wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 796
Why not? I don't understand why "an escalating penchant for sexual violence" should be inadmissible.
Watching *advertiser censored* or using prostitutes is probably something lots of men do and I could understand that not being presented in court but sexual violence is surely relevant?
I bet the Jurors that went for Not Guilty feel very foolish and too trusting now some of this information has been made public.
BBC news also pointing out the fear and alarm that was apparent in Bristol when people thought there could be a killer/abducter on the loose.
Brilliant. Jury well done!!
Why oh why was all that not mentioned in court. It was so relevant.
Perverted murderer with an escalating penchant for sexual violence. And the jury didn't get to hear all of this.
To be fair though, there was! Just because he knew his victim doesn't mean he wouldn't have done it again.
Maybe the sobbing woman was a prostitute then who knew something about his penchant for sexual violence...
I know its so sicking if i was on that Jury i would of felt cheated, why was evidence kept from the Jury surrounding Tabak's sexuall perversions. ;-(
But at least they found him guilty of Murder, which is all we wanted for Jo's family.
Maybe the sobbing woman was a prostitute then who knew something about his penchant for sexual violence...