Right to respect for private and family life
(1): Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
(2): There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak's privacy invaded???
The Polices constant comings and goings at 44,Canygne Road, made it impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to remain at home and he went and stayed at a friends house...
It is not common Police Policy as far as I know... To cause such great disruption to other neighbours of any property where a Crime may have taken Place...
There was nothing to suggest that Joanna Yeates had indeed been Murdered in her own home at this time... There was nothing to prove this conclusively one way or the other.. And I believe the same applies today... The Police had no evidence to prove that Joanna Yeates was killed in her home ...
I want to look at this in terms of law...And of course my understanding of Law...
The rules governing discoveryI believe that the information obtained on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer in relation to his supposed 'Internet Searches" and other electronic communication, is seen within
"The rules governing discovery"...Firstly I must point out.. That these rules really apply to Civil procedures... But I believe that they have commandeered the law from "Civil Procedure" and used it in A Criminal Procedure"...
Discussions between the parties before the first Case Management Conference in relation to the use of technology and disclosure8 The parties and their legal representatives must, before the first case management conference, discuss the use of technology in the management of Electronic Documents and the conduct of proceedings, in particular for the purpose of –
(1): creating lists of documents to be disclosed;
(2): giving disclosure by providing documents and information regarding documents in electronic format; and
(3): presenting documents and other material to the court at the trial.
9 The parties and their legal representatives must also, before the first case management conference, discuss the disclosure of Electronic Documents. In some cases (for example heavy and complex cases) it may be appropriate to begin discussions before proceedings are commenced. The discussions should include (where appropriate) the following matters –
(1): the categories of Electronic Documents within the parties' control, the computer systems, electronic devices and media on which any relevant documents may be held, storage systems and document retention policies;
(2): the scope of the reasonable search for Electronic Documents required by rule 31.7;
(3): the tools and techniques (if any) which should be considered to reduce the burden and cost of disclosure of Electronic Documents, including –
(a): limiting disclosure of documents or certain categories of documents to particular date ranges, to particular custodians of documents, or to particular types of documents;
(b): the use of agreed Keyword Searches;
(c): the use of agreed software tools;
(d): the methods to be used to identify duplicate documents;
(e): the use of Data Sampling;
(f): the methods to be used to identify privileged documents and other non-disclosable documents, to redact documents (where redaction is appropriate), and for dealing with privileged or other documents which have been inadvertently disclosed; and
(g): the use of a staged approach to the disclosure of Electronic Documents;
(4): the preservation of Electronic Documents, with a view to preventing loss of such documents before the trial;
(5): the exchange of data relating to Electronic Documents in an agreed electronic format using agreed fields;
(6): the formats in which Electronic Documents are to be provided on inspection and the methods to be used;
(7): the basis of charging for or sharing the cost of the provision of Electronic Documents, and whether any arrangements for charging or sharing of costs are final or are subject to re-allocation in accordance with any order for costs subsequently made; and
(8): whether it would be appropriate to use the services of a neutral electronic repository for storage of Electronic Documents.
So lets look at that.....
The parties and their legal representatives must also, before the first case management conference, discuss the disclosure of Electronic Documents. In some cases (for example heavy and complex cases) it may be appropriate to begin discussions before proceedings are commenced. The discussions should include (where appropriate) the following matters –
Well what is classed as 'A Document" firstly???
Personally I would have thought it was in relation to a transaction... But lets apply this to "The Searches"...
Firstly... I believe that "The Prosecution", should have informed and made available to "The Defence" at The Case Management Hearing.. The disclosure of these "Documents" (Searches) This Case Management hearing that was Heard at The Old Bailey in May 2011...
It should not have been a complete surprise at Trial in October 2011.. That "The Prosecution" had a 1300 page Document, containing these "Searches".. If they were going to be introduced into Evidence...(IMO)..
Lets look at the use of "Data sampling".... This I believe is Lyndsey Farmeys Field of expertise....
If we looked at Dr Vincent Tabak's computer searches as a whole... we would see that he was just like any other citizen... He would have possibly 'Searched for
"The latest free Offer"... he could have searched for... "How many coffee granules are there in a teaspoon of "Ground Coffee".. He could have searched for...
