Jo Yeates's mum offers to do reconstruction

sans_souci wrote:

xtina wrote:just shows what can be achieved when family fully cooperate with the police....something what 99% of family's automatically will do ...everything and more

unless you have an ulterior motive ....and dont want the case solving ...imo



quote

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the investigation, said: "I would like to pay tribute to Jo's family and (boyfriend) Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances.

"Their support to us has been invaluable."

Mind you, had the Phil Jones been of the 'statistically one of the family must have done it - just a case of which one' school, then things might be a bit different.

I do seem to recall the reflex of some members here was that it was the boyfriend.

Anyway, - not Tabak,

'as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..'

Sans, it's almost impossible to tell from the above what is your comment and what you're quoting, but I would just like to point out that the notion that a family member (or someone close) 'must have done it,' is not a school of thought. It is actually the case. I doubt that training of police officers is now going to change and that they will now stop investigating those close to a victim because Jo's neighbour has been charged with her murder. Any police officer who did not first of all look at those close to the victim, imo, should not be in the job, and I'm sure Jo's boyfriend was checked out thoroughly.

I guess I have to confess to 'idle' speculation, but it was ill-informed, rather than uninformed. I have to put my hand up to believing a report in the Sun (blush!) about Mr Jefferies having previously stalked another young woman. I also tend to imagine that, if the police arrest someone, they must have pretty sound reasons for doing so. I feel worst about suspecting Jo's boyfriend, as he must be in agony over what has happened. However, I certainly wasn't alone, but I didn't persist when it was obvious that he wasn't viewed as a suspect and apologised several times.I can already imagine you're about to suggest this is the same as suspecting the McCanns and you have a point, although I still believe that there are very valid reasons for doubting they are telling the truth about the events of May 3rd.

the thing is his family friends etc etc ....all claimed his innocence such a great guy incapable of committing this crime ..adored his girl friend mild mannered intellectual imo it just goes to show ...no one really knows anyone ...and anyone in a moment madness are capable of anything ..regardless of who they are...or what the reason

that being he is guilty of course [but i would stick my neck out hereto say] ..there must be sufficient evidence here ie confession/DNA proof ...especially after the landlord scenario...for the police to charge him

my point he obviously was not going to admit to this...and seems from the time he was arrested did not admit to anything ..so obviously did not freely confess....more bothered at his own fate ...and not that of poor Jo her family's and boyfriends......what ever the motive he cared more for himself than what he had done .....[even sent emails wishing friends a happy new year]


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3365938/We-cant-imagine-Vincent-is-a-killer.html

fedrules wrote:I guess I have to confess to 'idle' speculation, but it was ill-informed, rather than uninformed. I have to put my hand up to believing a report in the Sun (blush!) about Mr Jefferies having previously stalked another young woman. I also tend to imagine that, if the police arrest someone, they must have pretty sound reasons for doing so. I feel worst about suspecting Jo's boyfriend, as he must be in agony over what has happened. However, I certainly wasn't alone, but I didn't persist when it was obvious that he wasn't viewed as a suspect and apologised several times.I can already imagine you're about to suggest this is the same as suspecting the McCanns and you have a point, although I still believe that there are very valid reasons for doubting they are telling the truth about the events of May 3rd.

The police would have checked out those close to Joanna. Her boyfriend would have been first in line probably. So, don't let WUMs cause you to feel bad. They'll find anything at all to criticise rather than add something positive to a discussion.

I just wonder why Tabak committed this crime..IF he did. Did he break in through the 'blocked' door, thinking that both Jo and Greg were away and then kill Jo in a panic when she came home? Was he on drugs ? Was he attracted to Jo and made a move on her and was rejected? How does a seemingly normal person do something so cruel and then try to avoid detection ? Guess the first urge of self-presevation / presevation of ego (the murder) leads to the next ( the attempt at avoiding detection)..

Not sure I'll be going to the Sun for information after my Mr Jefferies experience ;)

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

xtina wrote:just shows what can be achieved when family fully cooperate with the police....something what 99% of family's automatically will do ...everything and more

unless you have an ulterior motive ....and dont want the case solving ...imo



quote

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the investigation, said: "I would like to pay tribute to Jo's family and (boyfriend) Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances.

