Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 143425 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2010 on: October 10, 2018, 08:11:37 PM »

I honestly do not know - but it being said to be one in a billion, the chances of it being someone else's DNA are slim.

I do not know if he will have requested tests of his own, taking into account that it was not disputed that Tabak had in fact touched her body whilst killing/moving her.  I would assume that the experts did take the stand though. I would also assume that if he did not admit to killing her then the defence would have had to hire its own experts.

I think you're mistaken. If you compare where the DNA was found to what Tabak stated, then it is fair to say he himself put the DNA on her, as opposed to innocent transfer. He said he carried her under her knees, which is where his DNA was found on her. DNA was found on her breast but not on her top. It points to the DNA being left there by Tabak himself.


If it is only Dr Vincent Tabak's story which he doesn't divulge until he takes the stand in October 2011 that tells us how and why the DNA was where ever it was....

What happened before... When he said that they tests were false... What happened before when they kept him on remand.... Did any of the defence ever question the DNA at any point of Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration??

What evidence did they have to keep him on remand??? Or to even charge him for that matter??

JustSaying... Assume nothing..... This case is made up of assumptions.... They have allowed everyone to fill in their own gaps...


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2011 on: October 10, 2018, 08:23:53 PM »

If it is only Dr Vincent Tabak's story which he doesn't divulge until he takes the stand in October 2011 that tells us how and why the DNA was where ever it was....

What happened before... When he said that they tests were false... What happened before when they kept him on remand.... Did any of the defence ever question the DNA at any point of Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration??

What evidence did they have to keep him on remand??? Or to even charge him for that matter??

JustSaying... Assume nothing..... This case is made up of assumptions.... They have allowed everyone to fill in their own gaps...

Evidence the prosecution had????

* Dr Vincent Tabak lived in the same building

* Dr Vincent Tabak drove a car

* Dr Vincent Tabak was apparently seen driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010

* Dr Vincent Tabak went shopping in Asda

* Dr Vincent Tabak searched about things related to the case (like so many of us)

* Low Copy DNA was found ( They lived in the same building.. transfer)  When was it transferred??

So that is it....  And remember before they even had Dr Vincent Tabak searched his car, what evidence did they have to arrest him with??

Until the apparent story comes into play months and months after his arrest and actually at trial, they had no- idea how Joanna Yeates was killed or even when she was killed...

So why on earth did Ann Redropp have Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights from late December 2010, when there was NO evidence to connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates whatsoever!!!



Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2012 on: October 10, 2018, 08:34:19 PM »
Apparently Dr Vincent Tabak searched the difference between 'Murder and manslaughter" and his answer was that he did apparently...

But why did he search those differences??

Was he looking at a different case... Was the search related to Joanna Yeates or not???  We don't know, we just know he apparently agreed that he had searched those things....

Body decomposition.... Something that was supposed to be incriminating.... Again in which context was he viewing said inquiry??? frozen bodies don't decompose!!!

Every search has to be put into proper context and not just let everyone decide it means it was all related to Joanna Yeates...




Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2013 on: October 10, 2018, 08:36:35 PM »

If it is only Dr Vincent Tabak's story which he doesn't divulge until he takes the stand in October 2011 that tells us how and why the DNA was where ever it was....

What happened before... When he said that they tests were false... What happened before when they kept him on remand.... Did any of the defence ever question the DNA at any point of Dr Vincent Tabak's incarceration??

What evidence did they have to keep him on remand??? Or to even charge him for that matter??


The evidence they had to keep him on remand comes not only from the DNA but also the research he did on his computer, the fact he changed his story etc. Nine, when DNA is found on a murder victim and the police are sure it has come from the person who killed said victim, the usual procedure is for them to make an arrest. The time for dispute of any DNA is during the trial. For all we know his lawyers could have been in the process of hiring experts when Tabak confessed - they would have to ask for additional funds to do this.

Quote

JustSaying... Assume nothing..... This case is made up of assumptions.... They have allowed everyone to fill in their own gaps...

This is where I disagree with you. I believe the case was built on solid evidence. Your interpretation was that it was built on assumption. The fact is it cannot be disputed that his DNA was found on the victim and it cannot be disputed where it was found - her blood was found in his car. As I have said before, if you look at what Tabak said on the stand, it is very telling. He lost so much weight due to the stress of knowing he was going to be caught out etc. The coat stand he knocked over, how did he know she even had a coat stand? Little things like this make a big difference to what you are alleging. Instead of looking at everything individually, put them all together and it paints a pretty strong case against him.

But as you say, you will never believe anything different - I think this is because you have invested so much time in the case and you do not want to be wrong. I think I've said all I can say in terms of pointing out the evidence and explaining things. You ask questions but never accept the answers. On that note I will leave to your speculation and wild theories. I honestly do think you're wasting your time, but it is your time to waste.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 08:40:15 PM by justsaying »

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2014 on: October 10, 2018, 08:43:56 PM »


But as you say, you will never believe anything different - I think this is because you have invested so much time in the case and you do not want to be wrong. I think I've said all I can say in terms of pointing out the evidence and explaining things. You ask questions but never accept the answers. On that note I will leave to your speculation and wild theories. I honestly do think you're wasting your time, but it is your time to waste.

If I am wrong I am wrong... no matter how much time I have invested in this case....  And you may be correct that I am wasting my time, and I probably am as no-one will ever look at this case any differently... And what I believe will make no difference either..