Do Elephants really hide in Custard... He could have searched for... "Is Beyoncy really a Legal Expert???The point I am making is... How many "Searches were created on not only Dr Vincent Tabak's "Home" Computer... but on Dr Vincent Tabak's "Work" computer.... To put the "Searches of this 'Placid Dutchman" into Context???
The Prosecution were allowed to present "These Electronic Document" without there being
"Any Disclosure To 'The Defence".. But also without 'The Context of Dr Vincent Tabak's "FULL Search History" being brought to the table...
If we think about how we search ourselves.. We may do "Hundreds of Searches a day when aimlessly Surfing The net.... If as "The Prosecution and The Defence" have told us... Dr Vincent Tabak was "Bored"... Then he in all reality could have made "Hundreds and Hundreds of Searches on his computer.... Adding Tanja Morson's searches to the total as well....
Plenty searches could have been performed Whilst i Have been posting on this forum, many a time I have 50 plus web pages open whilst searching on another page and going back and forth.... My Searches are purely related to this case by and large... But i do look at other things at the same time as I am doing this....
My point being.....
If Dr Vincent Tabak had a "HISTORY" of searches on his computer and "NOT" all of them related in anyway to Joanna Yeates ... Then how can these "SAID SEARCHES".. be used as EVIDENCE and PROOF of GUILT!!!!... IF DR VINCENT TABAK PERFORMED 300 SEARCHES A DAY AND 2 SEARCHES OUT OF THOSE 300 SEARCHES COULD BE LINKED OR ASSOCIATED TO JOANNA YEATES... THEN HOW DOES THAT PROVE THAT HE WAS CONSTANTLY SEARCHING THE INTERNET TO COVER HIS TRACKS????? It doesn't..(IMO)
Lyndsey Farmery Is an "Intelligence Analyst"... Her Role within the "Police" is to Collect Data.. She 'Analyses Data"...
The only "Data" That our
"Power Point Pointing Performer".. Analysed Was any 'DATA"
She deemed To be relevant to The Joanna Yeates Murder Case....
She just collected '
The data That she decided was relevant to this case ..... And ignored any other Data that may or maynot have shown that Dr Vincent tabak was just like any other citizen at the time... Checking out what was going on about his neighbour... Whilst Internet shopping for Presents or How many Elephants you can get in a bowl of custard for that matter...
How did Dr Vincent Tabak's
Internet History prove that he was obsessed with The Joanna Yeates 'Missing Persons Inquiry"/ "Murder case"... If all of the 'Other Internet Searches" were not included in the evidence??
Watering down The relevance of Dr Vincent Tabak's Internet Search History"... (IMO)
I liken it to describing someone as a Gambling Addict.....
If one person goes to a "Bookies" every single week to put on say... "The Irish Lottery...And maybe a few Horse bets ... And this person works in a Factory of, lets say 500 staff....
Each staff member has about 5 tickets each for the Irish Lottery/ Horse Betting... making a total of 2500 bets "A Week"...
Because this person is happy to pop in the Bookies for the staff, does it every week...
They decide to have a loyalty card.. which would give "Them".. Free Bets and Bonuses ... All of those tickets would then be related to that person's loyalty card and that "ONE PERSON...... Meaning 2500 bets are attributed to the person placing the bets....
Therefore if someone said... OMG... That Person puts 2500 bets on a week... They "MUST" have a GAMBLING problem... Without the other evidence to discount this claim.... 'Everyone would agree that "The Person" did INDEED have a GAMBLING Problem"..
So how can you say that Dr Vincent Tabak had an "Obsession with the Joanna Yeates Case.... and was Trying to Cover his tracks by keeping "One Step Ahead of The Investigation".. as Ann Reddrop stated... If not all of the
Information is brought forward, to "prove " or disprove".... That this was indeed the case ?
Meaning (IMO)...
The Prosecution withheld Evidence And by just thinking about The Internet searches, not including Every Internet Search That was Done on either Dr Vincent Tabak's "Home" or "Work" computer... The Case against him was "Prejudical" and NOT OPEN AND FAIR... (IMO)..
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31/pd_part31bhttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/7
