Joanna Yeates case - why is this happening at all?

[Ponders]

It seems clear that he did kill her, & I don't see how he can claim it was unintentional, so why do her poor parents have to be put through such harrowing evidence?

Presumably it was inadmissible because it could be prejudicial.

There are plenty of men who have violent porn on their computers who are not murderers, but knowing that he got kicks out of strangulation porn was likely to lead to a guilty verdict, whatever his intentions.

I think given that it was admitted that he killed her, it was relevant to his motivation, but clearly the judge thought differently.

Life with a minimum of 20 years (Sky)

Minimum 20 years.

"Handling and hiding of her body was an incredibly cruel thing to do" (judge)

Surely the porn fetish and escalation shows intent?

It seems the judge thought otherwise.

But it was suggestive that there was no character evidence introduced. That's often a flag that there is something in the accused's background that the defence does not want aired - for if the defence had brought in character evidence, then it is very likely that the prosecution could then have brought in evidence to challenge that, which might in this case have included the habitual use of violent pornographic images.

I cannot believe the prosecution weren't allowed to refer to his accessing strangulation pornography on the day he killed her which depicted a similar looking woman with her top pulled up in the back of a car!!!WTF

oh good

though still

the jury must be terribly relieved to hear about the porn

Without that information a better defence and weaker prosecution may have swung the decision of the jury!

he sounds like another entitled bastard

joanna waved at him so he thought she wanted to kiss him

I bet the jurors will be relieved they made the right decision when they find out about all the other stuff (strangulation porn) when they get home. To be fair I can see why it was inadmissible in some ways, just because someone likes that kind of porn doesn't mean they WILL act on it in RL. Sadly in this case he did. RIP Joanna.

Good. I hope he gets a whacking sentence.

Easy to say retrospectively but I did think it was interesting the way the prosecution were emphasising the sexual nature of the crime; trying to establish the links between strangulation and sexual gratification (proven). It did make me (momentarily) wonder if they had any inadmissable evidence pointing to a sexual motivation. Sexual strangulation/bondage sites on his computer would suggest a pre-meditated motive towards sexual violence. It probably was inadmissable on a legal technicality and, of course, had he been found not guilty of murder we would never have known about it.

I thought the defence was a pile of horseshit based on their premise that the screams heard were due to Joanna's shock/outrage at being kissed by Tabak. Initially the defence tried to imply that the screams weren't Joanna's but were from a party down the road (spurious) but I think this was later discounted. It now seems established fact that the screams were from her. All I know is that if a neighbour is in my house, 'misreads the signs' and kisses me on the lips I don't scream. I get all embarrassed and flustered and hustle them out of the house but I don't scream so that people outside/down the road can hear it. My guess is I only start screaming when someone inflicts 43 injuries on my person.

Whilst I believe in everyone's right to a fair trial I do struggle with the premise of innocent until proven guilty. Which is conflicting and I'm not sure how I resolve that knee-jerk, water-in-the-gut instinct that the guilty are guilty. Having followed the press coverage (not in the Daily Mail I might add) Vincent Tabak seemed guilty of murder to me (not manslaughter - I felt certain of his intent to kill due to the nature of her death, the injuries received, her treatment aftewards - I felt the latter was relevant even though the Defence were keen to mark this as irrelevant). So for me the court case seemed about proving his guilt rather than his innocence which is at odds with the fundamental tenet of our legal system. I'm not sure why I feel this way given that I'm fairly lucid, measured and coherent in other aspects of life. Food for thought anyway...

I bet the jurors will be relieved they made the right decision when they find out about all the other stuff (strangulation porn) when they get home. To be fair I can see why it was inadmissible in some ways, just because someone likes that kind of porn doesn't mean they WILL act on it in RL. Sadly in this case he did. RIP Joanna.

But Tabak's defence did portray him as a loving boyfriend, and the judge still didn't allow the prosecution to bring in evidence of his use of prostitutes, never mind his predilection for strangulation porn.

Was the DNA found on her chest from his semen? Were we told what the source was?

But he had admitted she dies from his strangling her so he had acted on it. I would have only thought it inadmissible if he had pleaded not guilty? Surely it was relevant to this case when he was trying to make out it was accidental

I only ever saw that all the DNA they found was from saliva - which would be why the defence could confidently deny any sexual motive

The right verdict.

Why the mental gymnasts tried to persuade themselves that a man who strangled a woman to death with his bare hands might not have meant it or known what he was doing, is impossible to understand.

Glad they weren't on the jury. It's people like that who let men who attack women walk free from courts every day.

But surely his strangulation fetish was the only thing that could have alerted them to it being sexually motivated as he was adamant it was an accident.He accessed the porn sites that day and had pictures of a similar looking/dressed girl on his computer.

Yes, noddy, I agree.

There is a very strong need in some to believe that porn use has nothing to do with your behaviour. Even, apparently, when you have acted out one of your porn fantasies and are claiming it was an accident.

I hope he is never released.

And I would like to know why his use of pornography was ruled inadmissible. I can think of no reasonable explanation for that.

There was a fair bit of evidence of a strangulation fantasy too not just one. Without this info a different jury could have made a different decision. Surely he should have been questioned about his computer log for that day and the links between that and the crime???

Well done to the jurors, who are just ordinary people (perhaps a MNer or two), a very difficult case to be involved in.
RIP Joanna. I hope her parents and partner feel comforted by the verdict.