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.

It seems hugely relevant to me and his defence managed to convince two members of the jury.

I think that the judge wanted to be sure that the conviction would not fall down on appeal. It could be argued that the jury would punish him for doing things they found morally wrong (porn and prostitution) rather than considering the evidence.

yabu, He was found guilty, probably because if he wasn't deliberately trying to kill her than he's too stupid to be allowed to roam the streets, anyway. I'm glad it was on the best quality evidence; if the evidence OP cites had been admitted it would have turned into grounds for appeal, not a good prospect.

Well at 55, I believe I have a good few years left in me.
I also think that the strangulation porn evidence should have been admissible.
But all I feel at the moment is infinite sadness. I'm old enough to have a daughter that age, what her parents and boyfriend are going through doesn't bear thinking about.
The fact that she was baking mince pies when she invited him seem so poignant somehow.
And if by chance the verdict had gone the other way, and that evidence hadn't come out he would be a free man in just a few years time.
And that is one scary thought.

I think it would have actually worked in his favour to have his porn habit revealed. The jury had to decide not whether he killed J.Y. - manslaughter-but whether or not he intended to killed her with prior planning -murder.

If it had been allowed to be revealed that he watched porn feat strangulation, he could have said 'look we started to have sex, she was up for it, (and he did try that she-wanted-to kiss-me thing) and I put my hand over her mouth to try and replicate this strangulation thing because I had seen it before and i knew it would achieve a better orgasm and it went wrong, sorry' then he gets manslaughter.

And it's been said that he watched the porn after the murder not beforehand don't know how true that is.

Of course it's relevant. If I was on the jury I'd have been appalled that this was withheld from me. They were basically asked to guess at the real reasons as to why he strangled her when there was evidence that he had a sexual interest in strangling women.

He watched the porn before and after the murder.

He watched in on the morning of the murder.

After the murder he used to alternate between following the investigation and looking at strangulation porn.

Nice guy.

And sorry, but there's no way any jury would have bought that story. Which is why the defence sought to have the porn excluded.

If someone has representing a totally false picture of themselves, it seems crazy that you can't cross-question that. If someone says they are always faithful, it seems wrong that they couldn't then ask whether he'd slept with anyone else, then bring in the fact he'd used an escort agency.

Apparently the judge also told the jury to come to a majority verdict, he also told them not to allow sympathy for Joanna to cloud their judgement when reaching a verdict (how often to judges say that in murder cases - was Ian Huntley's jury told not to sympathise with his victims?). The judge was being a big help to Tabak - he could easily have walked without the porn evidence.

Would Joanna's parents have known about the inadmissible evidence?

Don't exaggerate thunders, he couldn't possibly have "walked". I'm happy that this bastard has got a rock solid conviction (though a longer tariff would have been nice, men like this being released in their 50s just gives ammunition to the death penalty brigade (understandably).

WhoisthatMaskedWoman: yes I was rather aghast by the shortness of the sentence. The minimum tariff is 5 years, and with 5 aggravating factors I was expecting a significantly greater add-on.

Sorry: typo: "15 years" not "5"

Given how in previous cases the prosecution have included supposition to destroy character (thinking of Sian Jenkins & Barry George), I'd have been very suspicious about why the porn and sex fetish stuff was being mentioned if I was on the jury.

I think that the decision of the judge to focus on physical evidence was the best move.

Because violent pornography isn't evidence he committed the violent crime, I'm glad it wasn't included.

The jury has to base their decision on the best evidence the police had gathered against him, and anything that would give him a foot in the door to appeal needs to be left out.

He must be feeling desparate tonight at the time stretching out ahead of him where he has nothing to do and no role to play in society.

I'd like to say it'd be the first thing he thought of in the morning, and last thing at night, but such violent self absorbed offenders never think of anything but how it affects them.

None of it any consolation to her family and boyfriend of course

I don't understand it either but then I don't understand much about the law.

Thunder I agree that the judge was sounding really biased for the defence...and I don't know what that was about.

" was Ian Huntley's jury told not to sympathise with his victims?"

yes

Nope. It says:

"In his summing up, the judge warned the seven women and five men not to be swayed by emotion, and to consider only the facts of the case."

Emotion in that context could be anger, revulsion and disgust etc as well as sympathy or compassion. Is there anything that shows he specifically mentioned sympathy for Holly and Jessica.

YABU.

Only evidence relevant should be given to the court. He could have been convicted when he innocent just because the jurors felt he had to be violent due to his viewing habits.

Christmas will never be the same again for the Yeates family, nor their lifes.

The jury would have known he was violent because he strangled a woman to death. The only argument was about motivation and intent.

He claimed that his motivation for putting his hands on her neck and strangling her was to silence her, the strangulation porn and other awful details of the case that relate to the porn show that he was lying. Again.

Sorry - I didn't realise you wanted it verbatim.

It is very close to the language used in this case, where the Judge said the Jury should not allow emotion to cloud their judgement.

It's a normal part of summing up in UK and these words, or close variations on the theme, are pretty much standard.

'If I was on the jury I'd have been appalled that this was withheld from me. They were basically asked to guess at the real reasons as to why he strangled her when there was evidence that he had a sexual interest in strangling women.'

I totally agree with this. Isn't an important part of such cases motive? And isn't this one of the main differences between murder and manslaughter?

If his defence had been that he wasn't there, mistaken identity, problems with the DNA, etc, then I can see not allowing it. But the defence was sort of based on a lack of real motive, so why not be allowed to question that?

well according to the BBC he had 3 films in which this was portrayed - so how do you conclude it WAS a fetish - maybe he never watched them? - proove it?

maybe that is why it wasn't used - turns out it didn;t need to be :)

Why wouldn't I want it verbatim? The judge was very careful to specify sympathy for Joanna Yeates. I want to know how often juries are told to ignore their sympathy for the victims in the cases they are juries on. Not just a general "don't let emotion cloud judgement or interfere with facts".

Do you work in the legal system Edith.

Because there is no direct cause and effect.

It is perfectly possible for people to view violence and not feel the need to copy it in real life.

Many of us view unsavoury material when we watch drama (or even the news) on the television & don't go on to replicate it.

Furthermore, Tabak had admitted unlawfully killing Jo Yeates prior to the trial. The essential difference between manslaughter & murder (in a legal sense) is that in the latter, the perpetrator intends to cause at least serious harm. Production of the porn evidence would have provided motivation rather than intent. It may have helped crystallise likely intent but because there is not a causal relationship between watching violent porn & re-enacting it/murder, making the jury aware of it's existence would have opened the door for Tabak to appeal the guilty of murder verdict.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for most people to separate motive from intent; they like to have the motive as to "why" & from that, infer intent. That inference may be wrong as there is not a cause & effect relationship.