Re: jo yeates

Guest Sun 2 Jan - 13:22

Loopdaloop wrote:
The Famous Grouse wrote:There's a horrible sense of deja vu here - there's evidence, but not enough. At least we are being spared public appearances, a begging website, books and a Fund.

I don't see your deja vu.

What evidence? As far as I can see he was just an interfering neighbour who got too carried away with the excitement of drama literally on his doorstep after all his years in the neighbourhood watch in his quiet area of bristol. Oh and he had some maps of the area in his car (which incidently looked well used so I doubt upon murder he just popped to smiths and then studied where the best place to leave her would be).

As a previous poster on this page said, just because he looks a bit funny doesn't cut it.

I meant that there is not enough evidence to make a decision either way. FWIW I don't think the landlord did it. But then I am not a policeman, and I don't know what the police do.

**pennylane** Sun 2 Jan - 13:26

Karen wrote:I had a terrible experience with my landlord, (in Holland) I rented a place from a couple, a man and his girlfriend, she was a bit loopy and he stank, the apartment was gorgeous and I really wanted it so I rented it for a full year, luckily the company I was working for at the time paid the rent, However after about a month I returned home from a meeting a little earlier than expected and walked into my flat - and I could smell the landlord, the same sweaty dirty smell I smelt when I signed the contract.

I called him asked him if he had been in my flat - he denied, I told him I would change the locks he said I couldnt, about two weeks later, I was going to see my children on the Algarve (they live close to where Maddie was "abducted") I bought them loads and loads of presents, the day before I left I returned home again and noticed that my camera and my daughters present bags had been tampered, i checked the bags only to find all her jewellery stolen, along with my jewellery. I called the Directors of the company and immediately got them to sort out a lock smith - the fitted a VERY EXPENSIVE double bolted lock, it was weekend so we had to pay weekend fees plus the price of the lock, no worries we paid it.

That same day I called my landlord and told him what I had done........he gave me a months notice and told me to prove they had stolen my stuff. I called the Police of course I had no proof it was loopy or smelly!

GOSH and I still miss that camera, which had incredible sentimental value

Never again, I will be the only one have a key to my place or I will change the locks, which I have just recently done in my lovely new little place.

In Holland it is law that you make an appointment with your tenant if you need access to the property.

On another note I beleive Chris Jeffries innocent and the British Coppers totally incompetent in THIS regard.
Regards from Holland and HAPPY NEW YEAR to EVERYONE!

Justice for Maddie Jo and all unsolved mysteries.

Yikes Karen...... how awful!

Thank you for telling your story. It really does give one a very clear appreciation of how bad things can turn regarding landlords with keys!

Guest Sun 2 Jan - 13:35

We used to have a flat that we rented out. I would never have dreamed of going in there without the people being present!!! Tenancy agreement or not.

**wjk** Sun 2 Jan - 13:40

pennylane wrote:
FSoares wrote:
T4two wrote:
Marky wrote:
welshy wrote: The police had managed to get another extension so could of held him until Monday. Very strange for them to release a main suspect without holding for the full time and hoping that evidence would turn up.

could be that sometime late saturday someone high up the food chain realised they had nothing and ordered his release.

Yes, agree. That is what I imagine happened too. They had nothing - the bail bit is a face-saving exercise.

It sounds like so.

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's likely the police have got all they are going to get out of Jeffries, and are now attempting to build a solid case against him before making their move.

I agree with you, penny.
The forensic guys are still in both flats, it may take a while for all the results come back.

Loopdaloop Sun 2 Jan - 13:41

The Famous Grouse wrote:
Loopdaloop wrote:
The Famous Grouse wrote:There's a horrible sense of deja vu here - there's evidence, but not enough. At least we are being spared public appearances, a begging website, books and a Fund.

I don't see your deja vu.

What evidence? As far as I can see he was just an interfering neighbour who got too carried away with the excitement of drama literally on his doorstep after all his years in the neighbourhood watch in his quiet area of bristol. Oh and he had some maps of the area in his car (which incidently looked well used so I doubt upon murder he just popped to smiths and then studied where the best place to leave her would be).

As a previous poster on this page said, just because he looks a bit funny doesn't cut it.

I meant that there is not enough evidence to make a decision either way. FWIW I don't think the landlord did it. But then I am not a policeman, and I don't know what the police do.

I think the police have the evidence against the Mccans' / Goncarlo seems to think so, they just need the political will to do something about it!

sans_souci Sun 2 Jan - 14:41

Are you really suggesting that the Portuguese police require the permission of the government in order to act? I am not sure the Portuguese would be very happy with the constitutional implications that arise from that. Continuing to insist that the only reason the McCanns were not charged is political really is grasping at straws.

