to wonder how you can be responsible but not guilty?

[ScariestFairyByFar]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-21009177

Lack of metal capacity to meet the legal definition of guilt?

mental, not metal

Could it have been an accident, and therefore not murder?

I think she died by accident in his care, he panicked and disposed of her body. Or that will be his defence. I have no idea how he intends to claim he didn't abduct her because surely if he took her without her parents' consent it must be abduction?

Murder requires the intention to kill or the intention to cause really serious harm. Someone could be responsible for the death of another without intending either of those things.

For example, I think the defence in the Jo Yates murder was that he had put his hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming when he had made a pass at her - in doing so, she had died. In that instance, he neither intended to kill or to cause really serious harm but could be considered responsible for her death.

It sounds like she died while she was with him but he didn't kill her, IYSWIM. I presume he will also have to face a charge of kidnapping? That doesn't seem clear.

All offences are very specific. Itis possible to be the cause of someone's death without having murdered them. Say forexample I slapped someone and they fell, hitting their head hard and dying. I have not murdered them although I have caused their death. Drivers who kill in a road accident are not guilty of murder usually. Of course the fact that this man is pleading not guilty doesn't mean that he is in fact not guilty.

He could have picked her up in the car (for whatever reason, not necessarily even slightly malicious) and then dropped her off somewhere (maybe miles away) unsafe for her get home again by self. So responsible for her death but not guilty.

This is what the trial is for. To hear his side of the story, see if it's plausible, what the crime was, appropriate punishment, etc.

The Soham murders man tried this line, didn't get away with it, either.

I thought he was friend of the family & she would have willingly got in car with him? Does that still count as abduction just because the parents hadn't given their consent beforehand?

he will be guilty of manslaughter

it was dark, she was out playing by a row of garages. Dark. Car. Panic.

Bartie is right. Defence barristers are essential for a fair legal system and they aren't there to go after the truth, they are there to represent the accused and to ensure they get a fair trial.

It's an adversarial system, fair does not come into it. So what was it I said that was wrong?

Yes it is.

Defence barristers do not lie or seek to hide the truth.

The defence barrister's job is to represent his client to the best of his ability within the bounds of the available evidence. If the client says "I did it but want to plead not guilty" the barrister can no longer continue to represent the client.

Criminal offences are a bit like crime by numbers. You need all of elements to be present in the evidence for it even to be put to a jury to find whether or not it believes the factual case. I would guess what is going on here is that his case will be that he did not intend to kill her, so the elements for murder would not be made out. Manslaughter might be, as might other offences.

Dreaming

You probably didn't mean to imply that Tabak was innocent of the murder of Ms Yates, but the way I read your post suggested that his defence was valid and/or accepted.

Ms Yates suffered over 40 injuries in the attack that killed her. Tabak may have pleaded manslaughter, but was found guilty of murder.

I'm sure that's what you meant in your post, but your wording In that instance, he neither intended to kill or to cause really serious harm but could be considered responsible for her death sounds like you're describing what he was convicted of rather than his plea.

I'm positive this is not what you meant, but I just wanted to clear it up, otherwise it's really upsetting. Thank you.

Given the fact this is an ongoing legal case is it wise to be discussing it on a public forum?

It's perfectly fine to discuss the case on this forum based on the info from the press article. There will be nothing in the article which could be deemed to influence a jury.

No, but there might be something in the speculative comments on here that might be deemed to influence a jury. A public forum is a different matter to a private conversation IMO.

OK, I'm not going to speculate but I remember in the Ian Huntley case he claimed that the two Soham girls had died "accidentally" in his care, and then Tabak claimed that he "accidentally" strangled Joanna Yeates. (Sorry, looking back, I realise both these cases have already been mentioned, but just wanted to agree that there is precedent for this kind of defence.)

Lindsay, I thought my post was self explanatory; I was explaining his defence to the charge. He was convicted of murder so clearly his defence was not accepted/believed. I was responding to the OP to explain how someone could put forward a defence to the charge of murder despite admitting responsibility for the death. IIRC, Vincent Tabak admitted being responsible for her death but denied that he had murdered her(he did not accept that he had intended to kill her or cause her really serious harm, this being an essential element for an offence of murder.) Clearly the jury didn't believe him which is why he was convicted of murder, and IMVHO, from what I have read in the papers, it would appear to have been the right verdict.

There are many other examples of when people have admitted being responsible for the death of someone but deny murder, such as domestic violence cases when the victim has killed the abuser or when someone shoves another person and they fall, hitting their head on the floor which kills them. I only used the Jo Yates case as an example as it was a fairly recent case.