Found another law paper about the trial ,which has given me a clearer understanding as to why, the searches that Vincent Tabak did, where not admissable..(Its by Sally Ramage again, it layed out better and seems to have more info..)
Also how safe the metadata they produced saying Vincent Tabak did A B and C is probably lost and gone forever, As the defence didnt question this so called evidence and it can't be reproduced, Does that make it evidence???
page 29
11.1. Abuse of process
To use this law to prove the guilt of Dr Tabak in as serious an offence as murder can be
interpreted by some as an abuse of process and it is too late for a judicial review on this
point, because the trial did go ahead with he trial and the trial has concluded. The law of
presenting computer ‘evidence’ is intended to be used for accounting and banking
transactions and not murder, ie. what the accused did with the money , not what was in his
mind when he looked at a webpage. Some would argue that murder cannot be committed
by looking at a webpage, whereas fraud can be committed by making an electronic
transaction which can be put to evidence. Looking at a webpage cannot be the cause of
murder.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdfpage 32
14.2. Significance of computer document is the defendant’s reaction to it
In ex parte Levin, it was assumed that section 69 of the 1984 PACE (now repealed) would
have to be complied with. In such a case, the reliability and accuracy of the computer are
obviously relevant. In other cases, however, they have no relevance at all. The significance
of the computer generated document lies not in its accuracy, but in the defendant's
behaviour in relation to it. In this case, Dr Tabak looked at webpages. Hypothetically, this
evidence could have been created for purpose and since the defence experts were not
allowed to examine it, all the metadata which shows when and who created it, to whom it
was forwarded, etc, has been lost forever. It is much too late at trial, and so this evidence
should be excluded because all the metadata has since been lost. It would not have been
difficult for the prosecution’s exper to show he live documents . Documentary copies set
up in a database alongside other documents alleging electronic conversations, etc. has
corrupted all the live evidence and its metadata.
Did the defence or anyone, check the reliability of Tabak computer?
12.1. Any evidence will go to weight unless unreliability is proved
Prior to the repeal of section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by the
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s. 60, it was necessary to prove the
reliability of the computer before any statement in a document produced by a computer
could be admitted in evidence. This applied, whichever category the information fell
within. See R v Shephard.
41 The repeal of s. 69 PACE means that any evidence
pertaining to the reliability of a computer will go to weight.
page 31
14.3. The relevance that Dr Tabak viewed certain online pages
Dr Tabak- if he did look at internet pages, did not print them.
He did not use them.
He did not act on the information in them.
He did not act in response to them.
He did not annotate them.
It is the defendant's behaviour in relation to the print-out that is important.
Therefore, there is no hearsay element involved and no reliability issue.
But as Dr Tabak did not print out this information, this is not relevant to his case.
So when they showed the supposed picture after the trial of a girl in a pink t-shirt in a car boot, it played on the sympathies of the general public,.. did this image infact come from vincent Tabaks, computer.
Because the press implied that Tabak had recreated the image he was supposed to have on his computer, thus it drove him to kill Joanna yeates.
And if this evidence is hard to recreate the exact time and how the image came to be how do we know for sure ,Tabak had it on his computer.
I know myself when i put information into google, google itself sometimes decides what I am looking for, and because im not concentrating on the search bar i press enter.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131210/07555625519/lawsuit-claims-accidental-google-search-led-to-years-government-investigation-harrassment.shtml"In October of 2009, Kantor used the search engine Google to try to find, 'How do I build a radio-controlled airplane,'" he states in his complaint. "He ran this search a couple weeks before the birthday of his son with the thought of building one together as a birthday present. After typing, 'how do I build a radio controlled', Google auto-completed his search to, 'how do I build a radio controlled bomb.'"
Accidental porn hits are known and in 2012 google change the searches to prevent this from taking place
http://www.cio.com/article/2389773/online-safety/google-adjusts-image-search-to-avoid-accidental-porn-hits.htmlSo who said that Vincent Tabak intended to look up the difference between Murder and manslaughter? Or intended to look at porn? Without a printout of the said searches, how is it possible to prove he meant to look at what was entered into the search engine?
So There is no evidence to prove Intent at all.
