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.

Snape
Sounds like you have a unique insight. Please don't be put Off sharing on this thread, even though the debate has moved on.

Thunder, smallwhitecat, aye: I agree with you. Thunder in particular thanks for being such a prolific poster on this topic. I am on holiday so iPhone only so reluctant to post too much typing with one finger....your posts are amazing and cover all the bullshit excuses the common misconceptions.

Here's the Deborah Orr article about how a witness for the prosecution can be highly restricted in what they say in court (cf. The restrictions on Tabak's porn habit in this case) versus the defense who can fabricate any old story to try to get away literally in this case with murder:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/29/defendants-less-carrot-more-stick

It does make food for thought for all those upthread arguing that his defense should be as -full of utter bullshit and complete lies- robust as possible to allow 'a fair trial'. We need to re-examine the meaning of the word 'fair', I think, as it isn't fair that lies and perjury which could be refuted with evidence be allowed to stand in pursuit of some philosophical idea of fairness.

Onagar

'You should be ashamed'

Please take the faux moral outrage elsewhere.

Am I glad it was not allowed in court, and so this man's verdict was secured, as a murderer, with little chance of successful appeal. It was done so that such would be secured.

Prison is too good for him, IMO. Such scum can never be rehabilitated. He's probably done this before.

Too bad he will not swing from a rope. If he did such to my daughter, I would get a gun in, I know how, and lay for him as he went to the court. Oh, believe me, I'm a well-trained shot. I'd not give a fig for any time I'd spend inside or any who said I was as bad as he, that is bollocks. I'd gladly answer to God himself for my actions, so I would. But I'd be laying for him surely.

I wish the same of all those who look at such 'porn' and child 'porn', too. They're filth not worthy of oxygen, IMO.

Scum. I applaud every time any one of them is killed in prison.

Some people really need to learn to see the bigger picture.
Onagar

The only picture I'd have if he did that to my daughter would be of the top half of his skull before I blew it off with the appropriate-sized bullet as he was escorted into court.

In case you think onager is reactionary.

No rope? No problem. If it were my daughter, I'd take him out no bother. I'd even give him a bullet that's designed not to exit, plenty of those about.

I'd not care a jot about going to jail, either.

Woop I am here again. I am not troubled by perceived insults to my gender or your gender or individual members of either gender - and certainly not in comparison to the murder or manslaughter of anyone. By anyone. For any reason. Not clear why you thought otherwise, but there you are.

Andrew, I was referring to Onagar's post. That's exactly what women have to contend with. Every time we point out facts about men murdering women, we have some self-righteous man like Onagar getting his knickers in a twist about maybe someone insulting the male sex - as if a possible insult is somehow as important and relevant as the regular murders of women by men (2 a week, just in case anyone's missed it).

Just making the point that if you want to help, don't be a man like that. Was probably too incoherent with incredulity last night, to say it clearly.

No problem Woop.

What do you call someone who uses the death of a woman to support their anti-male agenda.

Prejudice is ugly wherever it appears and whatever justification you use. There always is an excuse if you look hard enough and the excuses often include 'the bigger picture' and 'for the greater good'. 'It's okay to be prejudiced just this once because...'

Lump people into big groups and don't look too closer or you might see their faces. Blame all men for everything you don't like about the world, blame all Jews for the economy, Blame all Muslims for terrorism. Much easier than seeing people as individual human beings.

In the end you lose because - although you would probably deny it - people are moving away from this kind of thinking. Anyone can shout and get a few people to cheer them for a bit so it looks like they are winning, but the tide has turned and heading towards acceptance of other people regardless of color, race or gender.

I'll leave you to it now as people will decide for themselves whatever we say.

Snape, the thread has moved on but it can move back. We'd be very interested to hear your reports from the court.

The rest of us can only talk about what we know, and as there is only so much to say about reports of the trial then the discussion has become more general.

I'd still be interested to hear if you thought "guilty" whilst you watched him give his testimony, and about your other impressions of the court, especially the judge.

Great posts from Woop.

Having thought about this overnight, the thing that strikes me now is this: everyone participating in the court case - the judge, the defendant, the prosecution lawyers, the defence lawyers - all knew that Tabak was using violent porn showing women being strangled. Everyone, that is, apart from the jury. Doesn't that strike other people as being odd?

What do you call someone who uses the death of a woman to support their anti-male agenda.

I'd call her a mother

How is strangulation porn not illegal, in light of that last link?

And again, that old, tried and tested method of silencing anyone who draws attention to the widespread, harmful, dangerous misogyny in our society - that anyone who draws attention to it, doesn't deny it exists and wants to eradicate it, for the benefit of both halves of humanity, hates one half.

Despicable.

wrt the Judges comment that 'these were not snuff movies', if VT had been watching snuff movies, would that piece of information have been submitted as evidence?

What's really striking, and shocking, about the Deborah Orr article is the way the defence barrister is able to come out with an outright lie that is also defamatory: "Her brief went further in her summing up. Citing the James Bulger case, she contended that people such as the defendant were afraid to intervene and save children because people such as me distorted their kind motives so grossly. People such as me, she argued, were responsible for the "walk on by" society. People such as me, she spat out contemptuously, would rather see an innocent woman go to prison than admit that they only saw the bad in people."

So the defence barrister knows quite well her client is guilty. She knows quite well that her client has multiple previous convictions. She knows quite well that her client used Orr's son as a way of breaking into the house. I expect the judge knew this as well. Why are defence barristers allowed to mislead the jury in this way? Why?

pickledsiblings Probably.

hackmum Counsel are not allowed to say that the defendant is of previous good character if that is not true. If the client has said I did it counsel must not call the client to deny dong it. It's a fine line but barristers know where it runs.

I am really amazed this has subject (the judge's decision not to allow the factual info that Tabak watched strangulation porn before and after the murder) has not had more coverage in the press. I have seen lots of reporting of the verdict, the family's reaction, Tabak's girlfriend's reaction etc. But here on MN there is much more debate about the rights and wrongs of the judge's decision.

I think people have generally swallowed it - that you cannot talk about men's porn use, even if it shows acts that reflect how they murdered a woman - male porn use must be protected at all costs.

Lots of people are in denial about porn and the woman-hatred it engenders and supposts.

So what the judge did seems reasonable.

"supports"