War Hero
Need some lawyer speak here or someone else who knows.
Why did the jury not hear of his depraved past of looking at choking women on the net during his trial?
I get it has to be fair and impartial but is it right?if someone murders 50 people then is up for murder surely it makes sense to say to the jury he has committed a lot of previous murders in the same fashion ie Shipman.I know it may sway the jury but with DNA surely that is of no consequence in the search for true justice.
I just wondered if it is right and what happens in other countries like say the USA.
I don't see if a man commits 50 armed robberies it can't be brought up if he is tried for another but I guess the law is correct or we would have a totalitarian state.
Just wondered why, and why is it that some 17 year old's cannot be named in court because of privacy reasons even with the most vile crimes
Is it to protect his family? they should have brought him up better I think.


War Hero
If the evidence to convict is not strong enough in it's own right the jury should not convict.To say a person is guilty just because he/she has been convicted before of a similar crime could lead to unfair trials,appeals and finaly thousands of pounds of compensation should the rela culprit come to light.
As for naming young people if convicted of a heinous crime I believe it is down to the Judge's discretion but the default setting is not to name.I think it is easier not to name as when they are released you don't have to go through the rigmarole of finding them a new identity to shield them from vigilanties.


Lantern Swinger
The evidence that he had accessed porn sites showing female stragulation was ruled inadmissable on the grounds that the acused had accessed the sites only after the murder had been committed, and thus could not be used to show that he had a predisposition towards strangling women.


War Hero
As far as I can tell, even when a defendant has previous and is already serving life meaning life (Robert Black, Peter Tobin for recent examples) for subsequent trials the status and history of the defendent is not mentioned in court or the press until the verdict. Some potential jurors may have long memories but I expect they are screened out. Otherwise, some jurors may apply the 'well he's done it before' anti-logic and return a guilty verdict. Meanwhile, the real guilty bastard goes free thanking God for thick, prejuduced jurors.