To think that the jo yeats jury should have been told about his strangling during sex fetish?

[pippala]

pleased for Joanna's family that he has been found quilty, their ordeal is hardly over though.
Min 20 years, so he will be 53 when he comes out, with still half his life left.
Now it appears he watch porn that involved strangulation, had sex with prostitutes and like choking them!
I have heard about better orgasms when you can't breath, Isn't that how Mike Hutchence died?
I can not understand why this was withheld from the jury.
I was on jury service and put away a pedo for 33years. at sentancing we were told he had done it before to 3 other girls! I can understand that we were not to know as we were hearing only that case but in Tabaks case he hadn't killed before,as far as we know but his personality was not the one portrayed by the defence.

Good for the judge.

Misogyny is reality in our society, it's not prejudicial. We can't judge or assess the actions of men who harm women by excluding evidence of it.

I'm sure that if this jury had been told about the strangulation porn, they would still have carefully weighed the evidence and examined the facts. Thats' their job after all. It's a shame people have so little faith in them that they'd think they would immediately rush to judgement without using any thought or analysis about the evidence presented to them.

But it seems like a get-out clause for misogynists in the legal system. Evidence of racism in a trial about a racist attack would be allowed, on the other hand evidence of woman-hatred in a trial where a misogynist has killed a woman is seen as prejudicial.

It's almost as if people are arguing that to understand a misogynistic murderer's real motivation and intent would be prejudicial to him. It's bizarre.

Surely if a woman hater kills a woman we need to know he hates women and what form that hatred takes.

It is bizarre but I suppose it goes back to this (WRONG) idea that porn - even strangulation porn - is not underpinned by misogyny, that it's "just actors" who have chosen to do it and no-one gets hurt in the making of it or as a result of consuming it.

eg what the judge said:

?These films show actors, acting out roles. None of the women suffer GBH. None of the women are killed. These are not snuff movies. The women did not die.?

"Why is accurately assessing a man's hatred of women and sadism towards them get classed as prejudice?"

Because it doesn't prove anything with regards to the facts of what happened. If I hate women and am accused of killing a woman (and for arguments sake lets say I'm wrongly accussed of this), evidence of my hatred for women may prove that I'm the type of person who may well kill a woman but it does nothing to prove that I have committed the actual offence I'm accused of.
As such it could prejudice the jury because they'll rightly think "well he seems like a mysoginistic thug", but may wrongly think that this means I have committed the specific crime I'm being accussed of.

Sorry MayorQuimby that's rubbish logic.

A member of the BNP who consumed hate materials that involved violence against people from ethnic minorities would not be able to have that evidence excluded from a trial in which he'd attacked someone from an ethnic minority in an apparently motiveless crime.

Strangulation porn proved that Tabak had a sexual interest in the torture and strangulation of women. Tabak claimed in court that he had no idea what strangulation did to a woman and that he only committed the act to stop Joanna Yeates screaming. He was lying and it went unchallenged.

Do you know of any instances where someones political background or racist tendancies have been entered into evidence? I'd have thought they'd be barred under bad-character evidence in the same way that evidence of previous convictions (unless strikingly similar) are barred.
If you do then I'd agree that similar logic may apply to an instance of a woman hater.

There is a category of crimes that are hate crimes. You'd have to demonstrate that someone

Also once again it's bizarre for you to be arguing that a sexual interest in strangulation porn and sadism towards women is irrelevant in a trial where a man murdered a woman by strangulation and doesn't point to the source of his behaviour.

It's like arguing that if someone apparently kills someone for a life insurance policy that you can't say anything about that because there's no way to show someone has an interest in money.

somehow not someone.

why is he suddenly a woman hater - to kill a woman doesnt mean you hate all women. He had a girlfriend, sister and mother...
Did he not look up strangulation porn after the event - what about before - we actually have no idea about this man and his motives - so many typical assum,ptions flying around here.

mayor - why do you think the defence was allowed to make arguments that Tabak didn't know anything about strangulation? And that he was in a happy, monogamous relationship?

Isn't it odd that they were allowed to base their defence in things the prosecution couldn't refute?

If you enjoy watching porn of women being tortured and strangled you are by definition a sadist and a woman hater, and to carry that out in real life is more horrific evidence of the same thing. But some people prefer denial I suppose.

Your post ageless is a classic in the "we don't want to see this stuff" approach to some men's hatred of women.

ageless - he did not start looking at the porn after the murder. The police have evidence of his porn use from before the murder, even on the morning of the murder.

But hey, wanking to videos of women being strangled and trussed up in the boots of cars is perfectly normal behaviour for a nice, normal, woman-loving man yeah?

LOL :o

"Some of my best friends are women. Apart from the one I murdered, the ones I like to watch being strangled while I wank off, the ones I pay to fuck me, and the girlfriend I cheat on with prostitutes. But other than them, I love women." :o

Gosh, such a lot of harsh, judgemental women out there..

Being judgemental is better than being a murderer who did it because he got a sexual kick out of women being strangled.

If you refuse to judge a lying sadistic murderer, ageless, who would you judge?

Apparently she'd judge the women who think sadistic murderers aren't nice people

"mayor - why do you think the defence was allowed to make arguments that Tabak didn't know anything about strangulation? And that he was in a happy, monogamous relationship?

Isn't it odd that they were allowed to base their defence in things the prosecution couldn't refute?
"

No idea. would appear a risky strategy which would drop their shield with regards to bad character evidence, but I don't know the details of the case well so am not in a position to speculate. My point earlier was only with regards to the general issue of prejudicial evidence etc. rather than this specific case.

its not my job to judge anyone. or to be judged as a classic ' i dont want to see mens hatred of women' - i see that a lot and i see womens hatred of men just as much

And I see one woman's hatred of other women.

Like SheCutoffTheirTails says ageless, you just did judge us, did you not notice?

Basically you seem to think it's worse to be judgemental about a woman hating mudrerer, than it is to be the actual murderer. That's a bit messed up I'd say.

its not hatred - its an opinion that is trying to understand what went on without clouding it with ones own judgement and hatred.

That's it isn't it. Recognising some men's violence, hatred and sadism towards women is "man-hatred" in your world ageless, and is judged harshly by you.

On the other hand real hatred that leads to actual harm against women right up to and including women being killed, deserves "understanding".

I know I've been posting a lot on these threads but it is so important to be aware of these dynamics, because they are about letting some men's brutality and hatred towards women pass by unremarked and unchallenged. It creates such a dangerous situation for women to be in.

Well by your own logic, I can't hate men.

I have a husband, father and brother.

when have i suggested i feel understanding towards this man? i mean understanding of the situation, without allowing emotion to cloud - perhaps then we can delve a bit further into society, and muderous personalities etc (not sure what to call it) to actually make a change. instead of making the hatred worse by topping it up with our own.