The Defence Will State Their Case

[APRIL]

I really don't know were to begin to address what you've said. It sounds, very much like a plea of desperation. It's full of emotion -"a Placid Dutchman"? How would you know who is the real person?- I understand why your journey has been a lonely one.

Do you have any concrete evidence? ie anything which hasn't come from newspapers, blogs or forums? I suspect, for the most part, all we accrue from these is others' opinions -whether or not it's the truth, and from experience I know that much isn't, is up for grabs. There are always agendas and the gullible -of which I was once of their number- get reeled in. I wonder, is it the man or the case which keeps you tied to where you are?

I'm not certain why you make so much of why various people weren't called to give evidence? It's my understanding that a guilty plea negates the necessity/reduces it to a minimum, although I feel certain those with more knowledge that I will refute or corroborate. You say Tabak wasn't defended well. We know that the guilty are entitled to a defence and that their counsel will do the best job possible on their behalf with the information they're given. Have you stopped to consider that's what happened? Have you considered that, if Tabac's counsel was aware of his guilt, some sort of deal may have been worked out with the prosecutors? I'm afraid that the black or white position you claim as your stance may be holding you back and blinding you to all other possibilities. That which you say is obvious to you, is, I imagine, ONLY obvious to you.

I think if I address this further, I'll end up as muddled as I feel you are.

[Caroline]

PLACID Dutchman? The man had violent porn and snuff movies! Dear god! 

[APRIL]

PLACID Dutchman? The man had violent porn and snuff movies! Dear god! 

Suppressed emotions, Caroline!!!

[Caroline]

Suppressed emotions, Caroline!!!

I wasn't really angry, I just like that emoticon 

[APRIL]

I wasn't really angry, I just like that emoticon 

I wasn't talking about yours .................but it's good to let off steam

[Caroline]

I wasn't talking about yours .................but it's good to let off steam

Yes I know but didn't want Nine to think I was being serious 

[Real justice]

OK... I'm an idiot...........

I wouldn’t call you that Nine, your Different and interesting that’s all.

[Caroline]

OK... I'm an idiot...........

It wasn't your suggestion.

[Real justice]

OK... I'm an idiot...........

I don’t understand why you wanted the Yeates to take the stand Nine, what benefit would that have been?

The Computer evidence wasn’t allowed in the trial for reasons, the Judge ruled against them on the grounds that, 

But at the start of the trial Mr Justice Field ruled the evidence inadmissible, saying: "In my judgment the watching and the possession of porn showing violence and the threat of violence is reprehensible conduct. But the fact there could be a sexual motive does not explain why Tabak intended to kill or cause serious injury. In my judgment a fair trial would be put seriously at risk if it was to be admitted."

This has nothing to do with police, the police gather the evidence and then it’s between the defence, prosecution and Judge to what evidence is allowed.  The prosecution will try and get as much evidence as possible admissible at trial, while the defence will try and throw out as much as possible, anything that could put the trial in jeopardy of being a fair trial will be ruled out by the Judge, it limits the grounds for any appeal after on the grounds of unfair trial.   

There is no doubt whatsoever Tabak had high quality titles of sex and submission porn depicting violence towards women with their tops raised and violent images of women being held by the neck, then being sexually abused,". As well as child porn ect.  They know this because they were found not only on his Laptop, his works computer and two hard drives at home.  Now I’m no computer expert, But, Caroline is,  how hard would it be for someone to plant this evidence on all these devices, at the correct times and some of these videos way before the murder actually happened, I would say it’s virtully impossible to do this by anyone other than Tabak himself?  It wouldn’t just be on his devices, it would show up on the internet provider as well, the police wouldn’t need to go down this road because the evidence was there.   Because the prosecution could not use the Child porn at his trial, they decided to charge him separately for that, it was in the public’s interest, it serves as a deterrent,  no one is above the law on viewing child porn images even if your locked up for twenty years, the fact he is a convicted sex offender means he will be monitored.

Evidence not disclosed to the jury revealed that:

A film on his laptop showed a woman saying "choke me".

Another featured a victim dressed in a pink top and jeans,just like 25-year-old Miss Yeates was wearing when she died.

The laptop held three images of a woman with a striking resemblance to Miss Yeates with her top pushed up - as her body was when it was discovered.

In another echo of the murder, a computer image showed two naked women bound and gagged in the boot of a man's car.


Tabak's DNA was found on Miss Yeates's breasts, chest and arm.

Her parents David and Teresa Yeates were too traumatised to Attend, would you want to be at trial and view images of your dead daughter?

[Caroline]

I don’t understand why you wanted the Yeates to take the stand Nine, what benefit would that have been?

The Computer evidence wasn’t allowed in the trial for reasons, the Judge ruled against them on the grounds that, 

But at the start of the trial Mr Justice Field ruled the evidence inadmissible, saying: "In my judgment the watching and the possession of porn showing violence and the threat of violence is reprehensible conduct. But the fact there could be a sexual motive does not explain why Tabak intended to kill or cause serious injury. In my judgment a fair trial would be put seriously at risk if it was to be admitted."

