JAKUB TOMCZAK - guilty?

If there was a use of force and violence (and there was plenty if it) then this defence by its own is useless (no means no). If it were to be used then it would have to be accompanied by a proof that both were into some kinky kind of sex (BSDM or other types, usually described in psychiatric manuals). Of course there is no such poroof as the rape victoim doesn't remember much, and there doesn't appear to be any prior contact between the two.

I mean before the rape.For example one night stand etc.
You should also keep in mind that most rapists today wear condoms exactly because of the DNA test.

Right. I thought about that, since apparently (please, tell me if you know otherwise and state your source) the other samples did not match. although this version seems unlikely.
Southern, could you explain me also, what happens with the sample after 72 hours? some expert webs say, that the sample should be taken 24 hours max. after then they are not valid.
Are you a scientist? Thanks for explanations.

you seem to be a deeply disturbed individual

If the sample is well preserved it can be used with accuracy even many years after.US managed to identify murderers after 15-20 years when DNA technique development allowed fluid smaples to be examined.So in the '90s they solved crimes which were commited in the early '80s.
If the sample is destroyed it is obvious because the bands are not formed to match them with the victim's,the murderer's and the neutral person's blood.

Yes, that could fly.



I'd think that some DNA material would be left on the scene regardless, hairs, sweat, no?



What's wrong with one night stands?

went back to get the proper link,, sorry for the confusion ;0)

the original article I posted is on there now ..

?



Yes,hair is almost always present because the murderers cannot spot and remove it.Sometimes skin in the nails of victim or on her teeth.However hair is not absolute evidence and has not much convincing power as body flluids do.You cannot achieve convict only on evidence of hair.

I might not have been clear with my question. My question is:
The sample was taken from the victim after 72 hours from her vagina.
(this statement is based on information found online - I presume truth)
Websites on DNA sampling suggest, that the vaginal environment (wetness, acidity) contributes to quick deterioration of the semen. It is been suggested, that those samples need to be taken asap, up to 24 hours after the crime. after that time the DNA sample is not useful for forensic evidence.
Would you confirm that?

nothing

That meant I agree



Thay happen to be prosecuting a forensic "scientist" ( a doctor). Hair was used as evidence in on of the trials he testified for, although I'm not sure what portion of the evidence it constituted. (In that particular case he did only a visual, no microscope, analysis. Over a dozen people went to jail for murder because of the as.shole.)

I wrote you.It is better to take it early but if it is destroyed it is obvious,you get no matching results because the bands are not formed so you cannot match them.
Only if you contaminate the sample deliberately with another person's DNA you can get false results but again it will show because the labs analyze several DNA fragments in the sample comparing the DNAs of the victim,the suspect and a neutral person.
You should also know that before they compare the DNA they amplify it by special technique,so that the comparison becomes extremely accurate.

Ok, thanks a lot for your explanation. Now, I would like to ask you, if the DNA could be different in sperm and in other parts of the body? Seems like a silly question, but I just don't understand why other samples taken wouldn't match, and this one would. Thanks

But does "accurate" always mean reliable and true? Just a few years since DNA has been used in forensics and we are already seeing problems: URL

A very hysterical reaction, but can we blame her for it? Imagine someone from your closest family members was accused of murder or rape. Someone you are very close with, know him all his life, who never committed a single crime and suddenly is accused to be a rapist. Would you believe it or maybe think you know him better than some strangers who never got the chance to even meet him? A different story is that the most common sentence we can read in articles related to murder or rape crimes are: "He was such a good boy, I can't believe he actually done it".

Oh, and don't try to make it sound as if she only blamed the brits and play the whole “Polish victim” whatever... After the polish court agreed to send him to Britain for the trial she called them executioners. She's just a mother that lost her child. Mother's are the same all over the world.



One of the articles I posted a link to, was from the bbc news website. I'm not saying that they don't lie in the BBC, but if you want me to believe you, you need to support your argument with anything actually.




I have the feeling that you had in mind my humble person. Well, I thought I stated clearly enough that I am ashamed about the deed of Jakub. The thing that shows that Jakub was most probably the perpetrator was the fact that his defender didn't ask for another DNA test. I mean, if he wasn't the rapist why didn't they do another test. Does anybody actually know if the defense said anything about it? What was their explanation?