A far more logical explanation is that the police, having investigated the case, could not find any evidence of the McCanns guilt (as stated by their Attorney General).

**Angelique** Sun 2 Jan - 14:45

Karen

What an awful experience you had - if it was me I would have removed the expensive lock and fitted a cheap yale lock - he couldn't have argued with that.

Angelique

Loopdaloop Sun 2 Jan - 14:47

sans_souci wrote:Are you really suggesting that the Portuguese police require the permission of the government in order to act? I am not sure the Portuguese would be very happy with the constitutional implications that arise from that. Continuing to insist that the only reason the McCanns were not charged is political really is grasping at straws.

A far more logical explanation is that the police, having investigated the case, could not find any evidence of the McCanns guilt (as stated by their Attorney General).

I actually read here from one of the portugese residents that the Police need permission from the local Judge to act, we both know through the release of one of the cables to do with the Mccans that the british police had found evidence to suggest that the Mccans did it and more recently Goncarlo; the man who would know more about all this than anyone has repeatedly stated that The Portugese have a feeble government in the face of the british and says the british pressure was a prime reason that he was removed from his post to avoid any accusations against the Mccans. Also we know from the DNA analysis that if the standard of evidence used wasn't arbitrary set through each country then the FSS would have said the sample from the boot was maddy as the dna matched 15 markers, however due to proof in portugual being legally 19, whereas in the USA it is 13 markers the issue is one based in international law. Which is really not grasping at straws now is it?

**Wallflower** Sun 2 Jan - 14:50

sans_souci wrote:Are you really suggesting that the Portuguese police require the permission of the government in order to act? I am not sure the Portuguese would be very happy with the constitutional implications that arise from that. Continuing to insist that the only reason the McCanns were not charged is political really is grasping at straws.

A far more logical explanation is that the police, having investigated the case, could not find any evidence of the McCanns guilt (as stated by their Attorney General).

Nevertheless, it does seem to be the opinion of many (all?) of the Portuguese posters on this forum, tht the police were leaned on to shelve the case and that it's unheard of for cases of missing people to be shelved after such a short time.

sans_souci Sun 2 Jan - 15:43

[quote="LoopdaloopI actually read here from one of the portugese residents that the Police need permission from the local Judge to act, Portugal has, like the UK, an independent judiciary, so how is seeking permission from a judge related to government pressure? Unless you are suggesting that the Judges in Portugal are merely puppets of the government[?/b].

we both know through the release of one of the cables to do with the Mccans that the british police had found evidence to suggest that the Mccans did it - [b]really? - all it said was that the UL police helped to develop a case against the McCanns.

and more recently Goncarlo; the man who would know more about all this than anyone has repeatedly stated that The Portugese have a feeble government in the face of the british and says the british pressure was a prime reason that he was removed from his post to avoid any accusations against the Mccans. Well, he would say that wouldnt he - better than admitting that he was removed by his bosses for shotting his mouth off and incompetence.

Also we know from the DNA analysis that if the standard of evidence used wasn't arbitrary set through each country then the FSS would have said the sample from the boot was maddy as the dna matched 15 markers, however due to proof in portugual being legally 19, whereas in the USA it is 13 markers the issue is one based in international law. May I respectfully suggest you go and actually read the forensic reports. 15 markers out of 37 in a familiy group is meaningless, and certainly cannot identify any material as being from Madeleine.

Karen Sun 2 Jan - 15:47

Angelique wrote:Karen

What an awful experience you had - if it was me I would have removed the expensive lock and fitted a cheap yale lock - he couldn't have argued with that.

Angelique

Yeah you are so right - I should have done that, I definately would of if I had paid for it, the company did! luckily.
Its just so intrusive, especially having his smell lingering in the apartment! it was really awful and smelly.

Karen

Loopdaloop Sun 2 Jan - 16:18

sans_souci wrote:

Portugal has, like the UK, an independent judiciary, so how is seeking permission from a judge related to government pressure? Unless you are suggesting that the Judges in Portugal are merely puppets of the government[?/b].

[b]really? - all it said was that the UL police helped to develop a case against the McCanns.

Well, he would say that wouldnt he - better than admitting that he was removed by his bosses for shotting his mouth off and incompetence.

May I respectfully suggest you go and actually read the forensic reports. 15 markers out of 37 in a familiy group is meaningless, and certainly cannot identify any material as being from Madeleine.

Come on, you and I both know the pressure judges can be put under in both the UK and portugal in cases such as this one and there's lots of historical evidence to support this including numerous autobiographies.

