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?

I did start out convinced of his guilt, thunderbolts; but I wavered at one point, because to me his defence sounded just about plausible, as I think it did to the others here who said as much

I am relieved he has been found guilty. He had a right to a good defence and they put the best face they could on the events. I suspect however that VT is a violent and devious man and a sentence of 20 years is perfectly appropriate.

We live in a society which in which violence towards women is tolerated. No point pretending otherwise. It's comforting that in this case the defendant has not been able to excuse themselves away from their violent act.

thunders, so if vt had been found not guilty, would you have been feeling shame for doubting his claims?

Lenin I think it's standard practice to look at other crimes when someone is convicted of a crime in these types of circumstances. In the press conference the police did say that there were no indications of crimes in particular that were being looked at, and there was no indication of anything in the UK but more that his DNA was being sent to holland and the states in case iyswim. That doesn't mean he has necessarily committed any previous crime but equally he might have done.

No, not at all.

He strangled a woman to death remember.

You seem to be getting confused with defending men who commit violence against women (what happened on this thread) with holding men who commit violence against women accountable for that violence. There's no shame in the latter.

Julie Bindel is right on the influence of porn in the Guardian:
m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/sRzbN5fmbIpRW3bRWsSxM0Q/view.m?id=15&gid=commentisfree/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-law-on-gender-hatred&cat=most-read

Interesting and non-hysterical article, thanks, Greythorne.

(Apologies for tasteless Halloween name in the circumstances [hblush].

This is strikingly similar to the case of the young woman in Brighton who was a teacher and befriended a man who was also very involved in watching violent strangulation pornography. She was also murdered in very similar circumstances to JY. His porn use was sited as a motivation for this crime and her mother campained for years about the dangers of this kind of porn.

I feel so disrespectful not remembering her name but it was so sad.

Interesting article - pornography charges seem set to be taken separately (not totally clear, but some news reports seem to be hinting at this). It makes the exclusion from this trial a good thing; if all charges had been taken together, just imagine what additional foul detail Joanna's family would have had to sit through and how much longer the trial would have taken.

In this light, it was the humane decision, especially as I've seen some legal commentary this morning about the real risks of appeal/overturn/retrial had the evidence been admitted. Again, just imagine what it would have been like had that happened.

I am pleased that there was justice for Joanna in the shape of a sound verdict.

I'm sorry but I still don't really understand why the evidence wasn't admissible...I mean of what he was watching, what his recent activities had been in terms of paying for sex etc.

I don't understand why it was considered less relevant than his other background - and obviously,we are able to connect the activities with the crime now, because we know about them, and it seems almost certain that they were part of his thinking in murdering Jo.

so much was seemingly presented for the defence that made him look 'of good character', why was that admissible and this not? What would have happened had the jury voted for manslaughter, and then gone on to find out that he had been watching these films around the time of her death...it would have been too late.

I'm sorry to not understand, I know it's been explained but it doesn't make sense to me...perhaps someone could do it with bullet points, or something, for the thickies among us?

Also how on earth was the defence allowed to defend him, or able to in terms of their own morality, knowing this information - that he wasn't sexually naive, well not in the way we were led to believe, and that he was fascinated with strangling women.

How could someone defend him knowing this?

The defence had to defend him, knowing that.

He was entitled to a defence.

And of course they would try to exclude evidence that made it harder for them to paint a picture of a man who had made a terrible error.

The judge had to make a call on whether the evidence was more prejudicial than useful, and he ruled that it was prejudicial (correctly, IMO).

What I have a problem with is that he then allowed a defence to be presented that was based on assertions and insinuations that were false, and that were known to be false, that the prosecution couldn't rebut.

Had the defence stuck to arguments that didn't seek to present Tabak as a man in a happy relationship, who knew nothing about strangulation, I think leaving that evidence out would have been fair.

But to allow them to make their defence based inadmissible evidence, was unjust IMO.

I don't really get it, either, Jane. I thought that the mens rea for murder included intent to kill or cause GBH. The strangulation porn evidence surely strikes a massive blow in the defence line of "I only wanted her to stop screaming". He surely intended to cause GBH - that's was the whole point, no?

Also how on earth was the defence allowed to defend him?

Because everyone is legally entitled to a defense. We don't live in Zimbabwe.

The role of the defense is to get the best possible outcome for the defendant. Yes, we can argue that it must be hard for them to sleep at night, but they play a very important role in the criminal justice system- ensuring that the prosecution must be watertight in order to deprive someone of their liberty.

What I've not understood throughout is why it was 'ok' for the media to write screaming headlines and probes into the life of the innocent landlord when he was taken in for questioning. The poor guy was completely tried by media - there was even a long section on the 10 o'clock news about his past and how he 'apparently' through board rubbers at kids (or something) as if that automatically made him capable of murder.

Why didn't we get the same probes into VT's life after he was arrested? Was it because he was actually charged? And if so, then why was the name of the landlord even revealed when he hadn't been charged with anything? Poor guy - not only has his life been ruined, but the police wasted time on him for no reason (other than he 'looked weird' as I remember people on Mumsnet commenting at the time).

Been trying to answer my own questions re GBH and mens rea for murder. It turns out that strangulation is not GBH and therefore does not apply. (It's a Section 21 offence, not a Section 20, to be technical).

The law is an ass.

Well isn't that a surprise that strangulation isn't GBH, when it's such a popular tool for women abusers.

There's a bit of the law that needs changing.

So if Section 20 is GBH, what is Section 21?

Actually, no worries- I just read the actual act

Section 20: GBH, carries a max 7 yr term
Section 21: Strangulation/garroting carries a max life term

Still think the law needs changing?

thunderbolts, exactly my thought.

Section 21 is "Attempting to choke, &c. in order to commit any indictable offence.

Whosoever shall, by any means whatsoever, attempt to choke, suffocate, or strangle any other person, or shall by any means calculated to choke, suffocate, or strangle, attempt to render any other person insensible, unconscious, or incapable of resistance, with intent in any of such cases thereby to enable himself or any other person to commit, or with intent in any of such cases thereby to assist any other person in committing, any indictable offence, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . "

Um, no, because section 21 is a more serious offence than GBH (section 20). They're separating it because it carries a heavier sentence, not a lighter one.

And the reason it's important, in case I am just rambling here, is that the mens rea for murder includes GBH but not strangulation, which clears up some of the confusion I know I had further up the thread.

Mens rea for violent crimes my men against women is so hard to prove because of this kind of loophole. And I am focusing on male violence against women because of its prevalence and nature.

Yes, I get that. But it's not just about the punishment, is it? The police might be happy to get an organised crime boss put away for tax evasion, for example, but that doesn't recognise the harm done to the victims of his other crimes.

sorry- don't understand.

What's "rea"?

Are you saying that you'd rather strangulation was included in GBH and carried a max 7 yr term, rather than being separately defined and carrying a life term?

Mens rea is "malice aforethought".The mens rea for murder is the intent to cause death or GBH. If strangulation is not GBH, then it cannot form mens rea for murder.

Or at least that's how I read it.

Interestingly and , one of the first google links I found when looking to see if strangulation was GBH was on a site aimed at prostitutes and their safety.