Rules of Evidence
A cruel and heartless killer - Vincent Tabak - was sentenced to life imprisonment yesterday for the murder of Joanna Yeates.
But what's worrying is that the trial judge had to tell the jury he would accept a majority verdict - before they returned their decision - guilty by 10 votes to 2.
Quite what the 2 minority jurors were thinking is beyond me - and just how wrong they were was proved shortly after the verdict was announced - as the judge released more information about Tabak's behaviour which had been withheld from his trial.
Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter - but denied murder - and if just a few more jurors had swallowed his lies - he would have got away with his heinous crime.
As it stands he must serve a minimum of 20 years in prison - before he can apply for parole - but in truth a dangerous man like him should never be released.
Tabak exploited the fact that the only witness to his crime could not give evidence against him - because he had strangled her to death - then calmly tried to cover his tracks - researching the best way to present his manslaughter defence.
Joanne Yeates' family, her boyfriend - and another completely innocent man - were put through hell - after Tabak had hidden his victim's body in the boot of his car - before dumping it by the side of a road.
Yet the man's hardcore porn habit - which he indulged before and after his crime - while the police investigation was underway - was not divulged to the jury.
Even though his 'habit' featured graphic sexual violence - including strangulation and bondage.
To my mind the rules of evidence in such trials should be changed - because the accused person's behaviour, especially a pattern of behaviour - goes to his credibility as a witness.
As things turned out ten jurors - a majority - saw through Tabak's cynical lies and attempts to 'blame' his victim.
But two were completely taken in - and that's what I find worrying.
But what's worrying is that the trial judge had to tell the jury he would accept a majority verdict - before they returned their decision - guilty by 10 votes to 2.
Quite what the 2 minority jurors were thinking is beyond me - and just how wrong they were was proved shortly after the verdict was announced - as the judge released more information about Tabak's behaviour which had been withheld from his trial.
Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter - but denied murder - and if just a few more jurors had swallowed his lies - he would have got away with his heinous crime.
As it stands he must serve a minimum of 20 years in prison - before he can apply for parole - but in truth a dangerous man like him should never be released.
Tabak exploited the fact that the only witness to his crime could not give evidence against him - because he had strangled her to death - then calmly tried to cover his tracks - researching the best way to present his manslaughter defence.
Joanne Yeates' family, her boyfriend - and another completely innocent man - were put through hell - after Tabak had hidden his victim's body in the boot of his car - before dumping it by the side of a road.
Yet the man's hardcore porn habit - which he indulged before and after his crime - while the police investigation was underway - was not divulged to the jury.
Even though his 'habit' featured graphic sexual violence - including strangulation and bondage.
To my mind the rules of evidence in such trials should be changed - because the accused person's behaviour, especially a pattern of behaviour - goes to his credibility as a witness.
As things turned out ten jurors - a majority - saw through Tabak's cynical lies and attempts to 'blame' his victim.
But two were completely taken in - and that's what I find worrying.
