jo yeates

If, as the timing of the screams reported by a young woman suggest, Jo was killed shortly after her return home, it could be that whoever murdered Jo simply took the pizza with them when they left the flat. I don't think this is a case of a burglary gone wrong as nothing was stolen and strangulation seems a very odd way for an thief to kill. Why would a thief not take Jo's purse and mobile? I think that Jefferies is by far the most likely suspect since the elimination of Jo's boyfriend, as he is the only other person with access to the flat. Plus, from what the press have found out about him, he does appear to fit the profile i.e. a loner with a penchant for violent avant-guarde films and an obsession with death. I find the Sun's article particularly alarming and, to be honest, do not doubt its veracity despite it coming from a tabloid. Maybe I'm naive, but why would the paper invent this incident ?

[quote="Blueeyes"]

fedrules wrote:
Jefferies's car is grey / silver..my money is definitely on him being the culprit.


It was me who redsriped you fedrules, sorry , but I'm not happy to see posts like this after the Attorney General has warned about comments in Internet sites , also have seen warnings that comments could be open to libel should Jeffries not being guilty of anything .

The boyfriend has also expressed disgust at Jeffries being targeted in Internet sites .^
Well I'm a bit disappointed to read that you red-striped me, but I understand your concerns about what the Attourney General said. Personally, I have never red-striped anyone on this forum. As for the possibilty of being sued, I find that rather unlikely. Everything I have posted has been published by the media and from what I have read, thewre are valid reasons to be suspicious of Mr Jefferies. Why is it worse to speculate about this case than about the McCanns or Dewani ?

[quote="fedrules"]If, as the timing of the screams reported by a young woman suggest, Jo was killed shortly after her return home, it could be that whoever murdered Jo simply took the pizza with them when they left the flat. I don't think this is a case of a burglary gone wrong as nothing was stolen and strangulation seems a very odd way for an thief to kill. Why would a thief not take Jo's purse and mobile? I think that Jefferies is by far the most likely suspect since the elimination of Jo's boyfriend, as he is the only other person with access to the flat. Plus, from what the press have found out about him, he does appear to fit the profile i.e. a loner with a penchant for violent avant-guarde films and an obsession with death. I find the Sun's article particularly alarming and, to be honest, do not doubt its veracity despite it coming from a tabloid. Maybe I'm naive, but why would the paper invent this incident ?[/quote]

Sometimes the truth can be incredibly boring. The media 'invent' or intentionally misconstrue things all the time - it sells papers/ pays 6 figure salaries.

I just want to say that I have never red-striped anyone on this forum regardless of my feelings about their opinion. I fail to see why speculation about this case is any different from speculation about the McCanns or Dewani. I honestly believe that the justice system / press will have to adapt to the new reality brought abour by the advent of the internet. Everything I know about this case comes from the UK media and it is their responsability to be more circumspect about what they choose to publish if they want to prevent people from speculating on this and other matters...

fedrules wrote:If, as the timing of the screams reported by a young woman suggest, Jo was killed shortly after her return home, it could be that whoever murdered Jo simply took the pizza with them when they left the flat. I don't think this is a case of a burglary gone wrong as nothing was stolen and strangulation seems a very odd way for an thief to kill. Why would a thief not take Jo's purse and mobile? I think that Jefferies is by far the most likely suspect since the elimination of Jo's boyfriend, as he is the only other person with access to the flat. Plus, from what the press have found out about him, he does appear to fit the profile i.e. a loner with a penchant for violent avant-guarde films and an obsession with death. I find the Sun's article particularly alarming and, to be honest, do not doubt its veracity despite it coming from a tabloid. Maybe I'm naive, but why would the paper invent this incident ?

No proof that any screams were heard ? Anyone wanting 5 minutes of fame can invent anything .
You're presuming that MrJ was the only person with access to the flat?
Ever thought Jo might have invited someone in for pizza and cider...and I don't mean Mr. J ?

The Attorney General has warned about press reporting so I am concerned more so than if this had happened back then .
[You asked what's the difference between discussing Mr J and the McCanns ?
I guess it's because of the Attorney General's warning which you don't seem overly concerned about]
I don't think The Sun is a good guide from which to take anything seriously.

Apologies for having a different stance to you on this.

No need to apologise, although I don't really see why you had to red stripe me. As I have said, it is the press's responsability to be more circumspect about what they publish and it is also the quality press which has published all sorts of information about Jefferies. I feel that I am free to speculate about this as the press has not seen fit to hold back with the stories they have dug up on Mr Jefferies..

The Attourney General is a bit late with his warning as the information is already out there...

fedrules wrote:The Attourney General is a bit late with his warning as the information is already out there...

very true and i hope it's not the beginning of some sort attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. the whole problem seems to have stemmed from the way in which the police have conducted this investigation to date.

I think the woman who heard the screams reported them to the police and was not after her five minutes of fame. She now feels terribly guilty that she didn't realise how sinister they were at the time. The person most likely to be interested in their five munites of fame is the psychopath who stole poor Jo from her family IMO.

jejune wrote:
For a start, the police would have mentioned there had been evidence of a burglary in the beginning, not this late on. And most people who are accidently killed in the course of a burglary are left where they are - not taken a few miles away and left in a public place.

