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.

Yes, Brian Paddick's ill-fated scheme to decriminalise cannabis possession is a good example of how normalising drug use leads to greater substance misuse and was why this hare-brained bit of social engineering was reversed, because it made the drug problem worse, not better.

Everyone on this thread is talking about violent porn WMW. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

everyone on this thread isn't talking about violent porn, many are talking about porn in general.

ElderberrySyrup The ruling of the judge who heard this case creates no precedent - the admission of possibly prejudicial evidence is decided case-by-case on the precise facts.

I will add one thing. If the judge had admitted the evidence and there was then a successful appeal - which is possible - there would have been no chance of a retrial after all the publicity.

it's just fortunate it ended the way it did with the jury reaching the best decision without the porn evidence which could have made for a successful appeal. It's horrible to think it could easily have gone the other way and then everyone learns about his taste for violent porn and if watching it the morning of the murder, after it's too late.

thanks Andrewofgg

Everyone on this thread is talking about violent porn WMW. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise

What rot - that's just your obsession so you see everything in those terms.

Thunders and others, I understand your outrage at the information about VT's sexual history/inclinations being withheld from the jury. And the 'misogyny' bit I am trying to understand but I don't get where him having category 4 images of children being abused fit in. Should/ could we not just conclude that VT was a very 'sick' individual who proved himself capable of murder (without all the woman hating that appears to go along with that)?