Anyone else following the Tabak/Yeates case?

[Twinfan]

Yep, I think that's all they've got.  Tough one to call in my opinion.

[Twinfan]

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...

[Philly Q]

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.

[shobet]

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!

[Twinfan]

:lol:

I think the judge wanted to ensure it was a "fair" trial.  Could've backfired if he'd got away with manslaughter though...!

[plastercaster]

: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.

[Philly Q]

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:


After:

[Twinfan]

Yeah, I noticed that Phil - you gotta love the media..............

[nfe]

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.

[Twinfan]

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.

[nfe]

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?

[Twinfan]

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?

[nfe]

I'd have to concede I wasn't aware it was folks that looked and were dressed like her.

[Dmoney]

 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.

[Twinfan]

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.