 |
Feb 8, 08, 10:44 #330
Dear UKE,
Most of the information given by me before was the one publicly said in the media (radio, TV) by the defense: by Polish defense lawyers of Tomczak and by the British defense lawyer, Mr. Andrew Langdon (one of the most respectful in UK). I have heard myself to their arguments. So that is why I consider your source of information as a fault one, not mine. No lawyer would officially say lies in public.The Polish press has nothing to do with that. With all my respect to the British press, especially local in Exeter, they cannot be a reliable source of any information after the biased attitude to the case based on the demand for profit out of its paper sales. The more sensation, the better. I know Exeter and have had the wonderful English friends from the time I spent there a year studying 15 years ago and on the phone they told me they were ashamed of the way the case was commented on the local press.
[i]Please find my respond to your remarks:
Doctor wrote:
Dear Mong,
I have read a couple of your opinions about the case. You sound like all knowing God about the case and the evidences. However, I found your opinions on the forum as highly misleading and biased.
I have got interested in the case. There is a clear picture of many doubts and mistakes done by the police:
1/There are still bood staind and material taken from behind the victim's nails (somebody's skin) that do not much Tomczak's DNA. Nobody wants to explain that.
It is spelt 'stained'.
No there isn't. That is the Polish press making it up. There is no DNA under the skin of Jakub's nails, the defence did not bring it up and it is a total fabrication
It was publicly said by the Polish and British lawyers in the media.
Further remark: The defense could not bring it up as according to the law only the trails/evidences brought up by the prosecutor can be discussed in the case.
In other situation the judge has to agree for bringing it up. [/i]
2/This is not true what you claim that the pictures from the cameras of the two men are the same: even the expert on the court said that one would be described by him like fat (Tomczak says it is him earlier on his way home and passing by the victim), the other as slim (Tomczak says it is not him; this is following the lade and then returning with the bag; this one has the T-short from the local sportsfunclub that was origanally claimed by the police as the posession of the raper. Then they changed their standpoint and claimed that the shirt is the same as Tomczak's)
Firstly, Jakub disposed of his shirt he was wearing that night. That speaks volumes. Why would he do that> Nobody (Police, his family, friends could find it)
As I wrote the police was originally looking for a shirt of the local sports fun club. In the first public images of the possible suspect hung in Exeter such a shirt was put in public picture of the criminalist.
That’s why they did not find it in Tomczak’s home. They were just simply looking for the different one!
Then the police changed their opinion. They started to claim that Tomczak was wearing a T-shirt. It is a pity that they did not look for it originally.
It was publicly said in the media by the Polish and British lawyers that the police has collected and owned all the clothes of Tomczak of that night (trousers, shoes, underwear). No evidence of the crime! I repeat that they are missing the shirt as they were looking originally for a completely different one!
These two men appeared at 3am in the same 1/4 of a mile, wearing the same clothes and possessing the same DNA? It was a 12 loci hit, 1 in a billion. The highest hit you can get between humans. The population of the world is 6 billion. Are you suggesting one of these 6 was in that area of Exeter, Devon at 3 am in the morning?
This is just a consequence of the interpretation of DNA test results that are in high doubt (first test found Tomczak DNA different, a “technical” mistakes in the lab, using different software ets, sperm collection after 72 hours with high risk of desintegratino of DNA) : as a consequence you do not have the right saying about the 2 guys having the same DNA.
On the other hand, if the expert on the cameras and picture from CCTV footage says in the court (to the disgust of the prosecutor) that the first guy (Tomczak says it is him) would be described by him as fat and then the other guy (following the lady; Tomczak says it is not him) as slim and to the question of the defense why he did not write it in his original report, he replies that his work for the prosecution is to find similarities and not the differences, then common !, let’s stop talking about the fairness and accuracy of the people responsible for finding the truth!
Then UKE please do not talk for sure about the same two men on that night! I could even risk a thesis that because of the fact that from the cameras pictures you see differences between the guys (said in the court by the expert called by the prosecution),it is rather the evidence for Tomczak’s innocence!
3/Background of Tomczak and the alibi given by the people in the hotel and the sister and his friend in the flat limits the possible time for the crime to the minimum. Nothing indicated that he violated somebody. He was reported to be calm, relaxed with no signs of violation on the clothes, hair etc
Sorry he is missing 30-45 mins from that night, he committed the crime in that time period.
Rapists are often calm, calculated individuals. That is what makes them, and defines them rapists.
Just a remark: it could be, I do not argue, this is a soft argument, but it raises at least doubts and doubts should be interpreted as an advantage of Tomczak. First you have to prove something then you can call somebody a rapist (unfortunately Express and Echo, local newspaper, did in the opposite way)
4/he could have leave England just after the crime but he did not staying in Exeter another month until his originally planned trip back to Poland. He is a lawyerstudent. He is not stupid and he knew what consequences could be by giving volunteerly his DNA material when he was asked. However he did it.
He was leaving after three days. He saw the crime was originally being attributted to an accident so was relieved.
No, this is not true. This is a lie. Tomczak did not leave the UK after 3 days. Why on earth you are saying that! He stayed until the end of August in Exeter. Common, what accident you are talking about?
The lady raped and lying uder the car???!! And you are talking about some attribution to an accident ??!!!
