Agonising death: Joanna Yeates (left) had suffered 43 separate injuries, the jury was told. Vincent Tabak (right) has admitted manslaughter but denies her murder


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1aYE5Pgbk

Dont try and explain the technicalities of admits manslaghter but denies murder

THE bustard KILLED HER

LOCK HIM UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY

BETTER STILL BRING BACK CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

soap!

AS I SAID soap!!

Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak is found guilty of the murder of Bristol landscape architect Jo Yeates


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14904647

Good riddance.

Not a shock to discover important evidence was witheld at the trial from the jury but can be told now.

Again..

WHY??????????

20 years? Be out before he's 50 probably. What a tusser.

Hopefully looking over his shoulder the whole time inside until the day someone does him.

I'm depressed at the thought that 2 people couldn't see what was patently obvious. 1 more muppet and he would have got off the murder charge.

Yeah, that got me as well.

Hands around throat => she dies of strangling => he then attempts to create an alibi => he dumps the body, goes on holiday whilst checking online for the legal difference between manslaughter and murder

eff me, you couldn't have made it more obvious if you'd been there watching it happen. Makes you wonder whether those two would have still let him off if they'd been told about the porn and pros. Probably stupid old biddies

One syringe and goodnight.

What is the purpose of keeping him alive ? To burden the taxpayer with 150K ish a year to keep him cosy ?

Jo's parents said he could have got the death penalty but they will never feel any closure. He is alive and she is dead If anything, the effects of this murder will probably affect their health more so, perhaps the damage has already been done. They will be the ones to suffer, whilst Tabak is in his cell surrounded by all manner of creature comforts.

If there's one thing I could change it would be this.

I disagree.

Being humanely put to sleep is the easy way out. What would you prefer?

1) Spend the rest of your life living in a prison regime with the fear, violence, no holidays, no pints at the pub, restaurant meals, female partner. The list is endless as to what you actually lose when you are incarcerated.

2) My life isn't worth living anymore, the quality of life has gone, just give me an injection, then it's all over. Then I am at peace.


The only thing that needs changing here is that crimes like this warrant a full life sentence.

People who think prison is cosy should spend a year locked up in one. Then see if you still think it is a cushy life.

I take it you know someone who has then.

Cosier than-
A. Jo's grave
B. He deserves

It depends on who you are.

Hardened criminals all see it as part and parcel of the game. If you want to earn massive amounts of money then prison life is a downside. However they are well connected and prison life is a lot easier for them.

Vincent Tabac is the type of person who is not cut out for prison, he will not be welcomed by "old friends" when he arrives

@ Violin - I take your point but :-

say 150K a year. Over 20 years minimum, that's 3 million in costs to the UK taxpayer. Money better spent elsewhere. If we execute a few murderes, peados and rapists it also frees up more cells.

But the most important point is twenty of years of no closure for the relatives. Will he be let out after 20 years ? Will he appeal ? etc etc. Whilst his freedom has been taken away, he's still living. She's not. He's taken her life.

Fair point about the lethal injection though. Hanging would be better. Keep him sweating on death row before the final deed is done.

What would you choose?

The rest of your life in a high security prison. Or an injection that will put this nightmare to a close.


I know what I would choose in his position

I do actually and it's not that nice at all. Although it seems the worse the crime, the more creature comforts you get

But it's not his choice though. He lost any right to choose - any human rights - when he took away the life of an innocent victim.

But the latter option would be giving me what I want, an easy way out.

People that commit murders regularly turn the gun on themselves so to speak, so as to avoid the retribution that faces them.
I think the death row scenario works well. Give them 10 years of prison with the death sentence hanging over their heads then top them. At least there is an element of suffering in that format.

I can see where Violin comes from - but I'd rather my hard-earned taxes not be spent, in part, on keeping the likes of him alive.