I'm confused as to your interpretation of the word 'develop' ? If you develop a photo, you must have the film to do so.... if you develop a case you must have evidence to do so

With regards to Goncarlo; its not just him which said that is it? there is further evidence including proof that this case reached diplomatic level from wikileaks. So yes really! Also he was never removed, he retired.

I've read the forensic reports the links are here on the forum for you to read if you choose to do so.
Far from meaningless; 5 is seen as conclusive however in America the golden number is 13 markers, therefore 15 is more than enough!

you may like to read the following thread about DNA from an expert, I respectfully suggest you might find it useful.

AEK: If on an analysis of DNA, 15 markers out of 19 belong to a person "x", can we conclude that this is this person?
SA: If the profile is complete and quality, and that the markers are analyzed information then no doubt! The result is discriminatory. This result is very reliable. The order of error is 1 for 1 billion! It is almost impossible it otherwise. For a conclusive DNA profile, it takes a minimum of 7 markers. In case you are presenting, 15 markers on 19 leave no doubt. This result is quite reliable and usable in court. The error rate for a one billion is so unlikely that the result is recognized by judges without lawyers can not bring them into doubt.

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t12417-more-about-dna-from-an-expert#268625

**FSoares** Sun 2 Jan - 17:03

Are you all going to discuss evidence on Madeleine's case in the thread of Joanna Yeates? jo yeates - Page 26 371436

**FSoares** Sun 2 Jan - 17:07

Wallflower wrote:
sans_souci wrote:Are you really suggesting that the Portuguese police require the permission of the government in order to act? I am not sure the Portuguese would be very happy with the constitutional implications that arise from that. Continuing to insist that the only reason the McCanns were not charged is political really is grasping at straws.

A far more logical explanation is that the police, having investigated the case, could not find any evidence of the McCanns guilt (as stated by their Attorney General).

Nevertheless, it does seem to be the opinion of many (all?) of the Portuguese posters on this forum, tht the police were leaned on to shelve the case and that it's unheard of for cases of missing people to be shelved after such a short time.

Just clarifying one particular point: here Police doesn not have the authority to shelve (or not) a case. After interrogations and forensic evidence, if Police thinks there's matter to charge, they take the suspect to a magistrate and this lattest decides to charge or not. There's also the hypothetical scenario where police thinks there's no matter to charge, but the Magistrate representing the Public Prosecution. may have a different opinion. This is to say the Public prosecution represented by its magistrates are the ones who check and have the power on a criminal investigation, also have the power to charge or to shelve, etc.

**Lioned** Sun 2 Jan - 17:17

pennylane wrote:
FSoares wrote:
T4two wrote:
Marky wrote:
welshy wrote: The police had managed to get another extension so could of held him until Monday. Very strange for them to release a main suspect without holding for the full time and hoping that evidence would turn up.

could be that sometime late saturday someone high up the food chain realised they had nothing and ordered his release.

Yes, agree. That is what I imagine happened too. They had nothing - the bail bit is a face-saving exercise.

It sounds like so.

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's likely the police have got all they are going to get out of Jeffries, and are now attempting to build a solid case against him before making their move.

If the police had any evidence at all on this guy they'd look a bit daft letting a 'strangler' out again.

Sorry but it dont wash with me.Still no motive ? So that leaves family and friends (work).

Karen Sun 2 Jan - 17:22

Something is just NOT adding up here: I have from the outset not believed that Mr Jeffries is the perpetrator of this crime,

My theory and its only that - a theory, I read somewhere not sure where that Jo and her boyfriend were not a close as some say, what if they were having problems, he may not have trusted her and pretended to leave for Sheffield and in fact did not, possibly went spying on her at the Ram Pub, saw something he was not happy with and waited for her back at the flat, The reason for my saying this is - firstly is it possible and they " we were going to be forever"statement is odd, her body had not be found yet!!

He has left the flat vowing never to return (??) -Okay I suppose we can all understand that, but surely we/ or at least I given the same predicament would!

Another thing is Greg could not reach Jo the whole weekend, (unless he called to say he was safe BEFORE 8:00pm) If it was me trying to reach my boyfriend or GOSH him trying to reach me, (think the whole Police force would have been called) I would be stressing big time, I would have called the parents or a freind to check but nothing, nada?? hmmm? a weekend is a long time, if they were that close they would have communicated, I am sure she would just not return the calls or send a sms, A FULL weekend without communication DOES NOT sit right with me

Just all in my opinion!

