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.

I'm afraid I did, thunder. No one said judges were always right. You're taking this all wrong. There's no need to be spiky with me, I was trying to steer you back on track. I'm sorry if you took it to be something else.

Still no actual argument from your end though. You woudn't get far in court with just "no that's wrong". Mind you that's what the prosecution were forced to do in this trial.

Slubadub, if you don't think this thread is the place for discussing banning some sorts of pornography, why post about it?

Yes your example of alcohol is trite and a poor example. Many forms of physically punishing activities witnessed as a spectator sport have been banned and as a consequence their frequency has been hugely reduced. They would be provide better analogues.

Once again, I was not arguing with you, I was just pointing out a mistake. I think you maybe just got carried away and didn't mean it, but regardless, that's all I meant.

Oh I see you were taking me literally. I was paraphrasing. Sorry to be confusing. The main point is that the trial was perverse. You've contradicted that but you haven't argued against it.

Do I have to cut and paste my most recent post too?

Nothing in the inadmissible evidence describes any part of the events that night, which will remain largely unexplained unless the guilty murderer breaks his silence.

I didn't say you were arguing with me Tidy, I said you hadn't made an argument. An argument is where you support a position with facts and logic. It's how discussion takes place. Simple contradiction doesn't move anything along.

Edith, actually the use of strangulation pornography points directly to motive. So yes we do have a greater understanding of what happened that night and why Tabak killed Joanna Yeates.

I've said my piece up thread. I'm not getting into it again. You have your opinion, you won't hear anything against it, that's fine, but I see no point in discussing it with you so I won't. No drama.

It's fine to paraphrase, of course, but that was misleading, hence why I said what I did.

I'm not arguing against the trial being perverse because I don't have to. And I won't. It doesn't invalidate my opinion at all, I just won't argue this with you.

You haven't said anything against my opinion. You just contradicted it.

The trial was perverse, I've explained why I think why. You've said it wasn't. You refuse to say why. Most people have reasons for their opinions, but of course you're perfectly entitled to keep them to yourself.

I think people forget the larger concepts of truth and justice which is what our legal system is based on achieving, in the excitement of knowing what the legal rules are. Sometimes it's more important to see the whole wood than to examine individual trees.

I'm not refusing to say why, I just said I won't argue this with you. Therefore if I state my opinion on why this trial was not perverse, it will be engaging with you on that. I just don't see the point in debating this with someone who refuses to see another perspective. And that's perfectly fine btw, I'm not saying for a moment your stance is unreasonable, but it does render discussion difficult, so I just decided not to get involved in it with you.

The discussion in the wider sense is interesting though.

Well you engaged with me and got involved when you blankly contradicted with me about the trial being perverse. So I'm not sure why you're claiming not to want to engage with me. I'd also say it was you who wasn't interested in seeing my perspective, given that you completely dismissed mine without even providing any supporting argument.

On the other hand I actually asked you what your position was.

So I'd say it was the person who refuses to actually talk about their position who renders discussion difficult. Who would be you in this case.

It wasn't perverse because it considered all the admissible evidence and reached a verdict with which I agree.

I think justice has been achieved, and I do think it is important to have judicial system which is governed by rules which are consistently applied. This is not a matter of excitement (on the contrary, most of it is very detailed and arid) but a matter of important principles which apply across they whole system and are not cherry picked for individual cases.

And unlike many others on this thread, I think the right verdict was reached in the right way.

I would be aghast if the view that the evidence in this trial were adjudged to have been improperly presented. The last thing I would want to see is the matter re-opened. But that would be the only recourse for this who think that this trial was flawed and unsound.

Do we really think this is the place to be debating this, where anyone could come in and read? I realise its a public forum, and you are all entitled to your opinions absolutely, but how would you feel if one of her family saw this?

Of course you would think that way. Which is again fine, we are all entitled to our opinions. But as I see, other posters are willing to engage with you, so you still have people you can give your opinions to.

I would just politely request you at least consider their perspectives, there are some very good arguments being made here, it would be a shame to not at least have a think about them.

Edith that's a circular argument. You're ignoring the judge's decision to decide what was and wasn't admissable, and also the fact that his ruling gave Tabak carte blanche to lie unchallenged.

"But that would be the only recourse for this who think that this trial was flawed and unsound."

Actually no it isn't. The probable recourse is to examine the rules surrounding evidence in sex crimes and violent male crimes against women and also to look at creating a category of woman-hatred as a hate crime, so that Tabak's behaviour could be examined in that context.

The jury reached the right decision despite the perverse trial. They probably realised that something was being withheld from them.

Oh, I really didn't mean you to feel patronised! I'm sorry you feel like that, it honestly wasn't intended. I've not been manipulative, I can assure you, but again I am sorry that you have got that impression.

I think people are taking on your opinions, but obviously if they are not, it would be good if they did.

I'm glad you're happy for me not to engage with you on your opinions, I will continue not to reply to your posts on this subject.

Have a good evening. :)

I agree with RhondaJean.
I also agree that the inadmissible evidence should have been heard during the trial.
But, a beautiful girl died, a girl that had a loving boyfriend and parents who's lives will never be the same again.
And I'm starting to feel rather cheap discussing it.
The rights and wrongs and the feminist perspective can wait surely.

It is not a circular argument - rather a straightforward statement that this trial reached a guilty verdict on the basis of evidence brought forward under the current rules of admissibility. This is something I was glad to see happen.

BTW: in a recent post you refer to demonstrating motive. Could I ask you to have a look again at slubadub's posts? Motive and intent are not synonyms.

Really, I didn't feel the need to be patronising and I don't feel that I was. I was just trying to be nice to you to diffuse the situation tbh, and I am genuinely sorry you felt it was anything else. There's not a lot else I can say to change your opinion on that, so I'll just not try again. I certainly didn't mean to undermine you either, just for the record.

Thanks for the good wishes.

As he used the 'doting boyfriend' thing as part of his defence. I think it would have been reasonable for them to make his use of prostitutes known. I assume they thought they had enough on him without that though and wanted to ensure a secure conviction without grounds for appeal.

Yes I said demonstrating motive Edith. I didn't mean intent. The judge also noted that Tabak's pornograhy use might point to motive, but he decided it wasn't important.

I don't understand why you feel the need to tell me motive and intent are not synonymous when the whole of the judge's ruling hangs on that fact. But it's good that you can demonstrate you've got such a good grasp of the legal rules.

Ignore it TidyDancer.
You are as entitled to your opinions as everybody else.
Never apologise on MN unless you really believe you've said the wrong thing.