JAKUB TOMCZAK - guilty?

I wrote that ironically because it was provocation.

I know Southern I was just kidding too. But I do hope that all the rapists get their **** **** and ****** **** * ***** and ***** **** **** and then **** ** ****** ***** **** * ***** ***** * ***** ***** ***** and after that they **** * ******* *** ***** ***** in prison. LOL

thank you, vanburen3, for your unbiased opinion about Jakub Tomczak's case. I'm Polish, which doesn't mean that for that reason alone I would believe Tomczak not guilty. But, as you've already mentioned, there were so many unclear circumstances with certain aspects suggesting his innocence (or at least not connecting him with the crime, like the shirt the culprit was wearing) that , personally, I am far from satisfied with the whole trial and I can't help thinking that Tomczak was conveniently used by the British police and your system of justice as a scapegoat. If you think about it, how much easier it must be for a jury to find a foreigner (from eastern Europe in addition!!!) guilty of a crime than to convict a local man. And the "facts" allegedly indicating his "guilt" like CCTV, presented as the final, unquestionable "proof" of his guilt were again not so convincing - the man recorded on cctv may have been merely similar to Tomczak but the quality of the recording(black and white picture) plus the fact that his face was not visible leave the feeling of doubts and uncertainty. As a polish citizen I am deeply sorry that Poland was so quick and careless to give Jakub to the British police clearly more anxious not to spoil the polish-british relations than to protect its own citizen.

If he has been convicted then he is a 'convicted rapist' i hope they lock him up and throw away the key, he should actually be swinging for what he did, there is not point talking about it he has been found 'GUILTY' of the crime he was accussed of. I'll hang him and other rapists if nobody has the bottle

Hi Tornado,

They hang many people in US, for example, convicted for murders who then were found innocent. Do not be so quick, as you certainly would not want to be if it were you and you were not guilty.
Let's wait: the defend is making an appeal and in Exeter there were more rapes in 2007 that have not been explained so far and in the time when Tomczak was not there.
We will see how the things develop. Just to remind you: one person from the jury found Tomczak NOT guilty and there were, at least, couple of serious doubts.
Wishing you a happy life not being found by the cameras in the neighbourhood of any crime!

If upon appeal Tomczak is found guilty [again]. Will you accept the verdict ?

Hi Wroclaw,

Yes, sure. Then the case will be judged by the jury beyond Exeter with no emotional and local media influence.

'Found guilty' and 'guilty' are two different things. It's pretty easy to make the mistake and find someone guilty. It is very hard to fix that mistake.
We are all guessing, suspecting, believing - but the only person that really KNOWS is Jakub himself. And I don't care about his feelings if he did that, but if he didn't- that would mean some people's wrong believes are destroying this young man's life.

There's been some discussion here on the DNA evidence. It is true- the test won't fail, but the people that take it can. Doesn't it make you wonder how was it possible for the first result to be different to the second one. And why was the second result taken into account?

Also why would a young guy, having his whole life ahead of him, voluntarily gave his DNA sample, knowing it will mean his end. Some people said: well, his family wanted him to do it- he couldn't say no for that would mean admitting he's guilty. That's pretty pathetic argument. One would have to be stupid to voluntarily give an evidence of one's guilt for such reason. Especially cold blooded criminal, who committed this crime. Does anyone really think an animal who raped Jane would be worried that his parents may disapprove if he doesn't give his DNA sample?! Come on people! Think like a criminal! He would probably do anything to escape the justice.

In the end I wanted to mention that there were more rapes in Exeter than just this one. Did anyone make an effort to see if there's any connection between them? Or is it just easier to accuse the 'outsider'?...There's too many doubts in this case to be able to make a satisfied statement: We found the rapist. He's name is Jakub.

Just think about it.

Or watch The life of David Gale. What seems clear and obvious, may be the opposite.

I want to believe he's innocent. Cause there's so many people believing in him. If his not- that would mean he's pure evil, abusing trust of those who are closest to him. And I know that I'll feel really stupid if one day all the doubts will be removed and it'll become clear he is guilty. But you'll feel as stupid for your comments, if it appears he's innocent.

Keep it in your mind, when judging others. One day they may judge you.

