The jury in the Jo Yeates trial was not told of internet porn found on Vincent Tabak's computer, but should they have been?
I'm not talking legally, the defence application to rule the evidence inadmissible was allowed.
Unless the judge made a balls of it, which I doubt, legally they should not have been told, but is the law right?
Part of the argument appears to be he looked at the porn after he murdered Ms Yeates.
The jury was told of lots of other things he did after the murder, particularly the way he disposed of the body.
The porn was also relevant in that it showed women being sexually dominated, including tied up in the boot of a car, which is exactly what Tabak did to Ms Yeates.
Juries find people guilty or innocent, not lawyers or judges, their job is to give the jury enough information to make the correct decision, without overloading them.
The porn doesn't make Tabak guilty, but it's relevant in that it shows he has an interest in dominating - effectively harming - women.
The intent to harm was central to the case, so it seems to me the jury should have been told.
What do you think?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14904647
|
I appreciate that you have current, or at least more recent, involvement with matters legal than I do. When I was involved the main idea seemed to be that facts were presented and the jury came to a finding and then all the background and previous history was produced for a judge to determine sentence. The result of this was supposed to be, I imagine, that a habitual criminal was judged on the evidence relating to the events in question and then given a harsh sentence for being a repeat offender.
In the Patak case it is clear that he has some unpleasant traits and habits, to say the least but do they make him guilty of the murder with which he was charged? Would he have gone on to kill her if she had had given him a Christmas kiss? We shall never know and are well rid of him, in any event. Did his own girlfriend, with whom he lived(?) give evidence BTW?
|
I have been waiting to hear her evidence Meldrew but I don't think she did.
Pat
|
|
No I don't think she did Pat, it would have made the news if she had. I think she wisely get out of the public eye. The best she could have said was that he was always kind and pleasant to her which doesn't really prove anything
|
It seems to me not, other things being equal. What is the jury supposed to do with that information, other than form a prejudicial opinion of the defendant?
A lot of people like war films - would that be evidence that they are more likely to have shot someone?
If the defence brought evidence as to character then perhaps it should have been brought out.
I can see that it might be relevant if what he had been watching matched in detail the other evidence gathered. Presumably that is not what you mean.
I'm not speaking from a legal standpoint.
|
|
Good points M. I now recall that, if the defense produced evidence as to a defendant's good character the prosecution were entitled to query that and produce evidence to the contrary.
|
It was obvious (to me) that he was as guilty as hell, but I don't think the jury should have been told of internet porn found on his computer, I look at Youporn occasionally but it doesn’t make me a rapist or a murderer, does it,
What does amaze me though, was that it wasn’t a unanimous guilty verdict, imagine how ya would feel if the beast had been found not guilty owing to your doubt about his guilt, and all the details of the porn he viewed showing women being sexually dominated, including tied up in the boot of a car were leaked at a later date.
|
The fact that internet porn was found on his computer is not evidence about the factual circumstances of the murder. Its conjecture only and has no part in the trial
Only medical or psychological evidence prepared and presented by a recognised expert in the field should be presented about the defendant.
Over half the male population of the UK has some internet porn (or evidence of visited such) on their PC. Half the male population are not murderers.
|
>>Over half the male population of the UK has some internet porn (or evidence of visited
>>such) on their PC. Half the male population are not murderers.
And a significant chunk of the FEmale population.
|
>> What does amaze me though, was that it wasn’t a unanimous guilty verdict, imagine how
>> ya would feel if the beast had been found not guilty owing to your doubt
>> about his guilt, and all the details of the porn he viewed showing women being
>> sexually dominated, including tied up in the boot of a car were leaked at a
>> later date.
He'd admitted to killing her. The trial was about whether he intended to. Given the evidence as reported I'm not surprised the jury took some time to come to the conclusion that murder was made out.
He was going down for a long stretch either way.
|
Crucially, the trial was about whether he intended her serious harm, that's all the prosecution needed to prove to prove murder.
The judge stressed that several times in his summing up.
To me, the interest in violent internet porn shows an interest in women being harmed, which is why I think it's relevant.
To answer a couple of points made earlier.
The girlfriend didn't give evidence in person because she had nothing of relevance to say, other than she received the text message.
I expect her statement about that was read to the jury.
The defence could have called her - or anyone else - as a character witness.
But putting Tabak's character 'in issue' would have made it harder for them to argue the porn should be kept out.
In recent years, defendant's previous convictions have been put before the jury, but only if they are for like offences.
The jury in the latest trial of Robert Black was told he is a convicted serial killer.
Going back to Tabak, I agree it's surprising the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.
But the two dissenting jurors may not have thought he was not guilty of murder, only that they were not sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
As a copper once said to me, there's always at least one social worker on a jury, although it's rarer to have two.
|
>> As a copper once said to me, there's always at least one social worker on
>> a jury, although it's rarer to have two.
A comment which, if serious, says more about the attitude of the copper than about juries. At least in this case there was no doubt about who did it, only the degree of intent.
I have never done jury service and don't especially want to.
A few years ago, a few of us went on a "murder mystery" weekend in Brum, run by an ex-copper. Throughout the weekend, the teams gradually uncovered by interview or were presented with, evidence and had to draw conclusions about who they would charge with the murder, acting as the police. It was supposedly based on a real case.
What was very salutary was that there was no right answer; though there were some wrong ones. Of course everybody asked "who really did it?". The copper of course said he didn't know - we could only gather the evidence, decide who to charge, and leave it to the court.
Obvious really, but it was a reminder that real life isn't an episode of Inspector Morse.
|
...we could only gather the evidence, decide who to charge, and leave it to the court...
The police are often criticised in court for only seeking evidence which they think will support the prosecution.