Loopdaloop Sun 2 Jan - 17:35

Karen wrote:

Another thing is Greg could not reach Jo the whole weekend, (unless he called to say he was safe BEFORE 8:00pm) If it was me trying to reach my boyfriend or GOSH him trying to reach me, (think the whole Police force would have been called) I would be stressing big time, I would have called the parents or a freind to check but nothing, nada?? hmmm? a weekend is a long time, if they were that close they would have communicated, I am sure she would just not return the calls or send a sms, A FULL weekend without communication DOES NOT sit right with me

Just all in my opinion!

Does anyone know when the time of death was established?

I'm not convinced the level of communication is an issue here. Not everyone is attached to their mobile phones.

Put it this way; this guy had to move for work to a different area from all his friends. He lives with his girlfriend and see's her everyday, he doesn't see his friends that often so going back to where they all are would be a big event and I sincerely doubt that he would be left on his own for a long enough time to ponder the really pessimistic possibility that because his girlfriend didn't contact him for two days that she might be dead. We know from the phrase "I thought that we were going to be together forever" that he is an optimist by nature so therefore the glass always being half full he isn't going to automatically assume something might be wrong.

However I know that someone like my girlfriend might assume that something was wrong if she couldn't get in touch with me; I wouldn't be too concerned the other way. So it could just be a men are from mars, women are from venus thing. I don't think it should imply suspicion any more than having a blue rinse.

Guest Sun 2 Jan - 17:36

Just in from the Daily Wail.

Detectives investigating the murder of Joanna Yeates today warned that her killer was still on the loose and advised the local community to take 'the usual safety precautions'.

The statement comes after Miss Yeates's landlord Chris Jefferies was released on bail.

The 65-year-old former English teacher had been arrested on suspicion of her murder on Thursday last week. Miss Yeates's snow-covered body was found on Christmas Day.

Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford, speaking outside the building where she lived, said: 'I can understand why the public in the local and wider Bristol area have concerns for their safety at the current time. Whoever killed Joanna remains at large.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-issue-warning-women-personal-safety.html#ixzz19ttGuR4c

**Krisy22** Sun 2 Jan - 17:41

Karen wrote:Something is just NOT adding up here: I have from the outset not believed that Mr Jeffries is the perpetrator of this crime,

My theory and its only that - a theory, I read somewhere not sure where that Jo and her boyfriend were not a close as some say, what if they were having problems, he may not have trusted her and pretended to leave for Sheffield and in fact did not, possibly went spying on her at the Ram Pub, saw something he was not happy with and waited for her back at the flat, The reason for my saying this is - firstly is it possible and they " we were going to be forever"statement is odd, her body had not be found yet!!

He has left the flat vowing never to return (??) -Okay I suppose we can all understand that, but surely we/ or at least I given the same predicament would!

Another thing is Greg could not reach Jo the whole weekend, (unless he called to say he was safe BEFORE 8:00pm) If it was me trying to reach my boyfriend or GOSH him trying to reach me, (think the whole Police force would have been called) I would be stressing big time, I would have called the parents or a freind to check but nothing, nada?? hmmm? a weekend is a long time, if they were that close they would have communicated, I am sure she would just not return the calls or send a sms, A FULL weekend without communication DOES NOT sit right with me

Just all in my opinion!

I agree with all you say Karen. It also seems that this is the first time police have warned women not to walk alone after dark... Unless I have missed it... like they do not have a real suspect.

Smudge Sun 2 Jan - 17:50

I have to agree with Loopdaloop here. not everyone is surgically attached to their mobile phone. My 22 yr old son has had the same phone for over 2 years and hasn't yet had to top it up. He only switches it on if he needs to ring someone in an emergency.

Loopdaloop Sun 2 Jan - 18:12

Lioned wrote:
If the police had any evidence at all on this guy they'd look a bit daft letting a 'strangler' out again.

Sorry but it dont wash with me.Still no motive ? So that leaves family and friends (work).

;The Bristol Strangler;

Do we know anything about the method of strangulation yet as that can suggest how close the victim was to the perpetrator?

Historically stranglers are partners or ex partners and there is a sexual motive however there are a lot of cases of burglary's gone wrong or cases where it has been committed by someone mentally ill.

The Clifton area of Bristol is a prime area for Burglars as its occupied by mostly people from a high social demographic meaning a lot of loot.
Perhaps it could have been related to the 3 people who helped with the car as someone else said? or could this even be a facebook thing?