I agree about a burglar.

Why woud a burglar risk being seen taking a body out of the flat and also tidy after the attack, nothing was stolen, the only missing item is the pizza, if a robbery had gone wrong they would have high tailed it out of there.

Jo's handbag on the kitchen table but the cat was going funny(probably at not being fed), Mr Readon's quote,there was obviously no sign of a struggle then in the Flat, because if there was he would not have waited four Hour's before contacting the Police.

Its a strange Case
No robbery
No sexual attack?.
The police have not said if it was a sexual motive, usually in cases like this if a Women has been raped the Police will say so, semen DNA would have been present, then they have the perpetrator's DNA, unless it was a sexual motive but it went terribly wrong.

There has to be a motive.
If someone a stranger picked Jo up in car, why would they take her personal items back to the Flat he would not, if she was taken in a car then the Person would have dumped the evidence and Jo as soon as possible.

If a stranger knocked at the door then there would have been a struggle and evidence in the Flat if he killed Jo there, would he then clean up the Flat I don't think so, the stranger would have got out of there as quickly as possible, would a stranger that followed Jo back to her Flat, risk removing her body, and risk being seen by someone as he took her body out of the Flat I don't think so.

It was not a long walk from Tesco's to Jo's Flat why would Jo get a Taxi for such a short walk, also Jo had walked a much longer distance earlier that Evening and had not got a Taxi for that long walk, and would a Taxi driver who already had Jo in his taxi, go back to her Flat and place her personal item's there?, I don't think so.

Someone who knew Jo and Jo knew that Person?
Only the Police if they have established know what time and Day? Jo was killed.
No body in the Flat, but personal item's were, a strange Case indeed.

From Sky News
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Joanna-Yeates-Investigation-Police-News-Conference-Under-Way/Article/201101115878740?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15878740_Joanna_Yeates_Investigation%3A_Police_News_Conference_Under_Way

More to follow.

i think we can consider the possibility that the police have not got very far.

Very strange. I think if Jo had got into a taxi somebody would have witnessed it and if a cab driver wished to attack a woman surely they would drive off somewhere remote not take her possessions home ? As Jo was a young fit woman who worked in landscape gardening, who had little to carry and who was close to home, I find it fairly unlikely she would have got a cab.

No sign of a struggle or a break-in means the burglary theory is quite implausible too.

I think Jo let her killer in or that he had a key and was already there. I think at 25 she was fairly trusting and might not have recognised the danger posed by an acquaintance, unless they were waiting unexpectedly in her flat which might have startled her and caused the first scream.

Blueeyes wrote:

fedrules wrote:If, as the timing of the screams reported by a young woman suggest, Jo was killed shortly after her return home, it could be that whoever murdered Jo simply took the pizza with them when they left the flat. I don't think this is a case of a burglary gone wrong as nothing was stolen and strangulation seems a very odd way for an thief to kill. Why would a thief not take Jo's purse and mobile? I think that Jefferies is by far the most likely suspect since the elimination of Jo's boyfriend, as he is the only other person with access to the flat. Plus, from what the press have found out about him, he does appear to fit the profile i.e. a loner with a penchant for violent avant-guarde films and an obsession with death. I find the Sun's article particularly alarming and, to be honest, do not doubt its veracity despite it coming from a tabloid. Maybe I'm naive, but why would the paper invent this incident ?

No proof that any screams were heard ? Anyone wanting 5 minutes of fame can invent anything .
You're presuming that MrJ was the only person with access to the flat?
Ever thought Jo might have invited someone in for pizza and cider...and I don't mean Mr. J ?

The Attorney General has warned about press reporting so I am concerned more so than if this had happened back then .
[You asked what's the difference between discussing Mr J and the McCanns ?
I guess it's because of the Attorney General's warning which you don't seem overly concerned about]
I don't think The Sun is a good guide from which to take anything seriously.

Apologies for having a different stance to you on this.

Jo was seen at 8.40 pm on CCTV after going for a drink with friends. Two short, sharp screams were heard from the vicinity of her flat, shortly after 9 pm that same evening. To dismiss this as merely the ramblings of a wannabe wanting their moment of fame would be very short sighted indeed. It would be as bad as dismissing Mrs Fenn's statement about hearing a child cry for nearly two hours from the McCanns apartment shortly before Maddie disappeared.

These independent witness statements are paramount to any inquiry.

Marky wrote:i think we can consider the possibility that the police have not got very far.

'
Depends on the result of the DNA sample they allegedly found on Jo's body.

If Jo's killer really was totally unconnected to her then it could be that the police have no idea who is responsible and that women in the area are at increased risk-

Marky wrote:

fedrules wrote:The Attourney General is a bit late with his warning as the information is already out there...

very true and i hope it's not the beginning of some sort attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. the whole problem seems to have stemmed from the way in which the police have conducted this investigation to date.

