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?

Well, surely the judge is right in terms of that the films did not depict women being strangled to death - "only" being strangled (and I put that only in quotes because it's not that trivial but ykwim.).

So he fantasised about strangling women for sexual pleasure - that much was clear.

But proving that he fantasised about strangling women for sexual pleasure does not prove that he intended to kill someone which is where the lines would have been blurred.

Tbh I don't know either, but I can see how his watching images of women being strangled but not dying as a result could be ruled out as intent to kill rather than intent to cause harm..

The defence would've known he was guilty. Ugh...

I wish it had been admissible. It seems so wrong that evidence that shows what his character is like isn't allowed. I can see that it would be prejudicial - but I wish there was a way around it in cases like this, where it clearly would suggest he couldn't have just been keeping her quiet.

But wannabe didn't the judge say that intent to cause serious harm would equal guilty of murder anyway? Or did I get that wrong?

Only in mental gymnast land Wannabe. The judge seems to be spending a lot of time there.

Justice for Joanna at last. I hope she can RIP now

ok so point of law here - if a man for instance rapes and murders someone, what are they charged with? Is it rape and murder? or just murder? Because maybe that's where the boundaries lie?

It would seem that VT acted out his porn fantacies on JY and that she died as a result. Therefore, should the charges not have been sexual asalt and murder? in which case the porn would have been more admissible in terms of proving the sexual element? But because there was no sexual asalt charge the evidence didn't relate to the killing but only to the sexual element and therefore the judge ruled it inadmissible?

Thunderbolt but there are people who do use strangulation as a sexual fettish even within so-called loving relationships. (I linked to an article further up the thread). I don't personally understand why but it seems that there are people who gain pleasure not only from doing the strangling but also from being strangled. And unfortunately it sometimes goes wrong with disasterous consequences.

This outlines the defence's objections to this evidence being made available to the jury

swns.com/vincent-tabak-murderer-watched-fetish-porn-before-killing-jo-yeates-281554.html

"no one is suggesting he harmed them, and I certainly don't see such conduct as an indicator of experience in real interactions with women who are not paid sex providers."

But the defence WAS suggesting that he was in a happy monogamous relationship.

Which it was known that he was not.

Once the defence brought up his supposedly monogamous relationship with Morson, the prostitute visits should have been in.

Well unfortunately women are abused in so-called "loving relationships" Wannabe. The fact that some men are able to get the women they are with to allow them to strangle them, doesn't take away from the underlying murderous intent. Men who want to strangle women are extremely dangerous. It shouldn't need saying, but we live in a world where men are excused this kind of stuff, so it's better to say it.

However, we know all too often murder is often sexually motivated even if there is no obviously evidence of sexual interference.

"And unfortunately it sometimes goes wrong with disasterous consequences."

Yes, that is true. Sometimes consensual strangling can go wrong.

But you cannot seriously be advocating that if a man kills a woman by strangling her without consent for his own sexual gratification, that he can claim that he just wanted a sexual buzz and that the death was an accident?

If you put your hands around someone's neck against their will with the intention to deprive them of breath, regardless of your motivation, your intent must be to do them serious harm.

You might as well claim that someone gets a sexual thrill from shooting people, but that the fact that they died is just an unfortunate and unintended consequence.

well in fairness we don't know what goes on in other peoples' relationships. Just because we wouldn't allow it doesn't mean that other people don't gain pleasure from it (both men and women).

Many people do have odd sexual fettishes that are beyond the comprehension of most normal thinking individuals, but there's a difference between acting those out between consenting adults and forcing them on someone which is clearly what happened with VT here.

I am absolutely furious about this information being witheld, enabling the defence to build a misleading picture.

The right verdict was reached this time, but next time a judge's minimising of the horror of this type of porn will lead to someone guilty getting away with it.

I guess watching women being tortured is no big deal.

"But you cannot seriously be advocating that if a man kills a woman by strangling her without consent for his own sexual gratification, that he can claim
that he just wanted a sexual buzz and that the death was an accident?" no, absolutely not. My reference to strangling for sexual pleasure was in response to thunderbolts claims that anyone who strangles anyone else clearly does so with murder in mind, which in many relationships is not the case although it unfortunately does sometimes end in death.

Personally I think that there should have been another way to admit the evidence and that if there was evidence of having acted out a porn fantacy the prosecution should have pushed for a charge of sexual asalt as well as murder, in which case the evidence should have been admissible to prove sexual intent to prove the asalt, iyswim.

Erm, I'm not arguing that men who enjoy strangling women don't get pleasure from it. They enjoy the harm they are causing. It's not an "odd" fetish, it's an abuse of women, do you really not get that? Most men who do this don't take it as far as murder because they don't want to go to prison, but you can be pretty sure they would if they thought they could definitely get away with it.

It's the naive and the wishful-thinking who want to think that men who do these things mean no harm. But then there were a few people upthread who thought that Tabak's defense might have credence. I wonder how they are feeling now.

Totally agree with you Goth. Outrageous this evidence was withheld. I wonder what Tanya Morson is saying now and if she thinks she may also have been a victim if he had no committed this.

I also wonder if the situation would have been different if the plea had been different.

VT had admitted killing Joanna. As a result he was already going to jail, and the judge could have handed down a sentence equivalent to the one that was handed down today. So it's not as if VT was going to walk free if a not guilty verdict was reached.

If Tabak had pleaded not guilty to all charges it's possible that the evidence might have been considered differently since the prosecution would have had more of a case to build.

thunder, there are people who gain pleasure from being strangled. Both men and women.

There have been documented cases of people who do this to themselves in fact and end up dying as a result.

I don't get it but it happens, in the same way there are people who gain pleasure from being restrained and whipped and beaten and christ only knows what else in the name of sexual gratification.

It's not for most rational thinking people to comprehend but it does happen.

Actually, he if had claimed that it wasn't him who killed her, then it would be harder to argue that the porn was relevant.

The point is that this trial was about establishing intent, and his motivation in going to her house and in putting his hands around her neck was key.

Potentially important information about his motivation was withheld.

His life sentence is a recommendation of 20 years.
He'll be in his 50s when he's released. I'm totally against the death penalty, but I do think that for this type of murder he should never be released.

Wannabe, there are men who get pleasure from strangling women. They are dangerous.

Thunders: earlier in the thread, pre-verdict, we were discussing the evidence as presented at the time, without adding any personal views for or against. This was looking at strengths and weaknesses in the legal cases. We realise you didn't get the point then (and I have apologised for being so shrill about it), but do you really need to rehash that misunderstanding of the nature of the debate then? Especially now that both the parameters and the available information are different post-verdict.

shecut which is why I think additional charge of sexual asalt should have been added. if the sexual asalt charge was in place too then surely the motive for doing so could have been to act out the porn fantacy.

I think it would have been harder to prove sexual assault than murder with the evidence they had available.

She wasn't sexually assaulted in the normal understanding of the word, was she?

Poor girl. What hideous luck to live next door to that maniac.