"Their support to us has been invaluable."

Mind you, had the Phil Jones been of the 'statistically one of the family must have done it - just a case of which one' school, then things might be a bit different.

I do seem to recall the reflex of some members here was that it was the boyfriend.

Anyway, - not Tabak,

'as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..'

Sans, it's almost impossible to tell from the above what is your comment and what you're quoting, but I would just like to point out that the notion that a family member (or someone close) 'must have done it,' is not a school of thought. It is actually the case. I doubt that training of police officers is now going to change and that they will now stop investigating those close to a victim because Jo's neighbour has been charged with her murder. Any police officer who did not first of all look at those close to the victim, imo, should not be in the job, and I'm sure Jo's boyfriend was checked out thoroughly.

The clue is in the 'quotation marks'.

And I am sure the police did check out the family - good police practice.

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

xtina wrote:just shows what can be achieved when family fully cooperate with the police....something what 99% of family's automatically will do ...everything and more

unless you have an ulterior motive ....and dont want the case solving ...imo



quote

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who is leading the investigation, said: "I would like to pay tribute to Jo's family and (boyfriend) Greg for their assistance and dignity in the most difficult of circumstances.

"Their support to us has been invaluable."

Mind you, had the Phil Jones been of the 'statistically one of the family must have done it - just a case of which one' school, then things might be a bit different.

I do seem to recall the reflex of some members here was that it was the boyfriend.

Anyway, - not Tabak,

'as far as you can tell from photos, looks an ordinary sort of man and, having studied his eyes, I can't detect anything sinister or cold about them. Time will tell..'

Sans, it's almost impossible to tell from the above what is your comment and what you're quoting, but I would just like to point out that the notion that a family member (or someone close) 'must have done it,' is not a school of thought. It is actually the case. I doubt that training of police officers is now going to change and that they will now stop investigating those close to a victim because Jo's neighbour has been charged with her murder. Any police officer who did not first of all look at those close to the victim, imo, should not be in the job, and I'm sure Jo's boyfriend was checked out thoroughly.

The clue is in the 'quotation marks'.

And I am sure the police did check out the family - good police practice.

It's much clearer when you use the quote facility and also indicate who you are quoting. Mostly your comments and quotes are quite clear sans. I'm beginning to think that you may have MPD because there is such a range of styles to your comments!

.

AnnaEsse wrote:

fedrules wrote:I guess I have to confess to 'idle' speculation, but it was ill-informed, rather than uninformed. I have to put my hand up to believing a report in the Sun (blush!) about Mr Jefferies having previously stalked another young woman. I also tend to imagine that, if the police arrest someone, they must have pretty sound reasons for doing so. I feel worst about suspecting Jo's boyfriend, as he must be in agony over what has happened. However, I certainly wasn't alone, but I didn't persist when it was obvious that he wasn't viewed as a suspect and apologised several times.I can already imagine you're about to suggest this is the same as suspecting the McCanns and you have a point, although I still believe that there are very valid reasons for doubting they are telling the truth about the events of May 3rd.

The police would have checked out those close to Joanna. Her boyfriend would have been first in line probably. So, don't let WUMs cause you to feel bad. They'll find anything at all to criticise rather than add something positive to a discussion.

I will make a note to be more mindful of the obvious sensitivites of posters here in the future. I was under the impression that those who are happy to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of others on the basis of photos and tabloid newspaper articles may be able to take a bit of robust comment, but obviously not. Such sensitive little souls. I apologise, of course.

Was the WUM comment made in your capactity as a poster or a mod, Anna?

IMO the PJ made their biggest mistake by not following this example of good practice in the McCann case. They went about things the wrong way by concentrating on the most likely suspects last..

sans_souci wrote:.

