Vincent Tabak admits manslaughter of Jo Yeates

Manslaughter or murder? 

Vincent Tabak, a 33 year old Dutchman, is accused of killing the landscape architect who disappeared on 17 December after going for drinks with colleagues. He has now admitted to her manslaughter but not her murder. The prosecution has refused to accept Tabak's manslaughter plea and a murder trial will go ahead on 4 October.

This case is going to be a prominent one, that's not in doubt. Right from the beginning things went off in several directions. Even now there is an element of uncertainty. Tabak has consistently said he didn't do it. Do what exactly? Kill Jo Yeates? Murder her or just cause her death? Words can mean what they are wanted to mean. Something happened that night of 17th December last year. Five months later we get a couple of steps further forward, but maybe one step backwards in attempting to get justice.

Justice is hard to come by. In such cases as this it is up to forensic lawyers to dig into the truth. I suspect a concoction of human emotions is not far from the surface, contributed in equal measure by all involved in the case. But justice is defined by putting emotions aside and allowing the unvarnished truth to emerge.

Facebook faces of Vincent Tabak

Facebook is keen on faces. Join up and you post a face online. Sometimes in the most comical of poses. Vincent Tabak is seen on Facebook in various guises. One in a bow tie, one by Stonehenge. The photos look like anyone's snaps. Why did I see these? Because they are plastered all over The Sun's website. Why is that? Because Vincent Tabak has been arrested on suspicion of murder in the Jo Yeates case.

Fifty years ago no such stuff would be available to see. Not even ten years ago. It's a salutory lesson for all of us. Anyone could be caught up in a criminal investigation. Now we can have, if we've posted Facebook with holiday snaps, our old polaroids and grainy pics pored over. "Look at her! Is that really him? Is that his mother? Did she have hair like that then?" and so on, and so on.

The police are still saying they don't have a name to give for the person they arrested. Fair enough. Quite right of them. But things do leak out and when they do our modern obessions are going to meet traditional moralising. Two and two are still making ten.

It would help all concerned in this murder investigation if the culprit owned up. But that would be asking too much of human nature. So, in the absence of such a revelation, we should all be wary of what we think we see. They say the camera never lies, but I have my doubts about believing all we see in Facebook photos.

How the Dutch report about a Dutch suspect

De Telegraaf, one of the Netherlands top newspapers, writes about the arrest on suspicion of murder of a Dutch citizen with a certain degree of circumspection. Certainly not so dramatic as some British newspapers.

Just a tad different, I think.

Tale of two suspects - Jo Yeates murder inquiry

The Daily Mail says "Police withhold suspect's name because of worries over media coverage". Reading the story one would be given the idea that the Daily Mail was a paragon of virtue when it comes to reporting about people. The "Daily Mail Reporter" says -

It is understood that police have withheld the name of the arrested man because of the media frenzy that followed the first arrest in the case, that of Jo's landlord Chris Jefferies, 65. There are strict instructions on what media outlets can and cannot report during police investigations and it is understood that investigators were extremely unhappy with some coverage that they felt overstepped the mark, potentially jeopardising their enquiries.

Mr Jefferies is said to be considering suing police for wrongful arrest after his name and photograph were widely circulated in connection with the case. His friend Irving Steggles, said 'He is preparing a case against the media and the police, I believe. This has completely shattered his life.' As part of the statement released to confirm the arrest this morning, police gave a firm instruction to media outlets covering the case. It read: 'Proceedings are active and everyone is reminded of the Contempt of Court Act and therefore you will understand that we cannot discuss any more details'.

All sounds neat and dandy. The Daily Mail never got up to anything so remotely unhelpful as writing about Christopher Jefferies in a prurient way, did they? Vincent Tabak can only be thankful that someone has muzzled the media. Should it ever come to a matter of trial, it is the right of all defendants that their trial is fair. Free speech is about the lawful dissemination of comment. It is not about inflaming public opinion with unsubstantiated facts and mere tittle-tattle before justice is upheld.

Maybe the police have been advised what sort of civil penalties they might face if found on the wrong end of a lawsuit? Maybe the press have had similar figures bandied about? I don't know, but all with an interest in such matters seem of a very different disposition. The real problem here is that the modern media seems so morally bankrupt that they cannot draw themselves up short in front of tabloid temptation. If Christopher Jerfferies does sue, then he will be making a stand for proper justice with due process and not for a kangaroo court aided and abetted by the lynch mob tendencies of the more scurrilous journals.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348832/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabaks-flat-searched-man-32-arrested.html#ixzz1Bb1F1GHk