The good detectives - of which there are many - gather all the evidence surrounding an incident.
I regarded the social worker comment as 'semi-serious', although detectives are frustrated by defendants who lead them on a merry dance, and by juries who cannot see what's going on.
Tabak did this, according to the officer in charge of the investigation (OIC).
Fortunately, the OIC and his team did a thorough job, and 10 members of the jury were savvy enough to realise the case was a properly-prepared one.
|
|
In late nineties I was inolved with a "multi-agency" child team - huge difference of opinions from the various professionals on any given scenario, some that confirmed pre-conceived stereotypes and others that came as a bit of a surprise.
|
As a casual observer of the case who's looked at today's headlines and front page articles I'm taken aback that the apparent specific viewing of material that seemed to closely relate to the manner of her death was deemed inadmissible.
Also as the Dad of two girls who in not many years should be off from home and living their own lives I could see myself in the place of Jo Yeates parents had he got off with a lesser charge/sentance should the jury have believed his *innocent accident* act. I'd have been besides myself once the full truth was revealed after the trial.
|
>>apparent specific viewing of material that seemed to closely relate to the manner of her death was deemed inadmissible.
After the event, which (the event) was admitted. Had he denied involvement, there would have been a much better argument to allow the internet evidence.
|
As I understand it, the difference between murder and manslaughter is premeditation...(crude I know)..
So it's all about what was intended.
Surely the porn he viewed would have by itself given an idea of the state of mind of the man?
But hey, I'm only a simple layman...
|
>> Surely the porn he viewed would have by itself given an idea of the state
>> of mind of the man?
...but not the state of his mind before/during the crime, since what we are talking about is what he was looking at some time afterwards.
|
...As I understand it, the difference between murder and manslaughter is premeditation...(crude I know)..So it's all about what was intended...
It is about what's intended, but the key point is to prove murder, the prosecution only need to prove he intended Ms Yeates serious harm.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sat 29 Oct 11 at 14:52
|
My understanding was that the information could have led to a prejudicial opinion being formed by the jury.
This could have been grounds enough to allow Tabak to appeal.
I also think that Tabaks girlfriend was somehow involved in that I thought she had called the police while they were in Holland. This resulted in the police traveling out to visit him and take a DNA sample.
|
So the British justice system will be undone by letting a jury know what the acccused was doing before he committed his crime.
No wonder British justice is lengthy , expensive and favours the criminals..
|
>>
>> No wonder British justice is lengthy , expensive and favours the criminals..
>>
Tell that to the Guildford Four, the Birmingham six, Barry George and countless more.
The trouble with allowing character "evidence" to be placed before a jury is that it allows unscrupulous rozzers to stick a patsy up in pursuit of an easy conviction.
Which is what happened with the afore mentioned Barry George.
|
So we can't trust the police either then is waht you are saying?
|
>> So the British justice system will be undone by letting a jury know what the
>> acccused was doing before he committed his crime.
Except he did it after the crime.
>> No wonder British justice is lengthy , expensive and favours the criminals..
He got convicted, dont see much criminal favouring going on there. You have a problem with the judge ensuring it was a safe conviction? reducing the chance of an appeal?
|
Good grief madf, I told you the first time - do you actually read replies?
"Vincent Tabak viewed violent internet pornography depicting men holding women by the neck in the weeks after he killed his Bristol neighbour Jo Yeates, it has emerged."
|
"The police are often criticised in court for only seeking evidence which they think will support the prosecution.
The good detectives - of which there are many - gather all the evidence surrounding an incident."
They may be criticised as part of a defence tactic. The defence being able to examine all evidence in slow time and spin it as they see fit. But all evidence should be presented including that which can undermine the case. If it isn't and the defence finds it they have an easy 'in'.
For example if 9 witnesses say the suspect of a serious assault was wearing a white shirt and one said they were wearing a black shirt would you just tear up the 10th statement. No because witnesses can see things in different ways in the heat of the moment and it shows transparency. If the witness was excluded and the defense got hold of it it would be easy to alledge malpractice and make a case around the black shirted person being the suspect.
|
"He got convicted, dont see much criminal favouring going on there. You have a problem with the judge ensuring it was a safe conviction? reducing the chance of an appeal? "
Good point Z. Start making decisions away from the norm balanced against the strength of the evidence gives opportunityfor appeals.
|
|
This was a speedy conviction - he was remanded in January, a highly complex case was assembled and brought to trial in less than 9 months - anyone who knows how slowly the CJS grinds its unwieldy way to a conclusion should be impressed. Probably a lot quicker than many developed countries.
|
I don't think the jury should have known. There was sufficient evidence to convict. Bring this info in the case and you'd be at serious risk of a jury finding him guilty without taking the evidence into account.
No doubt the judge helped steer them when he summed up. I wonder why two thought he wasn't guilty? From what little I'd read in the papers or heard on the radio it sounded like he was guilty.
I'd initially wondered why push for the trial for murder when he'd be locked up for a long time for manslaughter anyway. When you know more of the facts then getting him for murder was worth the cost (financial and to her family) to lock him away for a long time.
And the photo of him they have been using since would make me wonder what was going through his mind. Again better they kept it out of the media.
I just hope nobody is found to be texting in the jury for it to be overturned!
|
I feel the jury should be told of anything pertaining to the case. I believe that includes the porn, the violent leanings.
I'm too tired to argue my point properly just now tho; just thought I'd say that before anyone picks holes in me
|
>> I'm too tired to argue my point properly just now
I must remember that defence.
|
|
haha yeah, cheer me up a little bit if u can. Knackered cos was up in london and it was great, and i have the anticlimax now.
|
Should the jury have been told? - Meldrew
