it's entertainment, it's car crash TV.. (imo)
Profilers do not and should not belong in a court room, what ever influences said profiler and any profilers decision making, should be scrutinized....
Many people have agenda's.. many people have experiences in life, that may or may not influence their thought processes, timing and tragedy may also play a part in any event, pressures and stressers may have an influence, and a person may or may not behave out of character.
Boxing everyone up is not helpful, and if it wasn't for the TV profilers, may people opinions as jurors at a trial would change. They would think for themselves instead of being possibly influenced by someone else ideas of a person or persons...
Profiling like anything is not an exact science....
Wasn't it reported about the CSI effect... How jurors apparently wanted DNA as proof of a defendants guilt..
DNA like anything is a tool, it depends where it originated from, it depends on the correct process, it depends on whether it can be established as to when it was deposited...
Unfortunately it is used in most cases, and the relevance may not be accurate,.. Take Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates, two people living in the same building using the same gate.. etc etc..
The transfer of DNA is highly likely, when and how said DNA is deposited ,is another matter, but how can that be determined, without exploring every avenue.
All countries have their own processes and ways in which to determine the guilt of any individual, I may not agree with some of the method's used, but i am not here to argue about other countries laws etc..
Evidence needs to be based on fact and not opinion, and yes I can see where you see coming from, I am not presenting fact, but questioning the process... And wanting to understand how the decisions about Dr Vincent Tabak were established..
Searches on the internet, do not equate to fact... The fact only that can be established about said internet searches, is that they were made... but made by whom, and in what context is not established, merely by the presence of a computer search.. A computer search is not evidence of a crime...
Texts too are not evidence in that way either, understanding the context of said text is just as important, and the interpretation of said texts, is dependant on who's presenting said text and in what context.... Not knowing what someone was responding too, whether or not the text response was delayed for whatever reason, whether or not said text was meant as a joke, whether or not said text was received by the correct person, are all factors in whether or not, each text is relevant to any situation.. Whether or not autocorrect decided to kick in..
Texts may appear to confirm evidence presented, but confirm what exactly, that a text was sent?
Interpretation of texts is not evidence and I find that area of texts etc as evidence one should question, texts can be interpreted in many ways, just like DNA can be interpreted in many ways.. (imo)
So the point of informing me of a profiler Real was what exactly??