This has nothing to do with police, the police gather the evidence and then it’s between the defence, prosecution and Judge to what evidence is allowed.  The prosecution will try and get as much evidence as possible admissible at trial, while the defence will try and throw out as much as possible, anything that could put the trial in jeopardy of being a fair trial will be ruled out by the Judge, it limits the grounds for any appeal after on the grounds of unfair trial.   

There is no doubt whatsoever Tabak had high quality titles of sex and submission porn depicting violence towards women with their tops raised and violent images of women being held by the neck, then being sexually abused,". As well as child porn ect.  They know this because they were found not only on his Laptop, his works computer and two hard drives at home.  Now I’m no computer expert, But, Caroline is how hard would it be for someone to plant this evidence on all these devices, at the correct times and some of these videos way before the murder actually happened, I would say it’s virtully impossible to do this by anyone other than Tabak himself?  It wouldn’t just be on his devices, it would show up on the internet provider as well, the police wouldn’t need to go down this road because the evidence was there.   Because the prosecution could not use the Child porn at his trial, they decided to charge him separately for that, it was in the public’s interest, it serves as a deterrent,  no one is above the law on viewing child porn images even if your locked up for twenty years, the fact he is a convicted sex offender means he will be monitored.

Evidence not disclosed to the jury revealed that:

A film on his laptop showed a woman saying "choke me".

Another featured a victim dressed in a pink top and jeans,just like 25-year-old Miss Yeates was wearing when she died.

The laptop held three images of a woman with a striking resemblance to Miss Yeates with her top pushed up - as her body was when it was discovered.

In another echo of the murder, a computer image showed two naked women bound and gagged in the boot of a man's car.


Tabak's DNA was found on Miss Yeates's breasts, chest and arm.

Her parents David and Teresa Yeates were too traumatised to Attend, would you want to be at trial and view images of your dead daughter?

It's only possible if a person had access to all of his computers and passwords etc. It's not like the stuff could be just emailed and downloaded - someone would have to physically login to his machine and access those sites. But to suggest someone else had all of that access, then killed JY to frame him (even though he admitted it) would be more fanciful than a real life Mary Poppin's!

[APRIL]

It's only possible if a person had access to all of his computers and passwords etc. It's not like the stuff could be just emailed and downloaded - someone would have to physically login to his machine and access those sites. But to suggest someone else had all of that access, then killed JY to frame him (even though he admitted it) would be more fanciful than a real life Mary Poppin's!

OMG! That sounds like the policeman and the civilian who decided to withhold an alleged phone call from NB in case the police wanted to frame JB!!!

[Real justice]

It's only possible if a person had access to all of his computers and passwords etc. It's not like the stuff could be just emailed and downloaded - someone would have to physically login to his machine and access those sites. But to suggest someone else had all of that access, then killed JY to frame him (even though he admitted it) would be more fanciful than a real life Mary Poppin's!

Thanks Caroline, they would have to have access to all computers before the murders as well as after, because it can be proved to the minute when they were downloaded and viewed am I right?  Not only on the hard drive but with the internet company as well? 

[Caroline]

Thanks Caroline, they would have to have access to all computers before the murders as well as after, because it can be proved to the minute when they were downloaded and viewed am I right?  Not only on the hard drive but with the internet company as well?

Exactly.

[Real justice]

Joanna Yeates

It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.

A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.

So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."


Lindsey Lennen was the DNA specialist who worked for LGC forensics.  Angela Gallop was the driving force to setting up LGC, this woman is amazing in her dedication to forensics, she was the instigator to setting private forensic testing  company away from FSS a government owned company who would normally do testing for the prosecution.  This allowed the defence to call on and enable to do their own testing with a private company.  LGC was called upon by the defence and prosecution for testing in various cases and murders over a number of years.  Angela Gallop has a book out called “When theDogs don’t bark”. I read this about two months back, very good read if your interested in forensics.

[APRIL]

Joanna Yeates

It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.

A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.

So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."


Lindsey Lennen was the DNA specialist who worked for LGC forensics.  Angela Gallop was the driving force to setting up LGC, this woman is amazing in her dedication to forensics, she was the instigator to setting private forensic testing  company away from FSS a government owned company who would normally do testing for the prosecution.  This allowed the defence to call on and enable to do their own testing with a private company.  LGC was called upon by the defence and prosecution for testing in various cases and murders over a number of years.  Angela Gallop has a book out called “When theDogs don’t bark”. I read this about two months back, very good read if your interested in forensics.

A sentence jumps out at me viz ".........the probability of it (DNA) not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion". It occurs to me that if Nine wants to take on board the full impact of the meaning of those words, a good exercise might be to write the numbers numerically, however, I suspect it more likely that she'll set off to find it!!!