AnnaEsse wrote:

fedrules wrote:I guess I have to confess to 'idle' speculation, but it was ill-informed, rather than uninformed. I have to put my hand up to believing a report in the Sun (blush!) about Mr Jefferies having previously stalked another young woman. I also tend to imagine that, if the police arrest someone, they must have pretty sound reasons for doing so. I feel worst about suspecting Jo's boyfriend, as he must be in agony over what has happened. However, I certainly wasn't alone, but I didn't persist when it was obvious that he wasn't viewed as a suspect and apologised several times.I can already imagine you're about to suggest this is the same as suspecting the McCanns and you have a point, although I still believe that there are very valid reasons for doubting they are telling the truth about the events of May 3rd.

The police would have checked out those close to Joanna. Her boyfriend would have been first in line probably. So, don't let WUMs cause you to feel bad. They'll find anything at all to criticise rather than add something positive to a discussion.

I will make a note to be more mindful of the obvious sensitivites of posters here in the future. I was under the impression that those who are happy to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of others on the basis of photos and tabloid newspaper articles may be able to take a bit of robust comment, but obviously not. Such sensitive little souls. I apologise, of course.

Was the WUM comment made in your capactity as a poster or a mod, Anna?

We're not that sensitive, sans, just rather bored (speaking for myself) with your attempts to wind people up.

fedrules wrote:IMO the PJ made their biggest mistake by not following this example of good practice in the McCann case. They went about things the wrong way by concentrating on the most likely suspects last..

Now there we may possibly be in agreement. Don't faint.

I'm not sensitive either and, in the McCann case, I have never based my views on tabloid reports, although I have to admit to having been swayed by one article I read in the Sun in the case of Mr Jefferies.

Apparently, the break through in the Jo Yeates case came after a tip off by phone following the 'Crimewatch' programme. The caller was in tears. At the risk of being acused of idle speculation, I wonder if it was Tabak's girlfriend who made the call..Also it was reported that somebody else in the building heard a woman cry out 'Help me' on the night Jo vanished. So sad to think that Jo was afraid. If only someone had responded to the cries for help....

Hey Sans, as I have said I'm not a' sensitive soul' and nor am I in the habit of fainting. I can't imagine you are referring to the McCanns, so guess you're talking about the paedophile suspect..sorry, his name escapes me at the moment..

thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

xtina wrote:thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

.......and not one of them was prepared to help the investigation by taking part in a reconstruction.

AnnaEsse wrote:

fedrules wrote:I guess I have to confess to 'idle' speculation, but it was ill-informed, rather than uninformed. I have to put my hand up to believing a report in the Sun (blush!) about Mr Jefferies having previously stalked another young woman. I also tend to imagine that, if the police arrest someone, they must have pretty sound reasons for doing so. I feel worst about suspecting Jo's boyfriend, as he must be in agony over what has happened. However, I certainly wasn't alone, but I didn't persist when it was obvious that he wasn't viewed as a suspect and apologised several times.I can already imagine you're about to suggest this is the same as suspecting the McCanns and you have a point, although I still believe that there are very valid reasons for doubting they are telling the truth about the events of May 3rd.

The police would have checked out those close to Joanna. Her boyfriend would have been first in line probably. So, don't let WUMs cause you to feel bad. They'll find anything at all to criticise rather than add something positive to a discussion.

Yes, and not just the boyfriend, but Joanna's own family as well, would have been first to be considered. Then her friends, colleagues, neighbours ... Normal police practice, because those close to a murder victim are so very often the perpetrators of the crime. Random killings - and random abductions, too - by strangers are much less likely.

As for whoever carried out Joanna's murder, it seems such a senseless crime it's hard to see why anyone did it. There's a big gulf between a sexual attack (if that turns out to be the case) and murder, just as there's a big gulf between robbery and murder (thinking of Michaela McAreavey, murdered in Mauritius). How does anyone bring themselves to take that final step towards ending another person's life?

AnnaEsse wrote:

xtina wrote:thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

.......and not one of them was prepared to help the investigation by taking part in a reconstruction.

Anna - what IS the purpose of this forum? That thread, on a subject that certain posters keep referrering to, lasted exactly 16 minutes.

And the thread about the Gaspar statements went awol, just when you found that your cherished belief that the statements were originals was not, in fact, true.