I asked some simple questions to get some simple answers as the press seems to give some unclear and sometimes contradictory information, just to be accused with siding with the rapist by some poster who seems to be a very emotionally unstable character. Whatever. It's not worth my time anyway.

PS: Thanks to those people who actually gave some mature response.



According to this article, it was neither his nor the victims blood. But never mind.

i agree, who can really blame her for a hysterical reaction and, if in a similar position with a family member i would probably have doubts about the conviction...but im not sure if i would scream racism or imply that everyone envolved was out to get them

But since she knows her son so well what could be a different explanation for the conviction for her? I think that she would believe in his guilt only after he would actually confess raping that poor woman to her personally. I stress personally, as otherwise she would most likely accuse the British Police to have forced him to this confession.

It is possible.She may have had contact with several people during the day.For example there could be a hair of her collegue at work or of the cashier at supermarket or of members of her family.
Most important are the body fluids,the blood and the semen.If the police had found blood of a different person under her nails for example it would mean that the rapist was the other and maybe she had consential sex with Tomczak first.But all these are hypotheses.
Since there is semen found the suspect has to prove
1.That he had sex with the victim before the rape took place
2.That he was not with the victim when the rape took place

i was merely suggesting that the folk on here that are shouting about a miscarraige of justice look at the CCTV and all the evidence that is available on the echo website. It is unedited.

Do you not think people should see all the evidence before they come to a conclusion about jakub's guilt?

The DNA is sperm, hair, skin, liver cells would all give the same profile.

If Jakub had left any cell from any organ of his body there it would have given the same profile.

Personally I think he gave a DNA sample as he was certian he didn't leave any traces when he raped her. Condoms etc.

there was no information about any condom. and there is information that blood, sperm on her pubic hair and skin samples under her nails did not contain the matching profile. How is that to the puzzle? It really puzzles me.
About the cctv: the suspect's shirt has some white symbol in the middle (police thought it was a number). His shirt doesn't seem to have anything in the middle. the quality of pictures are really bad in this case. I think that the cctvs' quality needs to be definitely improved. and why is the last footage in black-white?

That is a complete and total fabrication and you know it.

I wasn't suggesting Jakub left the condom at the scene!

No samples were found under her nails, she was half dead so could not fight back to scratch.

The semen found was a perfect match.

No pubic hair has been found or tested.

You could work for the Polish press with all these made up stories that you are posting here! LOL

you need to cite your sources if you want to be taken credibly

I can tell you Bubba that it is a 100% lie.

Especially about the skin under the fingernails part.

---

Does anyone have any info on what country he will be serving the sentence?

As we know the Polish press are a laughing stock and to further add to this the comment at the end of the article that he will be 'soon be transferred to a Polish correctional facility' is as far as I'm aware, another total fabrication.

Don't quote me because not expert on this case. But normally in the country where the trial took place and where the person is convicted. Unless their is a special arrangement between the countries.

Like to add all rapist should be serving life. However it does seem that other rapists don't receive the same sentence as this guy. Even murderers so its weird what happened in this case.

The main source of that information is Tomczak's defense team. Apparently that was reported months ago. If you read in Polish, you can find out what the defence said about the DNA samples other than the sperm in the victim's vagina e.g. here:
(type the three Ws, a dot and: dlaczegojakub.com/2007/09/08/jakub-niewinny/#more-104)

That website is run by Jakubs family and friends and is riddled with lies, fabrications and facts that can be considered perjury

No, they can't.
For perjury to occur there must be lies/fabrications/ommissions of truth under oath.

Lets assume he's guilty, no matter what your opinion.

How about his sentencing. Is that normal. Aren't their people who commit much more henous crimes and serve much less time.

No.

Jakub demanded a trial. Had he pled guilty at the first instance he would have got 5, maybe 6 years.

Murderers serve on average 16 years in the UK.

Rape 5-6 years

Throw in his innocent plea combined with the GBH with intent conviction the 9 year tariff is pretty much spot on.

If anything it is lenient. A similar case in Cornwall on a teenage girl and the guy got 13 years for rape/GBH.

---

The WHYJAKUB website also had to write an apology to a particularly viscious lie packed post about the express and echo after numerous complaints. The post was modified with an apology from the website administrators who admitted they knew they were in the wrong.

They were basically trying every dirty trick in the book to get Jakub off, including spreading lies about the echo and the prosecutions case throughout the trial. It is a vicious website


LOL LOL LOL!!!!