Of Mice and Murderers
I know I keep saying I shouldn't read the Metro because it makes me angry.
Well, I did it again, and I got angry. Again.
This time it was an article about the horrible murder of Joanna Yeates and one of the defences her murderer has apparently put forward.
Miss Yeates invited Tabak – a neighbour – into her flat after he walked past her window
OK, sometimes people do this, if they've been out, and they'd like to have a conversation. Pretty normal stuff.
Their meeting, like that night, like what followed, was unplanned and it was pure chance.
Well I'd argue that strangling someone to death isn't "chance", it's a conscious decision - not even a split-second one really, but whatever. The article describes a situation in which he moved in to kiss her, thinking that's what the whole thing was about. It wasn't, she refused, she apparently screamed (though this also seems fishy to me but I'm not on the case so won't go on about it).
Now: "normal" person is naturally immensely embarrassed. You apologise, probably talk some nonsense, then likely go home. Or if you're better acquainted, maybe move past it - something to that effect.
In this case, in his "panic" he ends up strangling her.
I've been talking with some people about this article and the way it's phrased. From the headline down, it just seems like it's making excuses for him.
Oh, men these days don't know what to think! Silly girl inviting someone into her house for goodness' sake. Why wouldn't he think she wanted something more than a chat?
That might fly up to a point. But what happened after all that is the issue here - he killed her. Trying to kiss someone is not a crime, but that most definitely is.
Someone commented:
Misreading sexual interest has absolutely no bearing on the actual crime at hand. This guy isn't some misunderstood victim - with all respect to poor Joanna Yeates, it's irrelevant and it's a f*cking smokescreen. Poor guys, being misled by women, they never know where they stand. One minute she's leading you on, the next minute, you're so confused and panicked by her not wanting to kiss you that - Oops! You've killed her! But hey, it's OK. You misread the situation. - L. Hearts
Indeed.
What I'm thinking is that Mr Tabak is lucky we're not living in Texas, or California during the depression. In Of Mice and Men, Lennie is a heavy-handed man with the mind of a child. He always ends up killing his pets. He "don't mean 'em no harm" but he causes suffering and death because he doesn't know any better. He even accidentally kills someone's wife; she wouldn't stop screaming when he scared her.
Spoilers: in the end, they shot him, because he was a danger to himself and to others.
Well, Tabak ain't no Lennie, he needs to take responsibility for his actions, which are pretty unjustifiable as far as we can see, and the media need to stop acting like Ms Yeates is somehow, in any way, to blame for what happened to her.
All too often we see women blamed to varying degrees for the crimes committed against them. Whether it's a stoning for extra-marital rape, a poster telling women to be careful when they're drinking because 'alcohol is involved in x% of rapes', your friend's friend saying "well she was wearing that sexy outfit and was all flirty"...
These are not reasons or excuses for violence against women and please, British media, stop pretending that they are, stop blaming women for what befalls them, perhaps then, slowly, the culture will begin to change and we'll start blaming and reprimanding the people who are actually at fault.
Edit: and this is why I read other papers that make me far less angry (most of the time).
