Correct result but inadequate sentence. He should have got 50 years for such a terrible crime.
I always knew he would be found guilty of murder. How two members of the jury didn't think so is quite beyond me, it was so obvious.
I feel very sorry for Jo's friends and family.
Hopefully Tabak won't serve his full sentence, whatever it is. I hope someone in prison will "get" to him, if you know what I mean. If it were up to me he would have a rope around his neck.
Totally evil scumbag who murdered a lovely girl. What a bastard!
The bizarre aspect is why she opened the door to a neighbour who she'd apparently never met.
Depends. The other day I invited my neighbour in when she'd knocked at my door. She had an electricity problem so I let her have some candles and invited her in while I got them. It was the first time we'd met.
I guess if it had been a man I might have been a bit more wary, but sometimes, especially if someone goes round asking for a favour or seems particularly chatty or friendly, I can see why you might let them in.
Why? There were several reasons that gave the Police cause to believe that he may have been involved in the murder including giving conflicting accounts. He was arrested and questioned under caution but he was not charged.
Wrongful arrest? Three days of incarceration and stressful interviews? Very probable attempts to implicate "their man" during those interviews. The police are not your friend.
Wrongful arrest? Three days of incarceration and stressful interviews? Very probable attempts to implicate "their man" during those interviews. The police are not your friend.
Any legal eagles on here can correct me if I'm wrong, but the police can arrest and interview anyone for an offence if they have reasonable suspicion that they could be guilty of that offence.
So it's not wrongful arrest if you're arrested, given a 'stressful' interview etc, so long as the police can show they thought you might have 'done it,' within reason.
Any interviewing technique is legal so long as it sticks within the boundaries of codes of practice and the suspect is given the opportunity to have a lawyer present. The police give stressful interviews if you think you might have done it because they're hoping you might confess, or implicate yourself. Or, scratching that, give them another line of inquiry.
No as his parents have said, he should be hung. They said they regret there's no capital punishment now.
They are right - they do need to bring it back in certain cases - where guilt is totally beyond doubt - the likes of Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting & Robert Black spring to mind!
Any legal eagles on here can correct me if I'm wrong, but the police can arrest and interview anyone for an offence if they have reasonable suspicion that they could be guilty of that offence.
So it's not wrongful arrest if you're arrested, given a 'stressful' interview etc, so long as the police can show they thought you might have 'done it,' within reason.
^^ This.
Now, if he was arrested because he was randomly picked up from the street and no other reason, we're talking.
The bizarre aspect is why she opened the door to a neighbour who she'd apparently never met.
Not bizarre at all. There are numerous reasons why a person would open their door to someone they didn't know or barely knew. It happens all the time. I've done it.
Anyway, she may not have properly met him, but she could easily have recognised him.
The bizarre aspect is why she opened the door to a neighbour who she'd apparently never met.
The only explanation of how he got in to her flat has come from his lips. As we all know he is a lying manipulative bstd - so there are any number of ways he could have gained access!
Because the judge deemed it not relevant to the case.
Well, there are a lot of people who look at all kinds of nasty stuff on the internet, aren't there? It is becoming normal to be a perv...indeed, the judge probably is one!:mad:
She had met him once but did not know his name. One suggestion from the prosecution is that he took her cat round to her flat and that's why she let him in
How do you know she 'invited' him in? He could have pushed his way in as she was putting her key in the door. He could have been very drunk at the time.
I wish you people would stop believing what HE said. His words and evidence are worthless. You tarnish Jo when you say she let him in. You do not know that.
How do you know she 'invited' him in? He could have pushed his way as she was putting her key in the door. He could have been very drunk at the time.
I wish you people would stop believing what HE said. His words and evidence are worthless. You tarnish Jo when you say she let him in. You do not know that.
I did not say she invited him in. I was quoting what the prosecution suggested had happened
I always knew he would be found guilty of murder. How two members of the jury didn't think so is quite beyond me, it was so obvious.
The two jurors were probably only fulfilling their role properly, as they saw it.
