[quote EmmaGrundyForPM]@Abitofalark. there was a documentary about that case on TV last week. There was a bit about the "only 20 seconds" when the Prosecution waited 20 seconds before speaking - it's a hell of a long time. It also showed that after the time at which Tabak murdered Jo Yeats, he was watching very violent pornographic videos of women being strangled.[/quote]
Yes indeed Emma about his activities, which were actually before and after. I saw that programme in the listings but I didn't watch it. I followed the trial - it was the first one to be tweeted live direct from the court - and was dreading the whole time that he wouldn't be convicted on the evidence such as it was.
He had the topmost criminal defence barrister in the country and he concocted a story, relayed by his barrister, that she had invited him in (barrister said she was bored and lonely), he'd mistaken her friendly overtures and tried to kiss her and she screamed so he put his hand on her mouth and the other on her throat to stop her screaming, purely for that reason and not with any intention to kill her.
Independent evidence was worryingly thin and who's to say the jury wouldn't believe him and his barrister? The woman in a couple attending a party nearby had heard a scream at a specific time, a different man heard screaming but wasn't sure when or where and another neighbour heard nothing. I kept thinking Thank the heavens, thank the universe, thank everything for that woman and the coincidence that she was there at that precise time. Joanna's screaming and the woman's hearing it, is the one thing that could prove he lied about the time, and nail him. Please let it be enough.
During the trial, the judge and barristers adjourned to chambers several times. These were applications and arguments for and against the judge allowing certain known facts and information in evidence. They weren't allowed. We had no idea what it was about.
The judge summed up, instructed the jury that they weren't to judge him on the fact that he'd been known to have lied to the police but only on the evidence and whether he intended to kill her - and sent them out at lunchtime on Wednesday
They came back at lunchtime on Friday, unable to agree a verdict. The judge quickly decided he'd accept a majority verdict and sent them back out. They came back the same afternoon with the 10 to 2 guilty verdict - might seem unfair for a crime as serious as murder but all I was thinking was that it was brilliant on the part of the judge not to let it run on into another week. I never doubted that he did it.
Then the news started pouring out of the media about Tabak's sordid violent sex and pornographic activities that the judge hadn't allowed the jury to know and it became instantly, blindingly clear why it wasn't unfair, with the knowledge that the judge had, to accept a majority verdict and to wrap it up quickly rather than let it run on.
The prosecution hadn't tried to prove a sexual motive but the judge mentioned in sentencing that there was a sexual element. The degree of violence was clear from the pathologist's reports. Let no one conflate that with keeping someone quiet or 'having sex' as it is sometimes framed. These cases we keep seeing are crimes of violence.
That trial brought home to me how much hangs on managing a trial and all the decisions to be considered and made while it is running. Badly handled and it could lumber on pointlessly. It was the right verdict and an immense relief but it's still a case of blatant victim blaming and a terrible fact of murder by a ruthless predator hiding in plain sight, living an ordinary stable life, as we thought, in an ordinary flat with his girlfriend.
Some time after he was imprisoned, more things came out and further charges were brought for which he was convicted of child sexual abuse based on material that was found. He was given an additional prison sentence for that.