jo yeates

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

I wasn't even aware that there was a test.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

T4two wrote:I see someone managed to derail this thread for a time as well, but in this instance had to do it by posting - probably ran out of red stripes

no, it's just sans chastising us for our evil ways. besides, it's a bit quiet on the news front at the moment.

And I hear it's gone a bit wild over on Jill Havern's forum!

so someone said. 263 users online last night. try watching out over that many. make your eyes water.

sans_souci wrote:

fedrules wrote:It's so sad to see Jo's smiling face on photos and to think that her life has been cut short so cruelly. I just hope she didn't suffer too long. Whoever did this will hopefully be brought to justice swiftly before they can destroy any more lives.

It's true that it's unfair to speculate about specific people involved in this awful case and I'm sorry to have done so previously..

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

This is a first warning Sans_Souci. At 3, considered yourself banned from this forum.

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

fedrules wrote:It's so sad to see Jo's smiling face on photos and to think that her life has been cut short so cruelly. I just hope she didn't suffer too long. Whoever did this will hopefully be brought to justice swiftly before they can destroy any more lives.

It's true that it's unfair to speculate about specific people involved in this awful case and I'm sorry to have done so previously..

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

Well, sans, apart from you, most people here are present to discuss possibilities, based on information as it arises. There isn't anyone else here who just comments when there's an opportunity to make snide remarks.

As for those who observe with open-mouthed astonishment, perhaps they have nothing better to discuss or observe than what's going on here. They certainly have no theories of their own rather like yourself, and can only spend their time discussing what's being said here. Well, that's their choice and if it makes you and them happy just to ridicule others who are trying to think things through and are brave enough to actually express an opinion, then let them get on with it. We aren't actually bovvered about what they think!

Agree with this and the other similar replies to sans souci. This case is being discussed in many places, both on and offline. I agree we shouldn't accuse any particular person, but I don't think anyone is doing that, they're just mentioning various possibilities going by what the police and media have been saying. People do discuss the news of the day and when a murder takes place there's always a lot of discussion and debate about what might have happened, who could have been involved, etc. If the habitues of sans souci's local pub start speculating on how and when and who might be involved in Joanna's murder, will ss start wading in with the pitchfork allegations?

And I think sans souci is out of order in being so spiteful (hmm, spiteful, who else has recently shown themselves to be spiteful?) in sneering at fedrules' apology for speculating about specific people. An apology made in good faith should be accepted in the same spirit, IMO.

Dimsie wrote:Agree with this and the other similar replies to sans souci. This case is being discussed in many places, both on and offline. I agree we shouldn't accuse any particular person, but I don't think anyone is doing that, they're just mentioning various possibilities going by what the police and media have been saying. People do discuss the news of the day and when a murder takes place there's always a lot of discussion and debate about what might have happened, who could have been involved, etc. If the habitues of sans souci's local pub start speculating on how and when and who might be involved in Joanna's murder, will ss start wading in with the pitchfork allegations?

And I think sans souci is out of order in being so spiteful (hmm, spiteful, who else has recently shown themselves to be spiteful?) in sneering at fedrules' apology for speculating about specific people. An apology made in good faith should be accepted in the same spirit, IMO.

well said.

AnnaEsse wrote:

pennylane wrote:I have just seen the landlord on Sky news. He said that he had told the police that he 'vaguely' remembered Jo leaving the flat with two people..... but he has reiterated to the Sky journalist it was a very 'vague' possibility, and he said he made that clear to the police.

Also showed the police removing a side door to the premises, which is believed to contain important clues/evidence.

Just quoting so that this added piece of info gets seen!

now what are they looking for from the door that they can't get from it in situ?

sans_souci wrote:

Marky wrote:

sans_souci wrote:But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

hello sansi, what's your take on this case so far?

I dont make the grade as an armchair detective either. But the difference is that I know it.

My take - that the UK police seem to have a pretty good handle on this, and speculating on 'likely suspects' is rather sick.

The UK police. just like any other police in the world are unable to do f*ck all on their own without intelligence supplied by the public; intelligence collated in their databases and CCTV cameras. Speculating on likely suspects is precisely what the police or anybody else in the world happens to do when a crime has been committed ........ Until the person who has committed the crime finally owns up, or enough evidence is found to prosecute them with.

The internet currently save hundreds and thousands of man hours of police time. Whilst people are able to speculate on the internet ...... they do not have to call the police with their theories and ideas. Far better that a couple of coppers trawl around sites like this and keep an eye on things this way, than have hundreds of ''psychics'' and people with wild theories phoning the police up every minute of the day.

