Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => The Dressing Room => Topic started by: Twinfan on October 25, 2011, 01:56:30 PM
-
I've been sucked in via journalist blow-by-blow accounts of the case on Twitter :oops:
The summing up is almost finished before the jury retire to consider their verdict. Based on the evidence I've read, I reckon it's a really tough one to call. Anyone got any theories?
-
If he's not a "pikey" guilt is always hard to establish...
-
:lol:
-
Let it go, Dave. Let it go...
Been following it vaguely... Just seems pretty tragic.
-
Tabak seems to be holding back info to make his case look better, and has done since his initial police statements. Without enough evidence to prove murder and intent from the prosecution, which is how I'm seeing it, he'll get the manslaughter charge he's admitted to.
Manslaughter is probably not the truth, but I can't see how murder can be proven without a confession in this case.
-
what do you get for manslaughter these days? 6 years? out in 3? that's what it was last time someone I knew got 'manslaughtered'
-
No mandatory sentence, it's up to the judge.
-
No mandatory sentence, it's up to the judge.
Good to know. will be interesting to see what he gets if he does get manslaughter.
-
Its an interesting case, but no one except Tabak knows what happened
A lot of people I know are quite involved in the case as Jo was in the same year in
School as my brother and his friends.
I get drawn into judging the case based on the mug-shots of Tabak where he looks almost smug
-
I've not been following it at all (not since the hatchet job the papers did on that landlord bloke before Tabak was arrested).
Surprised by what you've said Dave, I got the impression it would be a pretty open-and-shut case.
-
That's what I thought, but he's been very selective in what he's said and some things just don't quite add up. I think he's trying to make himself look as unfortunate as possible, to show he's not the murdering type.
I'm flicking from one verdict to the next, so I'd hate to be on the jury :(
-
On a simplistic level, he lied to the police and therefore I think he will be found guilty by the jury
-
I've not been following it - but I would have thought he would found guilty on the Nedrick/Wollin definition of oblique intent. Has this come up?
The Nedrick/Woollin direction is:
"The Jury are not entitled to find the necessary intention (to murder) unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that such was the case …The decision is one for the Jury to be reached upon a consideration of all the evidence."
-
Not come up Elliot. The crux seems to be that Tabak didn't know he was going to kill her, it was an accident. He was trying to stop her screaming by holding her throat and mouth, and she died.
A strange action to take, rather than just walking away, but could it have been a unfortunate accident? The length of time he would have had to hold her can't be proven conclusively, so there's doubt...
-
Actually, looking at the prosecution speech on 'every second he held her it was one step closer' does seem to me to be setting up the jury for the judge to give a Nedrick direction. The jury's doubt must be about the issue of intent to kill or cause serious harm and the prosecutors 'every second' speech looks like planting the concept in the jury's mind that Tabak had a growing awareness that death or serious harm would follow as a result of his actions thus manifesting the necessary intent.
-
Yep, I think that's all they've got. Tough one to call in my opinion.
-
Guilty of murder, minimum 20 years, 10/2 majority verdict.
Post verdict more of his internet history has been made public, and that really puts things into perspective. Not sure why this was held back from the jury though? It certainly puts a whole new light on a possible motive...
-
Post verdict more of his internet history has been made public, and that really puts things into perspective. Not sure why this was held back from the jury though? It certainly puts a whole new light on a possible motive...
Presumably it's a bit like not mentioning someone's previous convictions in a trial, as it could cause the jury to be biased? Or perhaps it's just that looking at dodgy stuff on the internet isn't "evidence" of anything, as such?
Elliot can tell us, I imagine.
-
Or perhaps it's just that looking at dodgy stuff on the internet isn't "evidence" of anything, as such?
I $%&#ing hope not or I'm in deep doodoo!
-
:lol:
I think the judge wanted to ensure it was a "fair" trial. Could've backfired if he'd got away with manslaughter though...!
-
:lol:
I think the judge wanted to ensure it was a "fair" trial. Could've backfired if he'd got away with manslaughter though...!
Yeah but it's not proof is it? I'm sure the viewing figures for that sort of stuff far exceed the number of strangler killers (Although I can see it as relevant). I'm sure the prosecution knew what they were dong; if it had got out and published and he got a successful appeal it would have been very difficult to find a fair jury if any more evidence cropped up.