Agree. The way the police handled this encouraged the media response and that response provoked the speculation which ensued. Having said that though, there are already safeguards in place which appear not to have been enforced or adhered to. IMO it's extremely serious when the Attorney General finds it necessary to remind the media of their responsibilities, but I don't see this as an attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. Fact is that the UK legal system does not include trial by media and the media are not free to libel innocent people as they could be accused of doing in this case and no doubt will be by Mr. Jedfferies and his legal team. I've saved some of the headlines and articles which have appeared over the last few days and they make pretty horrendous reading, especially when one sees how things which people have said are distorted or misinterpreted. Bit difficult to understand the criticism that the Attorney General only issued his warning after things had got out of hand though, since before they got out of hand, there was no need to issue a warning.

Very true, Pennylane.

But how long after such articles started appearing was the warning made ?

Sounds like the cops have gone on the 'defensive' from that statement.And sounds like they havn't a clue,at least not one they've been able to make any sense of yet.
Still no apparent motive ?

Lioned wrote:Sounds like the cops have gone on the 'defensive' from that statement.And sounds like they havn't a clue,at least not one they've been able to make any sense of yet.
Still no apparent motive ?

sounds like they need to call in Mystery, Inc.

T4two wrote:

Marky wrote:

fedrules wrote:The Attourney General is a bit late with his warning as the information is already out there...

very true and i hope it's not the beginning of some sort attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. the whole problem seems to have stemmed from the way in which the police have conducted this investigation to date.

Agree. The way the police handled this encouraged the media response and that response provoked the speculation which ensued. Having said that though, there are already safeguards in place which appear not to have been enforced or adhered to. IMO it's extremely serious when the Attorney General finds it necessary to remind the media of their responsibilities, but I don't see this as an attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. Fact is that the UK legal system does not include trial by media and the media are not free to libel innocent people as they could be accused of doing in this case and no doubt will be by Mr. Jedfferies and his legal team. I've saved some of the headlines and articles which have appeared over the last few days and they make pretty horrendous reading, especially when one sees how things which people have said are distorted or misinterpreted. Bit difficult to understand the criticism that the Attorney General only issued his warning after things had got out of hand though, since before they got out of hand, there was no need to issue a warning.

The papers presumably run everything past their lawyers before they print, so either they were pretty confident that Jeffries would be charged or they've got away with this level of speculation in the past, so weren't that worried. I guess it's a commercial decision for them and they have to factor increased sales from a nice juicy story like this.

fedrules wrote:But how long after such articles started appearing was the warning made ?

I noted the Attorney General's warning as being 3 days ago . Newspapers certainly cut down on their reporting gossip after that and Sky News reporters stopped reporting salacious comments from sources willing to denigrate Mr J which they had formerly given out with relish .

Wallflower wrote:

T4two wrote:

Marky wrote:

fedrules wrote:The Attourney General is a bit late with his warning as the information is already out there...

very true and i hope it's not the beginning of some sort attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. the whole problem seems to have stemmed from the way in which the police have conducted this investigation to date.

Agree. The way the police handled this encouraged the media response and that response provoked the speculation which ensued. Having said that though, there are already safeguards in place which appear not to have been enforced or adhered to. IMO it's extremely serious when the Attorney General finds it necessary to remind the media of their responsibilities, but I don't see this as an attempt to curtail the freedom of the media. Fact is that the UK legal system does not include trial by media and the media are not free to libel innocent people as they could be accused of doing in this case and no doubt will be by Mr. Jedfferies and his legal team. I've saved some of the headlines and articles which have appeared over the last few days and they make pretty horrendous reading, especially when one sees how things which people have said are distorted or misinterpreted. Bit difficult to understand the criticism that the Attorney General only issued his warning after things had got out of hand though, since before they got out of hand, there was no need to issue a warning.

The papers presumably run everything past their lawyers before they print, so either they were pretty confident that Jeffries would be charged or they've got away with this level of speculation in the past, so weren't that worried. I guess it's a commercial decision for them and they have to factor increased sales from a nice juicy story like this.

Oh, I'm sure the media run everything past their lawyers in a case like this but, the lawyers have been known to get it wrong. Perhaps it's time to think a bit more about protecting the rights of the individual and not allowing those to be violated in the name of freedom for the media. Why should the media be allowed to make a commercial decision about whether it will be profitable to ruin a man's life?

Blueeyes wrote:

fedrules wrote:But how long after such articles started appearing was the warning made ?

I noted the Attorney General's warning as being 3 days ago . Newspapers certainly cut down on their reporting gossip after that and Sky News reporters stopped reporting salacious comments from sources willing to denigrate Mr J which they had formerly given out with relish .

Yes, I noticed that about Sky News, Blueeyes. It really was a total contrast to how they had been reporting.

Blueeyes wrote:

fedrules wrote:But how long after such articles started appearing was the warning made ?

I noted the Attorney General's warning as being 3 days ago . Newspapers certainly cut down on their reporting gossip after that and Sky News reporters stopped reporting salacious comments from sources willing to denigrate Mr J which they had formerly given out with relish .

Yes, and I dare say that if the Attorney General had moved to warn the press any earlier he would immediately have faced an outcry concerning curtailing press freedom.

'nice juicy story.' a tragic story but maybe that's just me.