If it was not for the internet ....... Dr. Amaral would have felt he was in a very lonely and dangerous place for the past three and 8 months.

So ....... this is a command to all armchair sleuthers everywhere ....... Keep sitting in your armchairs ....... and keep on sleuthing over the internet! Don't ever be ground down by the bastard folk who tell you that you are wasting your time. The police are fucked without decent citizens providing information. And who knows ...... one day, a poster on here or on any other site may gain enough courage from something they see written down, to finally pick up a phone ......... and call the police with information about this or some other case.

now what are they looking for from the door that they can't get from it in situ?

That is a very good question, Marky - perhaps they need to keep the door intact as evidence, to produce later on in any trial. But why?

Marky wrote ............ ''now what are they looking for from the door that they can't get from it in situ?''

It is easier to work on a flat surface, and easier to use dusting powder, magnifiers and UV lights. There may have been some pushing or shoving around the door and door jamb area, resulting in fibres leaving themselves attached ....... especially below waist level. There may be a lot of cat hairs around this area too, especiay if the door has been damp with the weather. These will need to be carefully removed to see if anything of note is underneath them ....... and to see if the door area has been recently cleaned. (Like apartment 5A for instance.)

How peculiar would it be to find there are no fingerprints on the door ....... because it had been recently wiped?

sans_souci wrote:


But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

Yet you found you had to come to this Thread and spend your time doing that, to see what we the unwashed had written on this Thread Sans, always goading then Sans.
Why always the LMAO smiley? after your Post's.

Alpine Aster wrote:Why always the LMAO smiley? after your Post's.

he makes himself laugh.

Marky wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:Why always the LMAO smiley? after your Post's.

he makes himself laugh.

.
Awwwww he must find himself hilarious then !!!!! dohhhhh.

FSoares wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

fedrules wrote:It's so sad to see Jo's smiling face on photos and to think that her life has been cut short so cruelly. I just hope she didn't suffer too long. Whoever did this will hopefully be brought to justice swiftly before they can destroy any more lives.

It's true that it's unfair to speculate about specific people involved in this awful case and I'm sorry to have done so previously..

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

This is a first warning Sans_Souci. At 3, considered yourself banned from this forum.

Merely giving my right to free speech a bit of exercise. So sorry if you find my views offensive.

sans_souci wrote:

FSoares wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

fedrules wrote:It's so sad to see Jo's smiling face on photos and to think that her life has been cut short so cruelly. I just hope she didn't suffer too long. Whoever did this will hopefully be brought to justice swiftly before they can destroy any more lives.

It's true that it's unfair to speculate about specific people involved in this awful case and I'm sorry to have done so previously..

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

This is a first warning Sans_Souci. At 3, considered yourself banned from this forum.

Merely giving my right to free speech a bit of exercise. So sorry if you find my views offensive.

I don't care about your views. You have the right to them, but be careful about derailing threads.

Sans said :

Merely giving my right to free speech a bit of exercise. So sorry if you find my views offensive.




Not offensive San just rather repetitive. Isn't it ironic though that you take full advantage of your right to freedom of speech here while at the same time supporting a couple whose main agenda seems to be the confiscation of that same fundamental right from everyone but their acolytes.


 

sans_souci wrote:

FSoares wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

fedrules wrote:It's so sad to see Jo's smiling face on photos and to think that her life has been cut short so cruelly. I just hope she didn't suffer too long. Whoever did this will hopefully be brought to justice swiftly before they can destroy any more lives.

It's true that it's unfair to speculate about specific people involved in this awful case and I'm sorry to have done so previously..

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

This is a first warning Sans_Souci. At 3, considered yourself banned from this forum.

Merely giving my right to free speech a bit of exercise. So sorry if you find my views offensive.

The problem is that as usual you haven't made a reasonable comment on the topic. All you have done is be offensive to other people. If that's the kind of free speech you want, there are places where you can do that, but not here.

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

FSoares wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

fedrules wrote:It's so sad to see Jo's smiling face on photos and to think that her life has been cut short so cruelly. I just hope she didn't suffer too long. Whoever did this will hopefully be brought to justice swiftly before they can destroy any more lives.

It's true that it's unfair to speculate about specific people involved in this awful case and I'm sorry to have done so previously..

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

This is a first warning Sans_Souci. At 3, considered yourself banned from this forum.

Merely giving my right to free speech a bit of exercise. So sorry if you find my views offensive.

The problem is that as usual you haven't made a reasonable comment on the topic. All you have done is be offensive to other people. If that's the kind of free speech you want, there are places where you can do that, but not here.