The legal difference between murder and manslaughter revolves around premeditation. Manslaughter is a 'spur of the moment' crime.
Tabak's case was that he killed without premeditation on the spur of the moment. At least two of the jurors thought that likely enough to give it consideration.
Whether you agree or disagree with the law, if you're on a jury you must consider your verdict by its standards, not your own.
Comments
They have sent is DNA to Holland and the US to be checked against sex attack crimes
That's true but it could have been the difference between murder and manslaughter. Fortunately the jury found enough evidence to go for the former.
Wouldn't be at all surprised if he had form.
Apparently they have found items of concern on his computer.
This case did get me wondering about at least one other missing person.
I always knew he would be found guilty of murder. How two members of the jury didn't think so is quite beyond me, it was so obvious.
I feel very sorry for Jo's friends and family.
Hopefully Tabak won't serve his full sentence, whatever it is. I hope someone in prison will "get" to him, if you know what I mean. If it were up to me he would have a rope around his neck.
Totally evil scumbag who murdered a lovely girl. What a bastard!
Depends. The other day I invited my neighbour in when she'd knocked at my door. She had an electricity problem so I let her have some candles and invited her in while I got them. It was the first time we'd met.
I guess if it had been a man I might have been a bit more wary, but sometimes, especially if someone goes round asking for a favour or seems particularly chatty or friendly, I can see why you might let them in.
No as his parents have said, he should be hung. They said they regret there's no capital punishment now.
As I have said later in my post:
If it were up to me he would have a rope around his neck.
Wrongful arrest? Three days of incarceration and stressful interviews? Very probable attempts to implicate "their man" during those interviews. The police are not your friend.
Any legal eagles on here can correct me if I'm wrong, but the police can arrest and interview anyone for an offence if they have reasonable suspicion that they could be guilty of that offence.
So it's not wrongful arrest if you're arrested, given a 'stressful' interview etc, so long as the police can show they thought you might have 'done it,' within reason.
Any interviewing technique is legal so long as it sticks within the boundaries of codes of practice and the suspect is given the opportunity to have a lawyer present. The police give stressful interviews if you think you might have done it because they're hoping you might confess, or implicate yourself. Or, scratching that, give them another line of inquiry.
They are right - they do need to bring it back in certain cases - where guilt is totally beyond doubt - the likes of Ian Huntley, Roy Whiting & Robert Black spring to mind!
^^ This.
Now, if he was arrested because he was randomly picked up from the street and no other reason, we're talking.
I haven't heard Vincent Tabak's parents asking for him to be hung :eek:
Not bizarre at all. There are numerous reasons why a person would open their door to someone they didn't know or barely knew. It happens all the time. I've done it.
Anyway, she may not have properly met him, but she could easily have recognised him.
The only explanation of how he got in to her flat has come from his lips. As we all know he is a lying manipulative bstd - so there are any number of ways he could have gained access!
if u are thinking of melanie Hall, then VT would be 5 when it happened.
They said they regretted the death penalty was not an option
Well, there are a lot of people who look at all kinds of nasty stuff on the internet, aren't there? It is becoming normal to be a perv...indeed, the judge probably is one!:mad:
How do you know she 'invited' him in? He could have pushed his way in as she was putting her key in the door. He could have been very drunk at the time.
I wish you people would stop believing what HE said. His words and evidence are worthless. You tarnish Jo when you say she let him in. You do not know that.
I did not say she invited him in. I was quoting what the prosecution suggested had happened
Well, a lot of people on here are saying she let him in, purely based on his evidence which was dismissed at the trial as lies.
That's why he was found guilty.
I was thinking of Claudia Lawrence.
The two jurors were probably only fulfilling their role properly, as they saw it.
The legal difference between murder and manslaughter revolves around premeditation. Manslaughter is a 'spur of the moment' crime.
Tabak's case was that he killed without premeditation on the spur of the moment. At least two of the jurors thought that likely enough to give it consideration.
Whether you agree or disagree with the law, if you're on a jury you must consider your verdict by its standards, not your own.
His lawyers are watching.