Tobin guilty of Vicky Hamilton murder.

Must be such a relief for her family, to get the truth...

The murders of Vicky Hamilton and Caroline Hogg really stand out in my childhood, it almost feels like an end of an era or something.

Totally, it's really bizarre that it has come to an end. Must be such a relief for her family.

Good. After he was convicted of the Angelina Kluck murder given his age it was pretty obvious he wouldn't be leaving prison anywhere other than in a coffin, but this much be such a comfort to her family after all these years. What a shame her poor mum died though never knowing what had happened to her.

I remember the story of Vicky Hamilton's disappearance as if it were yesterday. It was all over the news up here for several months, I recall. May she finally rest in peace.

The evidence against him sounded pretty damning, I have to say (what innocent explanation could there be for her dismembered body being found in his back garden, 500 miles from where she went missing?) but you can never be certain of anything till the verdict's in, can you?

In this case it would have been astounding if it had gone any other way - the evidence against him was overwhelming. We're not just talking the body parts, we're talking DNA samples galore, including on a purse of hers that was found in Edinburgh, and some of hers on a knife of his that was found at a completely different former address.

I can't imagine an innocent explanation for this, and neither could the jury (even though they had to disregard the fact that he was already serving life for a similar murder).

Good, I hope her family can take some comfort in the fact their daughter's killer has been convicted. It's been a long time coming.

Like Zeb, It's one of the cases I remember through my early teens and I'm glad to see it finally closed.

I totally agree, but there have been other cases up here, esp where the lovely Donald Findlay has also been the defence counsel, that have sounded pretty damning and ended up in a not proven...

I must admit I was concerned about the Angelika Kluck thing being widely known and that the defence would argue that there'd been prejudicial pre trial publicity - they don't seem to have though.

As a complete aside, the prosecutor in this case, Frank Mullholland, interviewed me for my job when I went to work for the Procurator Fiscal a few years back...

Roobarb - was Findlay defending Tobin?

He was a great rector at St Andrews but I'd not want to face him in court!

Yes, he was.

I wouldn't want to be on the opposite side to Frank Mullholland either - he scared the living bejaysus out of me in that job interview!

I guess that's what they are being paid for - does Mullholland have equally scary facial hair as Findlay? I can imagine two beardies in court - battle of the side burns ?

[snort] she had a cheek to criticise anyone for their looks - she looked not dissimilar to Eddie Izzard in drag.

Just said on news that Peter Tobin has been ordered to serve a minimum of 30 years for this. Also said "what the jury didn't know was that he was guilty of murder of Angelika Kluk" - they obviously didn't officially know, but tbh I'd be surprised if it was a complete surprise to them given the coverage that case had too, and that it was pretty recent as well.

The only thing I was worried about was that DF was going to say his client wasn't going to get a fair trial because of the press coverage before hand...if we'd been blamed it would have been hideous! All the papers were v careful during the trial though.

I was worried about that too, and not even just the papers - in this day and age of interweb, surely putting his name into Google would have come up with something re the AK case.

I reckon that would have been why he was tried in Dundee rather than in either Glasgow or Edinburgh though - in Glasgow I would guss most people would have made the connection with the AK murder, and Edinburgh's a bit close to where she went missing so a risk perhaps of a local being picked for the jury. I think all parties have been as careful as they could possibly have been. Or maybe Findlay's saving the prejudicial pretrial publicity card for the appeal. ?

While of course I totally agree with the principles of trial by jury and the assumption of innocence etc etc, this has been one particular case where I've read about each day's evidence in court and just thought it must all have been very slightly pantomime, and surely hard for the jury to keep a slightly open mind about his potential 'innocence'...

Goodness, her little sister is on the news now, she's so brave reading that statement.

Yes, saw it earlier.

What a horrible evil man. I remember that Angelika Kluk case (I think DF defended him there too?) that poor girl's name was just totally dragged through the mud. Even in this case they were making issues of the fact that she'd had a pregnancy test aged 14. So what? What does that have to do with anything?

I know, and he brought up photos of her taken in "sexually provocative" poses...it must've been so horrible for her family to hear that, but such a relief that they have some closure now. They just said he might be investigated for 10 more murders. He just looks so...ordinary.

It said on the news earlier he's going to be tried for the murder of the other girl whose body was also found in his garden.

I had heard they were investigating him in connection with several other murders, including the Bible John killings in Glasgow in the 60s as apparently he did live in Glasgow at the time. All well and good and if they can genuinely get the evidence was him then great but as repulsive and horrible as he is I'm always dead wary that they just don't end up flinging everything at him just cos it's convenient...

Its a good result in the Peter Tobin trial - at last her family can get some closure and try and move on.

Its been a case that has always stood out for me as Vicky disappeared not far from where I used to live.

Roobarb - Can I ask what you do for a living? Just that you said you had a interview for the PF's. I work for the Scottish Court Service.

I'm a lawyer now, work in employment law consultancy.

But at that time I wasn't a qualified lawyer, I worked for the PF as a Precognition Officer ie interviewing witnesses/preparing cases for the Sheriff and Jury/High Court. Believe the job no longer exists at all, I left at end of 2003.

