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.