The Jakub T story raised its head again this morning on Polish television. I watched an interview with 2 Polish journalists whos report will be screened tonight. Firstly, it was mentioned that JT's lawyer has resigned saying he hasn't a hope in hell chance of a re-trial, to me this implies that even the lawyer thinks he may be onto a loser here, whereas the journos reckon he just doesn't want to help a poor Polish guy anymore. Secondly, I could not believe my ears when one of these young trendy journos said that it was totally unfair of the case to be referred to as a "brutal rape" in the UK press, he argued that simply because the victim was hit in the face, causing here to fall over and crack open her head on the kerb this could in no way be seen the attacker acting in a brutal way! Sorry but this is just an outrageous statement to make and worryingly ranks alongside statements like Lepper laughing and saying "How can you rape a prostitute?" when he was accused of rape. The fact that the victim was raped, left for dead and shoved under a parked van is not brutal??? The interview then proceeded onto the subject of how terrible the British prison is and how Poland has to fight to bring him back to at least serve his sentence in a nice Polish prison and ended on a lovely note when one of the journos when asked whether he thought JT was guilty or innocent came up with the wonderfully legally binding statement of "Just look at him, he couldn't have done it!". Sorry but rather than being a helpful insight into the case it just strengthened my believe that from a Polish male perspective rape is still not taken particularily seriously and the case in Poland is still based solely around the fact that he is Polish and that means JT is being unfairly treated in the UK. I don't know if he is guilty or innocent but watching those two guys and the interviewer discussing the case in this manner was, for me anyway, pretty damn shocking! It may be interesting for any foreigner with a knowledge of Polish to watch tonights report and see what they think?

@Moko:
You're wrong:
The another person that really KNOWS is the REAL RAPER !!!

---

Study this:
supernewstoday.com/england/Women-may-hold-sex-attack-clues/

Police said her attacker was wearing a distinctive red and white Exeter City football shirt with the slogan "We 8 Argyle" on the back.
He is aged between 18 and 25, about 5ft 9in to 6ft tall, with short dark hair and slim build.

(...)
Police believe the shirt the attacker was wearing could be crucial.

another pathetic member of the RAPISTS family . Welcome swamp life.

I still think whatever if your found guilty your guilty otherwise whats the point of the system, what should we say, ow he's guilty but hay actually no he's not because i said so!!! i don't think so. He should be swinging or serving a life sentence back in Poland. Put him in with the lifer's he won't last a day if they know what he's done :)

You know, it is really difficult for any of us to be truly convinced about his innocence or guilt.. unbiased. We will always be guided by our morals, pity (towards victim, criminal, or both) and sense of judgement. That's human..
However, what's really important here is that to be sentenced for this crime for twice life imprisonment, he should be found undoubtedly guilty. Not a shadow of doubt. No unclear circumstances. Guilty no matter what perspective you take to look at it. Objectively. With no emotions involved. Only evidence being of importance.

I don't think they proved that. I think they found an easy pray. He MIGHT be guilty, I'm not saying that's not possible. But from what I've heard or seen, he MIGHT not be guilty.
The least they should have done or do, is to investigate the crime, body of evidence, and all circumstances once again, thoroughly, with the help of criminal experts from other countries if necessary. And they all (and us) should clearly see that he IS guilty. To the point that we look at this guy's face and cannot believe it, but everything says it was him...

Otherwise, this kind of verdict only leads to deepening the conflict between the Brits and Poles, who live there door to door. Without an undoubtful evidence, everyone is right..

Not me. I have no reason to doubt my peers, the jury, who heard all the evidence.

Well fin t, I watched the program and came to the conclusion that the only thing beyond reasonable doubt was the semen sample. All the other factors didn't get to a high enough standard. I think the disappointing thing is that it turned into an international dispute, that's what soured the milk. Kasia, it is nigh on impossible to prove without a shadow of a doubt as the evidence was just too blurry. Any law student worth their salt will know that any doubts swing in favour of the accused.

What disappointed me was the weakness of the prosecuting lawyer (mock) in the program. What a sham!! No-one wants to see a travesty of justice and, unfortunately, a string of damaging miscarriages of justice have emerged from the English legal system.