Edit... I will leave it to everyone else, to make their points... If the evidence presented at trial didn't convince me that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty , then how is anyone else going to change my belief, without anything new being in the picture.... It's not the length of time I have invested in this case, that makes me stay with my belief, but the fact that the trial was not beyond a reasonable doubt (imo) i have listed the reasons for this in my many posts...


Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2015 on: October 10, 2018, 08:50:08 PM »
So why on earth did Ann Redropp have Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights from late December 2010, when there was NO evidence to connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates whatsoever!!!

Sorry Nine, I did not see this before my last post, so I will answer this last question.

It is called having a suspect in your sights. Do you not think they will have suspected the boyfriend before eliminating him? Police seem to have a sixth sense sometimes. They know when someone is acting suspicious. Have you ever watched a police programme on TV where they stop a car, purely because they have an hunch, and find drugs etc in there. It is not unheard of for them to have suspicion, after all that is their job.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2016 on: October 10, 2018, 09:51:27 PM »
Just because someone says they did something doesn't make it so...... 

Quote
The strange case of a woman who has confessed to killing a man, but the police insist she is innocent.
#AmIAMurderer? Tonight 9pm @ITV
#CrimeAndPunishment



https://twitter.com/ITV/status/1050083449888010241

Offline jixy

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2017 on: October 10, 2018, 09:56:46 PM »
can I just ask...
was the womans DNA found on the victims body? or the victims blood found in her car?   *%87
you can disguise your face but you have forgotten your footprints !!! ....

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1021
  • Total likes: 461
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2018 on: October 11, 2018, 07:45:01 AM »
I assume, again I could be wrong, that DNA strands are found in what is called sense DNA. Whereas it is much smaller than a strand in LCN.

It was DNA sense not LCN which was used in this case, as verified by the forensic scientists.

LCN = as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt

DNA Sense = Molecular biologists call a single strand of DNA sense

Also, from what I understand, LCN techniques could not be said to be a billion to one match, whereas it could be said using the DNASenSe technique - hence the allegation that the DNA match in this case was a billion to one.

Not too sure about this----I'm certainly no scientist!  Any scientists on this thread???

From what I'm reading, I think DNA SenCE is LGC's method for enhancing DNA, and has nothing to do with sense DNA , which is something quite different, but I can't find much information at all.

I can't believe that ONLY VT's DNA was found on Jo------she had been at work , in the pub, and with other people all day.

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2019 on: October 11, 2018, 08:52:11 AM »
Not too sure about this----I'm certainly no scientist!  Any scientists on this thread???

From what I'm reading, I think DNA SenCE is LGC's method for enhancing DNA, and has nothing to do with sense DNA , which is something quite different, but I can't find much information at all.

I can't believe that ONLY VT's DNA was found on Jo------she had been at work , in the pub, and with other people all day.

You could very well be right Mrswah, I did say I could be wrong and will admit if I am. I am no scientist and as I also said it looked way over my head.

Again I agree with what you are saying about the DNA found on Joanna, but I assume only Tabaks DNA was found on her breast. How do you think it got there? There was none her top.

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2020 on: October 11, 2018, 08:59:33 AM »
Not too sure about this----I'm certainly no scientist!  Any scientists on this thread???

From what I'm reading, I think DNA SenCE is LGC's method for enhancing DNA, and has nothing to do with sense DNA , which is something quite different, but I can't find much information at all.

I can't believe that ONLY VT's DNA was found on Jo------she had been at work , in the pub, and with other people all day.

https://www.lgcgroup.com/our-science/molecular-biology-science-cluster/#.W78CRPZFzIU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense_(molecular_biology)

DNAsense - same thing on LGC group as it is on Wiki...


Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2022 on: October 11, 2018, 12:04:12 PM »
Anyone can fill in wiki.... Doesn't make it accurate..

Very true, but it seems accurate given all the other information regarding DNAsense which is available online.

Maybe you should try obtaining the judge's summing up from the trial. I do not know if members of the public can request it, but it seems to be so from the link below. It will cost 200+ depending on how long it is.

https://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/2yg7r-transcripts-particular-court-case.html


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2023 on: October 11, 2018, 12:15:52 PM »
Very true, but it seems accurate given all the other information regarding DNAsense which is available online.

Maybe you should try obtaining the judge's summing up from the trial. I do not know if members of the public can request it, but it seems to be so from the link below. It will cost 200+ depending on how long it is.

https://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/2yg7r-transcripts-particular-court-case.html

200...  might sound like not a lot to you, but I do not have that kind of money... And when looking at the site they talk in terms of 780 + also needing the judges permission in that case if your not involved in that case....

Well thats not gonna be happening anytime soon....  Even if I could afford it....

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #2024 on: October 11, 2018, 12:39:22 PM »
200...  might sound like not a lot to you, but I do not have that kind of money... And when looking at the site they talk in terms of 780 + also needing the judges permission in that case if your not involved in that case....

Well thats not gonna be happening anytime soon....  Even if I could afford it....

780 is for the whole days proceedings. I thought I would suggest it purely because you are so obsessed with finding out what went on the courtroom. I read on another site that they are not hard to obtain for members of the public, considering it was a public trial. I have obtained numerous summing up in the past but it was for work purposes, they cost around 200+.