In his second statement, Vincent Tabak disputed the validity of the forensic analysis that linked his DNA to the victim’s body, asserted that he had no knowledge of how such a match could have been obtained, and contended that this result had been leaked to the media by a scientist from the laboratory for financial gain.
This fact emerged at his trial. His defence counsel cross-examined, at some length, the very scientist whom his own client had accused of leaking her findings to the media for financial gain - without once asking her to refute this accusation. With a defence counsel like that, who needs a prosecutor?
I wouldn't normally labour such an obvious point, but there is ample evidence available to suggest that this scientist was corrupt, and the miscroscopic blood stains she alleged had been found in the car are thereby invalidated by her own loss of credibility. She even admitted that her findings had not been proved in court. I don't understand why some people haven't got the message yet - that the discrediting of the last items of circumstantial evidence submitted against the defendant proves that the entire trial MUST have been fixed. I don't need to speculate on the actual means used to persuade this vulnerable foreigner, who was deprived of the opportunity to visit his sick widowed mother, to "perform" in court, as they have to be, frankly, disgusting.
Out of respect for the rules, I will restrain myself from dredging up epithets suitable to describe those who continue to reiterate, "He said he did it, so it must be true".