Did Greg write anything to say where he was going as his status on facebook and one of his 'friends' saw it and took that to mean the house was empty? Its been said for a long time not to tell police when you are going on holiday as suggested to keep an eye on your house as people working within the police have been known to let the addresses out to the wrong people. 'friend' could have been or knew the appropriate 'dodgy' people to break into the house, but who knew that Joanna would come back? She left the pub quite a reasonably time and came home a reasonable time that one would assume that if you were out around that time you might stay out!

However for the police to give out this warning does say that they are unsure having ruled out the local eccentric and the boyfriend?

**Krisy22** Sun 2 Jan - 18:21

TBH most young people I know are always on the phone to each other after only hours apart. Yet OH and I do anything possible not to be near a phone unless in an emergency. Anyway... surely with him having to have a jump lead start and the weather... she would have wanted to know if he arrived safely or him to tell her he had. Just the way my family would work.

**fedrules** Sun 2 Jan - 18:29

Karen wrote:Something is just NOT adding up here: I have from the outset not believed that Mr Jeffries is the perpetrator of this crime,

My theory and its only that - a theory, I read somewhere not sure where that Jo and her boyfriend were not a close as some say, what if they were having problems, he may not have trusted her and pretended to leave for Sheffield and in fact did not, possibly went spying on her at the Ram Pub, saw something he was not happy with and waited for her back at the flat, The reason for my saying this is - firstly is it possible and they " we were going to be forever"statement is odd, her body had not be found yet!!

He has left the flat vowing never to return (??) -Okay I suppose we can all understand that, but surely we/ or at least I given the same predicament would!

Another thing is Greg could not reach Jo the whole weekend, (unless he called to say he was safe BEFORE 8:00pm) If it was me trying to reach my boyfriend or GOSH him trying to reach me, (think the whole Police force would have been called) I would be stressing big time, I would have called the parents or a freind to check but nothing, nada?? hmmm? a weekend is a long time, if they were that close they would have communicated, I am sure she would just not return the calls or send a sms, A FULL weekend without communication DOES NOT sit right with me

Just all in my opinion!

'

Jo and her boyfriend had lunch together before he set off for Sheffield so this does seem to show they were close, plus quite a few friends have said how in love they were, although I agree that some of the things he said when Jo was missing were in the past tense. However, if he was convinced that she'd been abducted from her flat and hadn't heard from her for so long, I can understand his pessimism and use of the past tense when speaking about Jo..In contrast the McCanns's determined use of the present tense when speaking about Maddie has always seemed strange under the circumstances.

Also I believe that Greg was already in Sheffield at the time Jo was seen on CCTV.

Karen Sun 2 Jan - 18:33

Loopdaloop wrote:
Karen wrote:

Another thing is Greg could not reach Jo the whole weekend, (unless he called to say he was safe BEFORE 8:00pm) If it was me trying to reach my boyfriend or GOSH him trying to reach me, (think the whole Police force would have been called) I would be stressing big time, I would have called the parents or a freind to check but nothing, nada?? hmmm? a weekend is a long time, if they were that close they would have communicated, I am sure she would just not return the calls or send a sms, A FULL weekend without communication DOES NOT sit right with me

Just all in my opinion!

Does anyone know when the time of death was established?

I'm not convinced the level of communication is an issue here. Not everyone is attached to their mobile phones.

Put it this way; this guy had to move for work to a different area from all his friends. He lives with his girlfriend and see's her everyday, he doesn't see his friends that often so going back to where they all are would be a big event and I sincerely doubt that he would be left on his own for a long enough time to ponder the really pessimistic possibility that because his girlfriend didn't contact him for two days that she might be dead. We know from the phrase "I thought that we were going to be together forever" that he is an optimist by nature so therefore the glass always being half full he isn't going to automatically assume something might be wrong.

However I know that someone like my girlfriend might assume that something was wrong if she couldn't get in touch with me; I wouldn't be too concerned the other way. So it could just be a men are from mars, women are from venus thing. I don't think it should imply suspicion any more than having a blue rinse.

A call on his way back would even have sufficed, like Honey "whats for dinner" should I pick up a take away?? etc etc nothing ............no communication no answer for 72hrs and then wait ANOTHER 4hrs to call the coppers hmmmmm???

Something fishy............and its not my trout in the oven!

**fedrules** Sun 2 Jan - 18:42

I agree with Pennylane and WJK that the release of Jefferies does not necessarily mean he's innocent. Forensic tests take time to complete. From what I've read, Chris Jefferies may well be considerably more sinister than being the local eccentric. The press have been doing quite a bit of investigation into this man and what they've discovered is somewhat worrying IMO. If we can believe the report in the Sun about him stalking another young blonde woman, then there are reasons to mistrust him. Whether they are right to publish such stories is, of course, another matter.

Sponsored content