Options
Tabak = Guilty
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/126981443a62beaa763a1d5bcc2221ec.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 9,916 Forum Member
✭
On Sky News now.
He was a big fan of violent internet porn including strangulation apparently according to the contents of his computer hard drive. After he'd killed her he did a Google search about body decomposition timescales.
I hope he's a big fan of a**l sex, He'll need to be once he's inside..
Evil t***. :mad:
He was a big fan of violent internet porn including strangulation apparently according to the contents of his computer hard drive. After he'd killed her he did a Google search about body decomposition timescales.
I hope he's a big fan of a**l sex, He'll need to be once he's inside..
Evil t***. :mad:
0
Comments
Very unlikely to be fair. The belief that every murderer/rapist gets bummed in prison is a myth.
Because the judge deemed it not relevant to the case.
Muast be incrediably difficult to decide between manslaughter and murder in such a case
Far too lenient imo.
I guess if the defence had tried to assassinate Jo's character it would have been allowed.
Does sound to me like the judge kept too much out though - lots of evidence of Tabak's sexual tendenceis how can that not be relevant?
I think it's because it could sway the jury's opinion. For example, if someone is innocent but into pretty kinky stuff, the jury might view them in a different light. Anyone legal, feel free to correct.
This whole case is so sad. Poor Jo. Apparently the gardens where she did some work are going to create the butterfly garden she designed for them in her name.
the jury werent told
Not relevant in that millions of people watch internet porn but the internet searches he did after the murder were as they showed his subsequent actions
At least 15 years + 5 for aggravating factors.
RIP now, Joanna
Imagine if he'd got off and they'd then found he was a fan of violent porn including strangulation..
It seems completely mad to me.
I think that's the reason why! the same happens with peoples past crimes being withheld when in court.
When your defence is you accidently strangled someone but it wasn't murder honest, well it would have been better to keep quiet.
Don't know what has happened to your post but the jury were not told that he had a load of strangulation videos therefore they had to decide on the facts aof the murder alone
I enjoy a good bit of porn but any violent stuff and I'm straight out of there.
So not life then.
I agree, in 20 years he'll only be 53.