There’s an interesting story in the guardian, interesting not because of what’s in it, but because of what isn’t. It’s here:

Story linky

The name of the defendant may seem familiar to many readers, and yet, presumably for ‘legal reasons’, the cause of that familiarity isn’t mentioned.

For any legal experts here (and isn’t everyone here a legal expert?), two questions:

1) What is the reason why the guardian is being so coy about who Vincent Tabak is, and why readers may find his name and face familiar?

2) What is the point? Y’know, what with google existing and being accessible by pretty much everyone?

Note to other posters: You’ll see that I haven’t revealed anything that might be available elsewhere on t’net above. I expect the mods would expect us all to do likewise….

You’ll see that I haven’t revealed anything that might be available elsewhere on t’net above.

but you have encouraged people to look further.

anything likely to prejudice a fair trial is a ‘no-no’ hence everyone taking great care…

Who he? Should I be bothered about who he is?

Hmmm, probably not.

anything likely to prejudice a fair trial is a ‘no-no’ hence everyone taking great care…

Yeah, I sort of get that, but newspaper websites still have older stories up, so isn’t being coy now a bit “stable door bolting, horse left some time ago”? Or will the older stories (on UK sites) start being taken down now as well?

Depends if you’re bothered about young women being murdered I suppose

The Bristol post isn’t so coy
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Jo-Yeates-killer-Vincent-Tabak-face-child-porn/story-20258748-detail/story.html

What is the reason why the guardian is being so coy about who Vincent Tabak is

I think it’s clear that you know the answer to that question – he is on trial for the specific crime of indecent images of children, and his possible guilt of any other crimes isn’t considered relevant to this case.

that is a bit odd isn’t it.

From Stoner’s link :

“May I remind all concerned that Mr Tabak has a right to a fair trial”.

Although I think publishing this picture seriously undermines the possibility of that imo.

Presumably the currant bun/ red tops would take a different approach?

I assume you’re not allowed a laptop in prison these days?!

Stoner’s link pretty much encapsulates my confusion at WTF the point is of the way today’s guardian story is presented…

Pretty sure that they are being coy to avoid prejudicing his right to a fair trial . Newspapers will be especially sensitive of that particularly around this case .Seems like a good idea to have a fair trail untainted by knowledge of previous irrelevant matters . Seems fair that if the police want to admit details of past behaviour to prove a charge if, how, and why that material goes in should be argued in court and decided by the judge not the editor of the Bristol Post. To be fair I had no idea who he was from the name or picture, and assumed from this thread that he was a much more media friendly recent defendant .

An editor has to take the decision how far to go on the line between sensible and sensational.

The BEP seems to have it about right IMO. It’s ludicrous to assume that jurors will not independently remember one of the most high-profile crimes of recent years.

However, the noises coming out of the CPS/Police about prejudice should hopefully be a warning note for Sun-style use of the word ‘monster’ in headlines.

EDIT: And, of course, I imagine the CPS will apply to have the case heard well away from Bristol to lessen the chance of Tabak’s team claiming no fair trial, so the Evening Post can get away with a bit more.

Is it relevant that the BEP story linked by Stoner is from December 2013, the guardian one is from today?

A more recent one from Bristol refers to him just as a “Bristol Man” (January this year)

Linky

I can’t even read articles of that nature. Therefore I’m out.

Edlong, you’re right.

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Man-accused-indecent-images/story-20579152-detail/story.html

This from Feb 07

Judge may well have offered a warning to the press at pre-trial hearing.

following a “separate police investigation”

Surprising how frequently this seems to happen.

The Forest Gate police shooting incident a few years back (police kick down door of Muslim man’s house, go in armed to the eyeballs, drag out 2 guys, shoot one of them in the shoulder on the way) was a complete gong show. And about a month later, IIRC, the police tried a similar thing: “oh, we found child pron on his computer (so that makes it all OK)”.
Those charges didn’t stick, by the looks of it, making it all seem like a seedy attempt at justifying the raid.

Surprising how frequently this seems to happen.

I have noticed that as well, I can never quite get my head around which scenario is most likely, that the police would falsely use what is probably modern society’s most abhorrent crime as a vehicle to trash the character of someone in a position to damage them, or that there may be far more people than expected looking at child porn.

Leaving aside the legal stuff, which my learned friends above seem to have covered, a former colleague used to sit at the desk opposite to said accused man of Bristol.

Which somewhat freaked her out when the other police investigation took place.

(Yes, it’s about a right to a fair trial, which is always reasonable, however silly people may think this reporting is.)

So if I read this right, they’re prosecuting a guy who’s already been locked up for life for murder for another crime that he could get a lesser sentence for?

WTF? Or am I missing something?

Got to keep the numbers ticking over, even if it is a waste of time and brass, they get to put a tick in another one of their boxes.
Child pron is abhorrent, but is there a need in the public interest to do this? I think not.

Unless of course you’re happy for the lack of a child pron conviction to allow him to leave prison earlier than he otherwise would? Convicting him of this offence demonstrates more clearly to a board how much of a danger to the public he is likely to be. Life does not mean life in most cases. There is usually a minimum sentence attached to a life sentence, after which they may be released.

Life should mean life, I hope another inmate ****s him to death.

edit- fair point though.

Isn’t it going to be tricky when he looks like this:

I’m not all that convinced that a conviction for possessing indecent photos demonstrates he’s any more of a danger to the public than killing somebody does (oops, am I allowed to say that?) Given I suspect the maximum possible sentence for such an offence is significantly less than his minimum tariff I’m less than convinced that it will make any difference at all to how long he serves. The only obvious difference therefore is that he will go on the sex offenders register.

Which does make me wonder why spend all the resources on investigating and convicting for this when supposedly such resources are limited.

I think the whole trial-by-press fiasco surrounding the Yeates case was (I gather) was an incident that the Levison inquiry really focused on. no wonder they are being ultra careful.

However, as Ernie says, publishing a picture that makes him look the very definition of shifty is just as bad as them publishing this shot of the (innocent) 3rd party in the Yates debacle:

I did think that it might be the intention is that they consider him to be a particularly nasty character who would “benefit” from being labelled a nonce. Meaning he’ll get treated differently by other inmates.

Does seem like a lot of wasted resources though especially if it’s just images on a computer rather than any evidence he was actually involved in making the pictures. I don’t get what the end game is, can they add a sentence onto the end of his current one?

There are also issues around identifying possible victims of abuse, reducing the availability of child pornography on the net, the fact he may be a risk to children, the fact it’s the CPS who decided to take it to trial plus a whole host of other issues.

What appalling luck to live above a bloke like that. RIP 🙁

I’m sure the CPS have a better idea of what’s in the public interest than we (the public) do. I do like the evening post’s volt face on who he is though.

The first two points at least would appear to be completely unaffected by pursuing this conviction – I’m not sure the relevance of who exactly made the decision to use the resources and I’m certainly very unconvinced that the CPS make the correct decisions.

…or that there may be far more people than expected looking at child porn.

Given the amount of porn on the web and the typically anonymous nature of the performers, how many people who have got “indecent images” on their computer can be absolutely certain that every single person featured is over 16 ?
With the deliberately vague descriptions of the incriminating material, we are never going to know if it really is what we might imagine the worst “child porn” to be, or if it’s just a mature looking 15 year old posing topless.

“All show a male with a female naked child between eight and 12 years old.”

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Man-accused-indecent-images/story-20579152-detail/story.html

Fair enough, that doesn’t leave much room for doubt, does it.