Sorry to be at it again, but how can the judge include the So called images on his laptop if it was never proven that the images were there and they were not brought into evidence???
http://www.lawpages.co.uk/court-cases/vincent-tabak-7570-1.law Following the verdict the jury heard how he had viewed violent pornography on the web.The judge agreed with the defence counsel that disclosure of his internet use following his victim's death was not proof that the crime was premeditated. Videos and pictures found on his laptop and work computer depicting a man holding a woman's neck during sex and images of woman tied up in the boot of vehicles
I thought A MURDER CHARGE was supposed to be PREMEDITATED??? ( i don't know) searches don't show intent!
( The Judge is even saying it wasn't PREMEDITATED) ??
So... Manslaughter it is then...
On my reckoning 10 years for Manslaughter, do half 5 years for good behaviour..
Dr Vincent Tabak should be out now !!
I have touched on what stills are..
Which picture were on his laptop and which pictures were on his work computer?
Who had access to Dr Vincent Tabak's work computer..
Why say Vehicles... the media only ever showed one photo, which happened to be a girl in a pink t-shirt.
(Did everyone forget.... she was inside a bicycle bag and not in the boot without... now if the image was of a girl in the boot of a car in a bicycle bag, it may have thrown up other questions...(IMO)
The image was used to imply to the public that he had an image of a girl in a pink T-shirt to get the general public's sympathy... (its her parents who need sympathy.. not manufactured evidence)
How can he tell the jury he had viewed porn?/
I could understand the judge making a comment if Dr Vincent Tabak had previously been convicted of a crime, and that was relevant to the case before him...
But how can he say something that was never proven or brought as evidence...
Now I don't know law but surely you can't say something that hasn't been substanciated.... Or brought in as evidence...
The Judge said " I think there was a sexual element to this killing......in my view you are dangerous. In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful and dishonest and manipulative
( was this said when he directed the jury or when he was passing sentence?? Big difference..)
Wow... when was it proven that it was sexually motivated attack as Joanna yeates had not been sexually assaulted..
again, if internet searches cannot prove intent and the pornography was not introduced into evidence... Joanna Yeates was not Sexually Assaulted.....
How can it be a Sexually Motivated Attack??????
