No it doesn't, sorry.
In fact evidence tampering, if there were any, would make a hell of a lot more sense in trying to wrongly convict someone than hiring professional actors to play the police and jury!
The importance of the tampering of the evidence in what we know as Flat 1 is crucial to the Prosecution and The ill written words of The defence...
If I have shown on numerous occasions, the work that was done in Flat 1 before the jury arrived to view it, then that should cause concern.... I'll refer back to the tiles painting of the kitchen window sill....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939Image comes from Daily Mail UPDATED: 11:46, 20 October 2011 which when they took the image is not known, because by the time we have the jury visit the window sill is fully painted.. image attached .Also the air vent is not broken... but by the time the Jury see it the Air vent is Broken having only one half of it in place .....
If we can see that these tiles have been painted for what ever purpose... Then why do we believe Clegg's opening statement....
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.
This being pivitol in Dr Vincent Tabak being able to gain entry to Joanna Yeates Flat, as she was apparently inviting Dr Vincent Tabak in to her home.... And he apparently saw Joanna Yeates through her kitchen window... I do not believe this !!!!
If we cannot trust the evidence and integrity of the Flat itself... How can we trust what was supposed to have taken place.... There was NO FORCE ENTRY.... Yet we have tile painting instead....
No jury if they had been aware of the tampering of this Flat would have believed anything that the prosecution had claimed, as the evidence of this tampering is only too clear to see by all....
Who ever wrote Dr Vincent Tabak's "Court Lines".. failed to check anything in regards to this case... As not only did Clegg have his client in his own residence until 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. He failed to point out the tampering that had taken place......
But he took the word of a man simply because he was the partner of the victim, without establishing if what this man was saying was the truth.... Nothing established this man's testimony apart from himself... And Clegg with his vast experience shouldn't take one mans word against another... Court is about proving the facts,....
And nothing was there to prove that the
Blind in Flat 1 was actually broken.... And nothing to prove that the people who painted the tiles in the kitchen window around the time of the the tile painting didn't actually brake this
Blind themselves....
And with that I would have thought the case would and should have collapsed... You can't tamper with a
Crime Scene!!!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-int-interior-of-news-footage/656494322http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf