Goodness, Nine and Mercury, you have been busy!!
It was not a satisfactory trial, partly because VT had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Therefore, nobody was asking "Did he do it?" He had already said he had done it, so the lawyers in court didn't have to worry about that. They just needed to determine whether or not he meant to do it. I have always thought it was a pity he didn't plead not guilty, then a lot more evidence would have come out at the trial, and people such as Tanja, Chris Jefferies, work colleagues, etc perhaps would have been called to testify.
That is partly why some of us are left with a lot of unanswered questions!
Jo's murder appalled and disgusted the whole country (and rightly so), and I am sure the vast majority of people were relieved that someone was charged, tried and imprisoned for it. People tend to think that if somebody is charged, then the police must surely "have something on them", and they dont question this. They are just relieved that a killer is no longer walking the streets. We are supposed to consider a suspect innocent until proved guilty, but I don't think people do in general----look at how poor Chris Jefferies was vilified, and he hadn't even been charged!
Most people don't question the tactics of the police , but people DO get stitched up sometimes, and the police DO sometimes make mistakes. The police were under immense pressure to solve Joanna's murder. If they hadn't , they would have had the indignity of police from elsewhere coming in to help them, or to take the case over. They had already made one mistake, and police have targets to reach, just like anyone else in a job. If a murderer is not caught, the police get the blame, and the media let everyone know about it!
We have to accept and respect the verdicts of juries, because the law says we must, but jury members are just members of the public, like us. They are not trained in law---in fact, I believe you can't serve on a jury if you are a lawyer. People vary as to how "hardline" or how "liberal" they are when confronted by a defendant, and I would imagine that a lot of people are so disgusted by the crime that they are only too ready to find the defendant guilty, and that they don't ask too many questions. You only have to read people's comments about criminals on the internet----many people are of the "lock them up and throw away the key " mentality, and many believe in capital punishment.
As for prosecution and defence barristers, I did read somewhere that winning is as important to them (or even sometimes more important) than getting to the truth. I don't know whether that is true or not, so I won't comment any further!!!
I have already said what I think about computer evidence!! Sally Ramage does mention that in the Tabak case it could have been concocted by the prosecution, or something to that effect. Until I read that, I would not have believed that such a thing could happen!
I know a very law abiding and decent man who genuinely believes that it is possible to strangle somebody accidentally during sex. Well, one learns something every day!!!
As you know, I lean towards the feeling that VT did not kill Jo at all. There is no motive (apart from sex, and I just dont believe that in his case: he had only ever had one girlfriend, and he didn't even know Jo). There is also no clear consensus on WHERE she died or WHEN she died. We only know HOW she died. If those questions cannot be answered, how can somebody be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
It may well be the case that the police know far more than has ever been revealed to the public, and if that is so, I am sure they have good reasons for it. However, while there are so many ifs and buts, of course some people are going to be asking questions! It is human nature. Lucky for the jury that they didnt have me on it!!
