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.

Andrewofgg - but if it was a crime, it would be investigated in its own right, like child porn. Then people could be ostracised.

Defendants should all be anonymous? hmm, another thread I think, but I strongly disagree.

Most people don't find this stuff so abhorrent. I think that's a bit of a myth. Even on here there are people saying that you can't judge men who use strangulation porn. People fall over themselves to be "tolerant".

If we've got a jury system they have to see the evidence, otherwise it's the judge and the defense deciding the outcome, not them.

Well the legal argument isn't as clear cut as the non-legal non-experts here are making out.

The prosecution obviously thought there was a case to be made for the inclusion of that evidence. They also thought the monogamy aspect of his defence meant the prostitutes should have been allowed, hence they asked again to have it included.

I don't think this is morals v law, it's competing interpretations of the law.

The judge in this case ruled one way. That doesn't mean he was right, or that another judge wouldn't have ruled differently.

Ms Yeates was not failed.

SheCutOffHerTails: the reason to bring it back to intent is simply because that was the specific issue in this particular trial. The standards of admissibility were being applied as they are applied in every case, because that is what the law does, and it is important that it does. Both sides knew in advance what would admissible and what would not be, and both sides of the case presented with that knowledge.

Yeah, that's what I thought euro - he took a chance on Tabak being acquitted to avoid appeal.

It was a pretty big risk, and almost didn't come off.

This faux-authority stuff is super-irritating.

Joanna Yeates was failed. Two of that jury were taken in by Tabak, and with a different jury it could have been more. It happened because he was allowed by the trial judge complete leeway to lie and misrepresent himself without challenge.

The true story of why Joanna Yeates was murdered horribly did not come to light in the trial for her murder, the place where justice should have been done and the truth revealed, instead we hear about it later in lurid headlines in the newspapers. All because men realise how horribly evil their own pornography is, bad enough to supposedly prejudice trials, but not ever bad enough ever to make illegal.

But the defence should not have been allowed to exploit that decision about inadmissibility to tell massive lies to the jury that the prosecution couldn't rebut.

Once the defence started bringing in false testimony based on what they knew to be inadmissible, that evidence should have been admitted.

If the defence had chosen to stay away from claims about Tabak's good character, you would be right.

But they were allowed to lie and deceive the jury knowing they could not be contradicted.

That is a ludicrous situation to have in a court - known lies told and allowed to stand.

SCOTT - the bit about monogamy/prostitutes does seem particularly odd. If he's allowed to bring up monogamy (relevant to strangling your neighbour how, other than to imply you're an all round good egg), why aren't they allowed to disprove it?

I'm not sure I agree that people don't find strangulation porn abhorrent.

Sorry, keep cross posting. Agree SCOTT. The defence brought character into it, seemingly confident that no one could contradict them.

The true story hasn't come out, and won't unless her murderer breaks his silence and answers the unanswered questions.

A guilty verdict is not a failure.

It would be interesting to see some proper legal analysis of this case that looks at the big picture (the legal system is about achieving justice after all) not this "judges are always right" stuff. Because if legal rules are leading to such perverse trials then they need to be changed.

Joanna Yeates was failed

I'm off, I can see where all this is going.

More of the truth about Tabak came out after the trial Edith, I don't see how you could dispute that. And we understand a lot more about the circumstances of Joanna's death too, from post-trial information. That isn't right. Trials are supposed to be about finding out what actually happened as far as possible. If juries don't know the full facts then how can they possibly reach a just conclusion. Tabak's claim he knew nothing about strangulation, could have been accepted by the jury because it went unchallenged.

shecut but in fairness the defense didn't present Tabak as a good character.

In fact the opening line of the defense barrister's closing speech was "I am not asking you to like Vincent Tabak, because there is nothing to like." Those are not the words of a man who want the jury to believe his client is a fine upstanding citizen incapable of wrongdoing.

I disagree.

Some evidence shouldn't be admissible.

I just think the law was interpreted in a bizarre and inconsistent way in this trial.

There's no "judges are always right" stuff, thunder. This was not a peverse trial either. With the greatest respect, I think you're getting slightly off track on this thread.

Just contradicting me and then calling me off track isn't actually an argument Tidy.

If you'd like to contradict with argument what I actually argued I'd be interested to hear your views.

I'm not trying to argue with you, simply pointing out the mistake in your post.

Thunderbolts, is it just, or even predominantly men who use pornography, violent or other? The issue here always comes down to where the line is drawn. I personally believe the law is very much made by men and for men, even I'm the 21st century, but think that outlawing pornogrpahy is facile. It's trite, but look at what Prohibition did for alcohol. The solution isn't banning. There will always be people who deviate from the norm (so called "deviants"). Probably not the thread for all this though.

We don't know anything additional at all about the events of that night, following the description of some of his actions that occurred at other times.

He stated he had lied and been manipulative and deceitful as part of his evidence. His previous sex life barely featured - I've just looked back at the SKY tweets and all it really said was that he had only ever had the one real girlfriend.

I think the Jury reached the correct decision, in accordance with the usual rules of evidence. I find it curious that some posters keep insisting that it was wrong and the Jury cannot have made a just decision. I definitely don't want to see a retrial, which would be the only recourse for those who think this one was flawed.

wannaBe, you are possibly the most gullible person I have ever come across.

The defence wanted the jury to think Tabak was a decent guy, but not to think they had been manipulated into that view by him and his advocates.

When someone has a clear agenda, you need to be a little less trusting of what they say.

I can't believe you would take a statement like that at face value :o

Just in case you missed it. The reason why I think this trial was perverse:

"More of the truth about Tabak came out after the trial Edith, I don't see how you could dispute that. And we understand a lot more about the circumstances of Joanna's death too, from post-trial information. That isn't right. Trials are supposed to be about finding out what actually happened as far as possible. If juries don't know the full facts then how can they possibly reach a just conclusion. Tabak's claim he knew nothing about strangulation, could have been accepted by the jury because it went unchallenged."

You didn't point out a mistake. You just stated your opinion about it Tidy.

No I didn't miss it. But thanks for the recap.