I agree with ur emotional assessment Kasia. Personally, I think he LOOKS like a rapist but that is neither here nor there. As to/for his character assessment, he may have been a jolly lad but people change. It is barely admissible evidence as stronger evidence must prevail.

I also agree that a more thorough investigation needs to take place. It is res judicata when it shouldn't be. In Scotland, res noviter veniens ad notitiam, new evidence basically, is important. I don't think everything was unearthed and presented satisfactorily. I'm just trying to be objective where others haven't been

Not talking about this case, but judging by what you said you would have to admit that innocent people are never convicted and that is just not true......

Innocent people were jailed in Long Kesh, a camp for internees, back in 1971 and thereafter. The evidence was anachronistic and didn't acknowledge that people had renounced their allegiance to terrorism long b4. Matty is right, flagrant violations of justice have been known to occur and we have to be careful not to slip up unnecessarily

That is a very bold statement actually.. as if you knew each of them personally and could quarantee their objectivity and sound judgement..

As much as I always try to see things from different perspecitves, and as much as I would like to be objective here, I wouldn't want (for any money ;) to be a jury member in this case..

You're correct. That's why I also accept the right to appeal.

But Wrocław, can u really put ur hands up and say, in all honesty, that the evidence thrust into the public domain was so clear as to deprive a man of his liberty? It's easy to get swept up in tides and to misplace faith in legal figures, experienced or otherwise.

Remember, to errr is human!!

I completely understand your position, why have a justice system if as a society we can't rely on it. To be honest the justice system is for the most part fairly successful but you must admit it does make it's fair share of blunders.

Even with appeals people are still sent to prison. I don't know how it's in the UK but in the states we had many instances of innocent people being released after being wrongly convicted and spending 20 years in jail. In addition in the states appeals are only heard if their is daming evidance proving innocence or when their was judicial error. So just because someone wants to appeal doesn't mean they will be granted one.

You must question the logic of selected options. In Scotland, we have a third verdict of 'not proven' and I'd hazard an educated guess that Tomczak would have been handed that one. This third verdict has its critics and with some justification, but it does minimise the risk of erroneous outcomes. Let's face it, doubts exist in us all at the best of times.

It seems a like an interesting concept, what are the criticism of it??????

I don't know who said this, It's better for 1000 guilty men to go free than one innocent person going to prison..... Though I don't necessary agree with that statement, it does serve its purpose to show that we must understand that mistakes happen and we need to be more vigilant when we convict someone.

On a side note, I'm not saying he is innocent however the trial and evidance was not properly handled. I hope that he is guilty because I would not want an innocent person spending time in jail for a crime they didn't commit.

Jurors are not just chosen willy-nilly. Also, the twelve jurors are allowed to confer before reaching a verdict. There are enough of them to make a balanced decission.
I just happen to have faith in the system, which may or may not include an appeal.

I think u need to separate jurors from jury members Wrocław. Jury members, on the electoral roll, have no distinguishing features in Scotland. My Mum will be one and she has no associations with the law. She merely must interpret what she is fed with.

The 'not proven' verdict is seen as sitting on the fence too much. It leads to a hung position and is rather inconclusive. It's strength could lie therein too tho.

Is it like a hung jury..... when not all the jury members can agree??????

In this case the defence didn't seem to have an arguement. Plus, from what I've read the weight of evidence was against him.



Agreed.



A good defence team will find good reason for an appeal in this case. The doubts raised on this thread might be included too. That said, I would still expect the outcome to be the same



Can a not proven verdict go for retrial ?



As soon as that happens the system has failed. But I can put up with it for a few months as in cases like this.

A hung jury is an alien concept in Scotland as, unlike our neighbours down south who have 12, we have 15 unless the law has been subject to reform. This will tip the balance either way

No.

Basically it means that the prosecution has not provided enough evidence that someone is guilty (even if it is obvious the person is guilty).

wait so in Scotland more have to agree than disagree or do they all need to reach the same verdict....



Your mostly right(sometimes judges have a power trip), but either way that then leads to that you must have good defense team.... I've met many lawyers who should not be practicing law....

What I'm getting to is that no system is infallibull and the system does fail on occasions...