His ex is being interviewed on ITV news just now. She is speaking about how he used to sexually assault her with a serrated bread knife and carried a knife at all times. Dear God. He's definitely in the right place now.

I am so relieved the family have justice. I have also grown up with this case and over the years the possibility of her having run away never seemed to disappear, especially when picures were released of what she would possibly look like. And all that time she was dead.

I cant get my head around Tobin and wonder what other secrets he is keeping. It almost seem like the height of arrogance pleading not guilty all this time in the face of all that great evidence, just like the AK trial.

Finally Vicky and her mother can rest in peace?

I remember being gobsmacked at DF's defence in the William Begg trial - he chopped him up and did other things to him after he found the boy dead. He didn't kill him, he found him, and to do that to a dead body wasn't an offense. That poor boy.

I don't know if it's arrogance or just sheer wickedness tbh.

In that AK trial, as I said earlier, that poor girl's name was dragged through the mud by the defence and she was made out by them to be the biggest slag on the face of the planet. Not to mention that guy she was having the fling with and that priest, their lives were ruined by it too.

As for DF, the thing is sometimes the juries do go for it and he gets his client a not proven, which we all know that (wrongly) has come to mean "we think you did it but can't prove it". Remember that girl in Hamilton years ago who was found with her breast bitten off and the accused's teeth marks in it and DF got him off with a not proven?

I think you and I discussed that poor girls reputation the last time he went on trial, It really came across as if she deserved it.

Ah, the case that sparked the real debate about double jeopardy, Amanda Duffy killed by Francis Auld. I don't know the ins and outs of the case but I think basically it was a travesty.

I felt quite emotional watching the news, Vicky's younger sister and brother seemed almost happy and its easy to understand why.

This is the first time I have ever taken part in this sort of thing but the ridiculous opinions being spouted by "Roobarb" prompted me to respond. It's obvious that despite your expensive education that you know nothing about criminal law whatsover. It always dismays me that professional people, especially legal ones, just don't get that we have a system of criminal justice which applies equally to the innocent and the guilty.

You can't rely on newspaper reporting of a trial to give you an accurate picture of how a trial is presented but this ignorance does not preclude you from voicing your own inexperienced views on the appropriateness of a defence.

You're really no better than the average Daily Mail reader.

I resent the implication that newspapers have somehow done Tobin an injustice with their reporting.

I'm sure that many more people than Roobarb and Daily Mail readers think that the pregnancy test was completely irrelevant to the case.

There is a real problem when the Crown present someone as some sort of angel because it shifts the onus on to the defence to show that the deceased was just a normal person but it's always the defence who look like the bad guys when they bring this out- as a matter of fairness!!

The point I was trying to make is that you only hear an edited version of events and you have no idea how relevant it was that she had a pregnancy test. If it was totally irrelevant the judge would not have allowed it. Newspaper readers just get the media's skewed interpretation of events in court.

I used to think that the law was a respected profes.sion but really most people just believe whatever they read in the papers

I've obviously missed something?

At what stage does your professional career stop you from having a personal opinion on a case? You gain an opinion on a case by the information provided - and unless you're professionally involved that information is only provided through the media. That information may be skewed somewhat but that is what you have to go by. My opinion is that this man has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. Therefore unless new evidence turns up that shows he's been framed, which is highly unlikely from the sounds of it, then he's guilty.

And from what I've read from Roobarb on this thread she is making a fair point. How is making the character of the murdered person out to be on the dark side (for want of a better phrase) going to benefit anyone. Regardless of what they are like, they are dead and someone has killed them and so justice for them has to be sought.

Finally, I'm going to take the opinion of someone like Roobarb, a well respected member of this community, far more seriously than someone like yourself who well frankly isn't.

You really just don't understand this do you?

I will say this again but I am getting really frustrated. The point I am trying to make is critical of Roobarb only because she is legally qualified and ought to know better.

I am not trying to defend Tobin but the profession I represent. The general public quite understandably (because of the media) don't realise that there is no merit for the defence in a criminal trial to "blacken" the character of a dead person just for the sake of it. We are only allowed to do this-by the law and the judge- if it is in the interests of justice. We also try to do it sensitively. Despite this the public, including you, seem to think that we are beneath contempt.

Perhaps if you ever were a juror in a trial conducted by someone like Findlay you would be in a better position to comment. The difficulty we face is that when members of the public come into court as potential jurors they often carry the preconceived notions that you do. I am not having a go at you- just trying to explain.

Wow, I wondered how this had been resurrected nearly a week after it had last been posted on.

Piss right off, "Barrister" . And feel free to continue to having a go at me if you like, I won't be here to read it, off to feed my baby and put him to bed ?

edited to correct typo

Hope he doesn't inherit your narrow minded intellect.

[thick icon] what's roobarb said thats so narrow minded and ignorant? what am i missing?

is it me?

She clearly thinks that people like Tobin shouldn't get a fair trial simply because of what he did. If able and committed lawyers (ie not Roobarb) had thought the same about Sally Clarke etc.......

And clearly has got a bit of a grudge against Findlay.

The point is that it is for a jury to decide (as they did in the Tobin case) that someone is guilty of a crime, not lawyers and certainly not people whose knowledge is limited to reading newspapers.