-
Have you noticed that since he got convicted, they've stopped using that smiley photo of Tabak and found a new one in which he looks a complete psychotic loon?
Before:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bYBQIT1xHmQ/TT-1WZ7ryaI/AAAAAAAABFo/ly96mDPDc-U/s320/Vincent-Tabak-Killer-Murder.jpg)
After:
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01398/tab2_main_1398820a.jpg)
-
Yeah, I noticed that Phil - you gotta love the media..............
-
Guilty of murder, minimum 20 years, 10/2 majority verdict.
Post verdict more of his internet history has been made public, and that really puts things into perspective. Not sure why this was held back from the jury though? It certainly puts a whole new light on a possible motive...
What internet history? The violent porn, or anything else?
If it's just the porn, it should be held back, the majority of the people are too stupid to understand that "violent" pornography does not in any way mean you're likely to have killed someone and would massively bias a jury. "Weirdo, MUST have done it".
By all means such things should be disclosed to psychologists who may appear as experts as part of their assessment, but not to the jury, I don't think.
-
I believe they couldn't tie any of the porn history to before the murder, so it was inadmissable. In that case, I agree it was right to hold this back from the jury.
-
And if it had been before the murder?
Out of curiosity, do you think playing Grand Theft Auto should be brought up in murder cases?
Watching Reservoir Dogs?
-
If he'd stored the images found on his computers of a girl who looked like Jo, being strangled, wearing similar clothes and in the same position/clothing state her body was left in BEFORE the murder, I would think that could be key evidence. I'm not talking about any old pics/violent game useage here, but some history that had a heck of a lot of overlap with the case.
Surely if that was date/time stamped prior to the murder you'd have to take it into account?
-
I'd have to concede I wasn't aware it was folks that looked and were dressed like her.
-
I don't think it would be key evidence necessarily. I think all those descriptions are pretty loose. I mean nobody has said the porn contained strangled girls from what I've seen, and guys putting their hands on girls throats is different. I'm sure loads of people see and DO things like that because they are into it sexually without actually wanting to really harm anyone.
'looks like jo'... i mean that's open to interpretation, what are we taking about... any blonde girl? any slim girl? any girl with a bob? any girl the same height? A combination of all these things? It's so loose sounding.
'similar clothes'... like some girl in a porno had a dress, and Jo Yeates was also wearing a dress? They both have on the same colour underwear? shirt? I dunno.
I dunno what to say about the position/clothing state and stuff but the rest of it seems pretty weak. I imagine it would be possible for the prosecution to argue all the connections between the content of Tabak's PC and what he did, but then I bet if they took anyone's laptop who is into rough porn then they'd be able to make the same connections.
-
I guess the judge weighed it all up and felt it wasn't relevant. I think he was right, let the jury decide based on the case facts.
-
I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about from the direction of the Daily Mail - it seems to me that the Judge (who unlike journalists sees the evidence, hears the argument and knows the law or can two opposing experts (barristers) explain the law to him without the need to bring it down to a non technical level) exercised his discretion and did so correctly.
The jury are charged with finding the facts of murder - the facts of murder are 2 fold: that the accused committed 1) an unlawful homicide against the victim and 2) did so with an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. They don't have to find motive or reason, just homicide and intent. That is the jury's job, nothing else. The unlawful homicide was admitted so the sole question for the jury was 'did Tabak form an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm to Jo Years?'
Given that the jury don't have to find a motive or a reason in their deliberations it becomes a question of 'does the watching of violent porn assist in the jury finding an intent to kill or commit GBH or is this evidence that might through the jury off track and thus prejudice the accused from the fact to be decided?' In certain factual scenarios it might assist the jury and remain unprejudicial but I can't see that it does here. Tabak admitted to the killing - he just said he had no intent - the jury found that he did have intent because of his actions - his conviction was fair, there was no bad character evidence to get in the way of the jury concentrating on the fact they had to decide - the fact it was a majority call shows it was a tough one - and Tabak wasn't prejudiced by having his non crime related dirty laundry shown in public. The fact the Daily Mail seems to want trials to be based on moral judgement tells us more about it and its readers than the functioning of the judicial system which here, at least, worked.
-
Cheers Elliot - great insight as always!