I read an interesting quote from a US Senator this week, I'll try to find it. It concerned the case of 2 men, 1 of whom is already on Death Row and the other likely will be, whose crime consisted of breaking into a house, smashing a bat over the father's head while he slept downstairs; waking his wife up and forcing her to a bank to withdraw cash; taking her back, raping her, murdering her, sexually assaulting one of her 2 daughters before killing both the girls too.

The Senator's words were along the lines of "It's not about vengeance, it's about having a belief that these crimes are so severe that we feel they don't deserve the right to life". It resonated heavily with me (not least because I had expected some frothing, wild-eyed revenge-driven response).

I, too, can totally see Violin's point

For me it's about closure for the relatives first and foremost. Putting their wishes first. Not the perpetrator. In this country we seem to pander over the criminal and not the other way round.

I'm hoping the tide is slowly starting to turn, what with the new mandatory life sentences fro some repeat sentences. At least it's a step in the right direction...

I, too, can totally see Violin's point

For me it's about closure for the relatives first and foremost. Putting their wishes first. Not the perpetrator. In this country we seem to pander over the criminal and not the other way round.

I'm hoping the tide is slowly starting to turn, what with the new mandatory life sentences fro some repeat sentences. At least it's a step in the right direction...

It's certainly a powerful case. For me, it's a problem of where you draw the line - how bad does a crime have to be before a death sentence becomes 'viable'? Is straight murder enough? First case of rape? Multiple counts or multiple seperate events of voilent crime?

The other part of the article discussed another family in the same area whose son was murdered and over which there isn't the same fuss, and the parents were asking that exact question of where the line is.

I guess in the case I quote, you are looking at premeditated crime with several stages to it, the cumulative effect of which can justify seeking the death sentence:

Breaking in; violent assault; robbery; rape; sexual assault; 3 murders

If the victim had been non-white and from a poor area/background then the media would not have got involved and the story would not be front page news.

Bit like the "nice" American girl who got off in Italy?

Capital Punishment is decidedly dodgy on a number of levels, but mainly how many innocent people who be dead, and where is the line drawn? Also unless you are seriously prepared to sentence the person to death and to actually kill the person (who you do not actually know for certain did the crimes) then you shouldn't support it.

I think it is a sign of being civilised that countries do not stone or kill people.

Agreed. Do we say we are prepared to hang people based on 90% guilt? 80%? 75%? 51%?
Proving beyond reasonable doubt is not enough if that person will die on that basis. We currently have miscarriages of justice where innocent people are jailed. What kind of society is prepared to hang innocent people and then shrug their shoulders and say "Mistakes are made and it's a price worth paying" ?

The media in this case also need to atone for their hanging out to dry of the landlord. Although it was Tabak's girlfriend who alerted the police about him, who knows what he might have suggested to her that gave her grounds to suspect him.

As for civilisation - is it civilised to keep people alive for years in a vegetative state? Would it not be more dignified to allow them to die? I think there is a huge question about ethics/morals that is generally avoided by wider society, and it inevitably would capture the death penalty among its remit, along with euthanasia/assisted suicide and the like. I don't think a knee-jerk response always simply defending ongoing life is necessarily right.

I agree about euthanasia as well.

I dread to think what would have happened to the Landlord, if there had been a bit more circumstantial evidence, and the same people would be calling for his death? Ditto the bloke in Portugal who was rounded on by the McCann press machine.

To me, "reasonable doubt" puts the likelihood of guilt to at least 90% if not 95%. probably not one for a jury to decide....

Not sure why this case causes this debate, probably the media coverage, it is far from a 'bad' example of a murder.

I've not followed the story in detail but it seemed like a one-off and not pre-meditated (as in wasn't planning to kill her in the days/hours before). I agree with the death penalty in some cases but there should be some 'line in the sand' and I'm not sure this case crosses it for me.

Would you be content to see your adult child hang for murder if there was a 5 or 10% chance they were innocent?
It's like accepting the brakes on your car will only work 90-95% of the time.
Guilt has to be 100% proven or there can be no death penalty.

I don't see how it costs 100k a year to keep someone in prison. Surely we can trim that down a bit. Rice and water cant cost that much.