Stupidly I would be honest and say exactly what happened... But that is me... I would expect to be represented properly too...
I can work backwards on this , but it still makes no sense..... I can work upside down on this and it won't make any difference....
I have wasted my time... I thought there was a point to the Justice System... But not the point I originally believed...
I won't change my mind until someone proves to me that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna yeates.... I won't change my mind until DS Mark Saunders CCTV tape of Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010 is seen by the public, to prove one way or another whether or not Joanna Yeates actually arrived home.... Because Colin Port shouldn't be telling The Leveson Inquiry that the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates was at the Hophouse pub...
Meaning Joanna yeates either got home and is on the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of... Or there is CCTV footage of a time at the HopHouse pub we know nothing about... Because that clip we have seen of Joanna yeates at the end of the street on the HopHouse Pub footage, doesn't clearly indicate who the person is on that footage.... So there has to be more footage, for Colin Pot to say that Joanna Yeates was last seen on the CCTV from the Hophouse pub.... And we are aware that they Police took the entire system away from The Hophouse Pub... Why do that if there wasn't anything else on the footage from that establishment...
So yes.. I will question the events at trial..... because they make no sense either!
You aren't alone nine!
"One seriously wonders how the two jurors who did not think Vincent Tabak guilty of the murder of Joanna Yeates feel now.
As he had admitted to strangling her, the question was one of doubt over his intent.
If he hadn’t meant to kill her, and if his version of events was to have been believed – an inexperienced man was invited into a lonely woman’s home and got flustered after she refused a kiss – then manslaughter would have been the right verdict. Presumably.
Judges lecture juries on the importance of certainty and warn them that if there is any doubt they must pull back.
Anyone who has actually served on a jury knows that, often, one or two powerful personalities hold sway.
I am glad we have juries but this trial has once again raised issues that many people find hard to comprehend.
The police felt that once they had found that Tabak liked imagery of women, especially young blonde women, being strangled, it should be brought up in court.
The judge ruled this evidence inadmissible
The prosecuting QC argued that Tabak’s penchant for what has been called ‘strangulation porn’ might shed light on the case.
The police also knew that Joanna’s body had been left in a pose copied from a film found on his computer.
Should this evidence have been admissible? Mr Justice Field said that although Tabak’s choice of viewing was reprehensible, it was not valuable enough to outweigh the prejudice it would cause his defence.
There are those who say this is justice at its exemplary best; that criminal trials are often based on negotiations between lawyers and judges about what evidence can be put before a court.
Then there are the rest of us who are left somewhat mystified by the methods used by the legal establishment to ensure justice.
I do not for one minute think that the viewing of pornography or the use of prostitutes leads all men to commit sex crimes. If that were the case, every woman in the land would be in mortal danger.
But the Tabak case shows there are anomalies, to say the least. I complained about the treatment of Milly Dowler’s family during the trial of Milly’s killer, Levi Bellfield, and still fail to understand why her father’s viewing of pornography was relevant when he was a witness, not the defendant.
And we are all well aware that the ‘justice system’ continues to delve into the sexual histories of women who have been raped in ways that make many women feel violated once more.
The jury trying Tabak were swayed perhaps by the 43 injuries found on Joanna’s body – which in themselves implied something far more serious than a brush-off that went wrong.
But I am also disturbed by what we now define as simply ‘porn’.
Pornography used to mean sexually explicit material that men and women may or may not enjoy.
What we are talking about in the case of Tabak is explicitly violent imagery.
This absolute degradation of women, the more brutal the better, is only a few clicks away. It has little to do with sex and everything to do with hate – and many men as well as women are disgusted by it.
I am fairly libertarian about what consenting adults do – but seeing women being choked and undergoing appalling tortures sickens the stomach.
Films that feature children being sexually abused are regarded as evidence of a crime – but similar films involving women are not.
I am not asking for censorship but that the legal system understands this context. Does watching films of violence towards women mean the viewer will go on to commit such crimes? No. But woman-hating imagery surrounds us.
Tabak’s defence, that he misread Joanna’s signals, insults her memory. He took her life because he had indeed ‘misread’ the signals of what he liked to view. He took a life to make it real.
We too are guilty of misreading the signals if we simply dismiss this as ‘porn’. It is more akin to imagery of war crimes – these are photos from an unspoken war a few warped men are waging against women.
That surely is relevant.
But I am not a judge.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2055113/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Secrets-baffling-rules-justice.html