You really cannot spot sarcasm, can you. What comment is there to make except to point out that normal people do not engage in completely fact free speculation over a tragic case. This thread is sickeningly full of accusations against her boyfriend.

Seemingly the idea of waiting until actual facts and information emerge is too much.

Ban me if you want. It will simply mean that you cannot cope with anyone expressing their view that malicious gossip is wrong.

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

FSoares wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

This is a first warning Sans_Souci. At 3, considered yourself banned from this forum.

Merely giving my right to free speech a bit of exercise. So sorry if you find my views offensive.

The problem is that as usual you haven't made a reasonable comment on the topic. All you have done is be offensive to other people. If that's the kind of free speech you want, there are places where you can do that, but not here.

You really cannot spot sarcasm, can you. What comment is there to make except to point out that normal people do not engage in completely fact free speculation over a tragic case. This thread is sickeningly full of accusations against her boyfriend.

Seemingly the idea of waiting until actual facts and information emerge is too much.

Ban me if you want. It will simply mean that you cannot cope with anyone expressing their view that malicious gossip is wrong.

Please keep your sarcasm for those who will appreciate it. It is not welcome here and you are outliving your entertainment value.

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

Merely giving my right to free speech a bit of exercise. So sorry if you find my views offensive.

The problem is that as usual you haven't made a reasonable comment on the topic. All you have done is be offensive to other people. If that's the kind of free speech you want, there are places where you can do that, but not here.

You really cannot spot sarcasm, can you. What comment is there to make except to point out that normal people do not engage in completely fact free speculation over a tragic case. This thread is sickeningly full of accusations against her boyfriend.

Seemingly the idea of waiting until actual facts and information emerge is too much.

Ban me if you want. It will simply mean that you cannot cope with anyone expressing their view that malicious gossip is wrong.

It's not possible to spot sarcasm when there's none there. Your prime motivation is to goad - whilst 'pretending' to be interested in free speech - something you seem unprepared to tolerate in others.

<- as you seem to understand this

carmen wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

Merely giving my right to free speech a bit of exercise. So sorry if you find my views offensive.

The problem is that as usual you haven't made a reasonable comment on the topic. All you have done is be offensive to other people. If that's the kind of free speech you want, there are places where you can do that, but not here.

You really cannot spot sarcasm, can you. What comment is there to make except to point out that normal people do not engage in completely fact free speculation over a tragic case. This thread is sickeningly full of accusations against her boyfriend.

Seemingly the idea of waiting until actual facts and information emerge is too much.

Ban me if you want. It will simply mean that you cannot cope with anyone expressing their view that malicious gossip is wrong.

It's not possible to spot sarcasm when there's none there. Your prime motivation is to goad - whilst 'pretending' to be interested in free speech - something you seem unprepared to tolerate in others.

<- as you seem to understand this

Here's another two!

Is it me or has anyone else noticed that Joanna seems to have a shoulder bag in Bargain Booze but a rucksack in Tescos?

sans_souci wrote:

fred wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

fedrules wrote:It's so sad to see Jo's smiling face on photos and to think that her life has been cut short so cruelly. I just hope she didn't suffer too long. Whoever did this will hopefully be brought to justice swiftly before they can destroy any more lives.

It's true that it's unfair to speculate about specific people involved in this awful case and I'm sorry to have done so previously..

But it didn't stop you and the rest getting out the pitchforks for an airing did it? Those who could be bothered to observe have been watching with open mouthed astonishment at the ill informed speculation on this thread.

Maybe the prosepct of another grieving family was just too hard to resist?

Face it, none of you even make the grade as armchair detectives.

Face it Sans the case isn't closed yet is it?

So everyone is fair game, eh, Fred? for a grieving family?

Sans, I have never disrespected any family grieving or not. You might find it hard to believe but I did actually have a lot of sympathy on the first day for the McCanns, I saw on Sky news that a small child had been abducted and I felt empathy at that moment. It was only when i realised that the poor children, three of them with a combined age of seven, yes seven, had been left alone, night after night, then my sympathy vanished in a flash. I am familiar with PDL and the Ocean Club, and I knew that it wasn't at all like "dining in your back garden" like that Gerry quoted, so people with even an average intelligenge start the thinking...hmmmm??? Why is he lying?

As Carmen said already, the timing of Sans' reappearance is very interesting. Given what seems to be happening elsewhere in Forumland.

What else is happening in forum land. Sorry to be dim!

MaryB wrote:What else is happening in forum land. Sorry to be dim!

you know. stuff.