Is this forum to debate all sides of the McCann case.

Or it is merely a one sided hate fest?

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

xtina wrote:thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

.......and not one of them was prepared to help the investigation by taking part in a reconstruction.

Anna - what IS the purpose of this forum? That thread, on a subject that certain posters keep referrering to, lasted exactly 16 minutes.

And the thread about the Gaspar statements went awol, just when you found that your cherished belief that the statements were originals was not, in fact, true.

Is this forum to debate all sides of the McCann case.

Or it is merely a one sided hate fest?

What is the purpose of that post, sans? Does it have anything to do with Jo Yeates?

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

xtina wrote:thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

.......and not one of them was prepared to help the investigation by taking part in a reconstruction.

Anna - what IS the purpose of this forum? That thread, on a subject that certain posters keep referrering to, lasted exactly 16 minutes.

And the thread about the Gaspar statements went awol, just when you found that your cherished belief that the statements were originals was not, in fact, true.

Is this forum to debate all sides of the McCann case.

Or it is merely a one sided hate fest?

While you're entitled to your views, sans souci, I take issue with your expression 'one sided hate fest'. Most of the posters here may be of the opinion that the story we've been told of abduction isn't the real story of Madeleine's disappearance, but that doesn't make this forum a 'hate fest'. I for one don't hate anybody, though I may deplore some of the things they do and have done. I'd say that applies to most people here.

correct ....the only thing i hate ...is the fact of being put down ...just because you do not believe that maddie was abducted ....of which by the way ...there is not one bit of evidence to say maddie was ....two sides to every story ....i have a mind of my own ...and will not go along with brain washing of what is happening here [England] ...what is so wrong with that .....

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

xtina wrote:thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

.......and not one of them was prepared to help the investigation by taking part in a reconstruction.

Anna - what IS the purpose of this forum? That thread, on a subject that certain posters keep referrering to, lasted exactly 16 minutes.

And the thread about the Gaspar statements went awol, just when you found that your cherished belief that the statements were originals was not, in fact, true.

Is this forum to debate all sides of the McCann case.

Or it is merely a one sided hate fest?

Just noticed you are getting a hell of a lot of rep points lately. One third of your green 'total' have been recorded in less than 48 hours, in fact. 'Someone' sure doesn't want you 'retiring'.

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

xtina wrote:thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

.......and not one of them was prepared to help the investigation by taking part in a reconstruction.

Anna - what IS the purpose of this forum? That thread, on a subject that certain posters keep referrering to, lasted exactly 16 minutes.

And the thread about the Gaspar statements went awol, just when you found that your cherished belief that the statements were originals was not, in fact, true.

Is this forum to debate all sides of the McCann case.

Or it is merely a one sided hate fest?

Well, sans, you have noted that there is nothing of importance being discussed here. So, why are you getting yourself worked up about what the purpose might be?

docmac wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

xtina wrote:thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

.......and not one of them was prepared to help the investigation by taking part in a reconstruction.

Anna - what IS the purpose of this forum? That thread, on a subject that certain posters keep referrering to, lasted exactly 16 minutes.

And the thread about the Gaspar statements went awol, just when you found that your cherished belief that the statements were originals was not, in fact, true.

Is this forum to debate all sides of the McCann case.

Or it is merely a one sided hate fest?

Just noticed you are getting a hell of a lot of rep points lately. One third of your green 'total' have been recorded in less than 48 hours, in fact. 'Someone' sure doesn't want you 'retiring'.

Now Doc, I wonder who has been giving Sans points ?

Mmmmm

AnnaEsse wrote:

xtina wrote:thankfully this one person ...did not stay silent...and cared enough for Jo

how unlucky for maddie that she had nine...who up to now have chose to stay silent ...

.......and not one of them was prepared to help the investigation by taking part in a reconstruction.

And the McCanns reason for not taking part in a reconstruction was their objection to the fact that the media had been told about it. Which was strange since they continually profess that they want as much publicity as possible in order to find Madeleine.

Angelique

yes and would have blown to pieces the time line they had given .......