The murder of Jo Yeates

On 28 October 2011, after Vincent Tabak was found guilty of the murder of Jo Yeates, a statement written by her parents, David and Teresa, was read outside the court:

“There was never any doubt in our minds that Jo had been murdered and we fully expected him to lie when he went into the witness box… WE SAW NO EMOTION OR REMORSE OR REGRET FOR WHAT HE DID TO JO. WE FELT ALL EMOTION EXPRESSED BY HIM WAS FALSE. ALL WE HEARD WERE WORDS OF SELF-PITY…

We have still lost our daughter and our son has lost his sister. Our main sorrow is that Jo isn't allowed to start her own family, have children and achieve her potential. We will never get over our loss, how she was murdered and the total lack of respect with which her body was treated. We so miss hearing her happy voice and seeing her living life to the full…

FOR US, IT IS WITH REGRET THAT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT A POSSIBLE OPTION FOR HIS SENTENCE. The best we can hope for him is that he spends the rest of his life incarcerated where HIS LIFE IS A LIVING HELL, BEING THE RECIPIENT OF ALL EVILS, DEPRIVATIONS AND DEGRADATIONS THAT HIS SITUATION CAN PROVIDE.”

Amen to that.

I have one question for all of those who think capital punishment barbaric: do you really think that if the death penalty had been in place, a creep like Tabak would have done what he did?

On 30 October 2011, Suzanne Moore informed us thus in The Mail Online:

“The police felt that once they had found that TABAK LIKED IMAGERY OF WOMEN, ESPECIALLY YOUNG BLONDE WOMEN, BEING STRANGLED, it should be brought up in court. THE JUDGE RULED THIS EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE.

The prosecuting QC argued that Tabak’s penchant for what has been called ‘STRANGULATION PORN’ might shed light on the case. The police also knew that JOANNA’S BODY HAD BEEN LEFT IN A POSE COPIED FROM A FILM FOUND ON HIS COMPUTER. Should this evidence have been admissible? Mr Justice Field said that… IT WAS NOT VALUABLE ENOUGH TO OUTWEIGH THE PREJUDICE IT WOULD CAUSE HIS DEFENCE.

There are those who say this is justice at its exemplary best; that criminal trials are often based on negotiations between lawyers and judges about what evidence can be put before a court. Then there are THE REST OF US WHO ARE LEFT SOMEWHAT MYSTIFIED BY THE METHODS USED BY THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT TO ENSURE JUSTICE.”

On 28 October 2011, The Mail had also told us this:

“When Jo Yeates’s body was found in the snow, her short pink top was pulled up and her bra had been moved to expose part of her right breast… The state of the corpse, according to her killer, was the result of manhandling it into the boot of his car before dumping her in a snow-covered country lane.

A plausible explanation perhaps, save for vital facts which, for legal reasons, never emerged during the three-week trial. The jury at Bristol Crown Court were not allowed to be told that when police examined the Dutchman’s laptop and computer hard-drives at home and work, they found three photographs downloaded from a porn website. They depicted a pretty, petite blonde BEARING A STRIKING PHYSICAL RESEMBLANCE TO JO, ALSO WEARING A SHORT PINK TOP, WHICH HAD BEEN RAISED TO EXPOSE HER BREASTS.”

The Judge ruled the above evidence inadmissible also. There’s a big difference between law and justice in this country, isn’t there?

Jo’s killer was born in the Netherlands. The surname, Tabak, however, is most commonly found in Turkey.