5/Defenders did not want to do another Dna test as they strategy was to eliminate the original test DNA on the basis that the Britis police and prosecuters did not follow the procedures and they told lies to Tomczak. Half a year ago, the Lords in the Parlament took a standpoint that one has to follow the procedures in such cases and on that basis thay make let one South African guy go free who was arrested aboard on the plane home. This is important. That would normally guarantee to elominate the DNA proof and would not require further action on that by the defenders. As they role is to defend they just choose the best way, That is the reason why they chose that way of acting not retesting as they say they cannot be sure of DNA material of sperm as it was collected too late (almost 72 hours after the rape- another mistake made by the police). However the judge just talk the the Exeter police claiming that that however the procdures had not been kept, then they work suggested the right intentions :-)
The above sentence makes no sense
It perfectly does. Maybe you did not understand my point or my English was not good enough. This is the clue to understand the defense and their decision that they will not perform another DNA test. They had only a choice between: [i]a/ apply for rejecting the DNA test (in their opinion doubtful, see above) as an evidence because the DNA was collected from Tomczak by breaking the British procedure on that (Normally he should be referred to, talked to, fully informed about his status in the case). Instead he was not guaranteed his rights at all, what is even more, he was said lies to. According to the the House of Lords (that in addition to having a legislative function, has a judicial function as a court of last resort within the United Kingdom) based on the case of the South African guy I referred to previously, one must follow the British law in that respect that means for Tomczak case nothing more than that the performed DNA test should have been rejected. Or B/ to agree for another test and collection of DNA from Tomczak. As they challenged the time of collection of the sperm as an inaccurate and they were pretty sure about the Point a/ and its interpretation , they had chosen A/ .
You are not allowed to do both (challenge the evidence on the formal ground and process it further at the same time) according to the rules and the law. They had to choose.[/i]
However it does not mean that they were afraid of retesting or sure that Tomczk committed the crime. They just chose the better option for their client in these circumstances with better (in their opinion) chances to protect him. As the case show they were wrong: as I commented earlier, the judge did allow the DNA test to be the evidence (he claimed that he based his decision on the interview withe the police ant they report; please note- Exeter police)
By the way, this fact will probably be the reason for the appeal and it will have every chance to be won. The House of Lords is the final resort of the interpretation of the law and they have already give their opinion on the similar case. In the law, you cannot make shortcuts as the police and the prosecutor did.
6/The only resonable evidenceis this DNA test. I am not going to discuss that, If it is done according to the procedure it is a very strong evidence. Here there were doubts: sperm taken too late. In some countries material must be collected not later then 48hours, in some in 72 hours. Here we have got the case of 72 hours or even later. There was some computer? mistake and chnage of the type of software for the second DNA test. It does not give the right and fully reliable picture of the lab that did the test.
The 'sperm taken too late' line has been fed to you by the Polish press, none of whom where at the trial.
Unfortunately for you, not. I am a doctor and also know what I am talking about. I have the knowledge from the forensic medicine as well.
7/ The prosecuter initially offered the deal to the defenders: if Tomczak says he raped the lade, they will withdraw the accusation of beating her up and harm. The question is why? If the prosecuter had been 100% certain of the evidences, he would have not suggest such a deal. The deal was rejected by the defence.
Another total fabrication, the prosecution offered nothing whatsoever. It was in fact the prosecution that dropped the attempted murder charge. No offers made to the defence. Total fabrication
Sorry, on the opposite , this is total misleading information provided by you. Sorry, but you are not right. It was publicly said in the media and confirmed by the Polish lawyers of the defense and the British lawyer, Mr. Langdon. This was not publically discussed a lot, but this is what they said to the media.
8/It is not true what you claim, that the jury is isolated during the process. In the USA yes, in UK no, not at all. After a day they went back to their homes read local newspapers (that before the verdict were putting the pictures of some figure following the lase, saying "the rapist Tomczak is following her victim! The defenders said that they asked the judge to ask the jury not to read the newspapers but he refused to do that!
So, sure it can be Tomczak who raped the victim. Dna test (however with significant doubts) can be a strong evidence. Then the rest, in my opinion, is nothing. You can interprete it as you wish. Based on the whole picture and the doubts with the test, I, personally, would never ever say "guilty" in this case, just as I think it is not proved. I could not sleep saying guilty knowing all this as I am not sure. And as it is seen from the final verdict, even one iinhabitant of Exetrer society being in the jury and being under the local pression to find a guilty aof a rape, said Tomczak is not guilty.
What makes me sick is to observe how one can manipulate with the information and how easily is to start to hate the others.
The jury was isolated for the entire process in a hotel miles from Exeter.
No, it is not true. They could watch local TV, read local newspaper, talk to the people. It was publicly said in the media by the lawyers of the defense that they intervened with the judge in this respect but he rejected the intervention and did nothing. It was confirmed in public by them in the media.
Please, let me express my point again. I am not sure that Tomczak did not do that. I am not sure that Tomczak did it, either. From this two standpoints, I come to the conclusion, I would, personally, never ever say "guilty", as it is, in my opinion, not proven enough and there are a lot of doubts. What makes me sad and I do not understand it is why so many people say the things that are not true or they are not certain about trying to prove that Tomczak did it for 100%?!
The knowledge about the case I shared here with you all is based on what I heard from the defence, the lawyers, who would not say rubbish in public. That's why I accept this source of information as a true one, not the individual opinions.
Another thing, I do not personally think that the case was free of mistakes, local pressure of people who want justice and incompetence of the police who want to find a guilty. I feel so sorry for the lady. I wish she could recover. It must have been a nightmare for her. However we must remember to be fair in our opinions and verdicts as they concern lives of other people. We must be sure. I am not sure if the raper is no free. The case in Exeter court does not give me personally this certainty. If, even, my English friends from Exeter, the members of local society, say to me that they feel uncomfortable about the local press and the case itself and they are not happy how it was solved, it makes me think as the opinion of one of the jury who said that Tomczak was not guilty. Remember, the judge accepted the majority verdict (he did not have to- it is his decision) as the jury did not have the same opinion on Tomczak's case.
This is all very complicated and not so simple as some would like to be.
|
Guest
|
top of page