Re: jo yeates

chrissie Wed 5 Jan - 12:10

Karen,

I agree with you entirely and this is exactly the conversation I had with my boyfriend regarding this case.

**margaret** Wed 5 Jan - 12:29

chrissie wrote:Karen,

I agree with you entirely and this is exactly the conversation I had with my boyfriend regarding this case.

That's 3 of us then! Let's face it the boyfriends DNA must be all over the flat so it may be proving difficult to get that breakthrough. And he is the only one who wouldn't want to sexually assault her.

ETA: As for the sock and pizza maybe he's just trying to make it look odd....

blackrose Wed 5 Jan - 12:36

margaret wrote:
chrissie wrote:Karen,

I agree with you entirely and this is exactly the conversation I had with my boyfriend regarding this case.

That's 3 of us then! Let's face it the boyfriends DNA must be all over the flat so it may be proving difficult to get that breakthrough. And he is the only one who wouldn't want to sexually assault her.

I firmly believe that the killer's dna is probably all over that flat, and the fact that it is someone known to Jo means they are able to fly under the forensic radar, so to speak. The pizza would present a problem however, because obviously their dna on the packaging would be difficult to explain away so.......it disappears. The missing sock sounds to me like it came off when she was being moved and there wasn't time to deal with it so it was hurriedly picked up and shoved in a pocket or something while they continued moving her body.

**Keela** Wed 5 Jan - 12:45

As they say in "Through the Keyhole", let's look at the facts:

1. keys, mobile, coat shoes all left in the flat
2. Pizza and cider bought. No sign of the pizza or packaging. I believe that one bottle of cider was half empty. What about the other bottle.
3. No phone call to boyfriend to make sure he had arrived OK. No call from boyfriend either to say he had.
4. Presumably the autopsy showed that she hadn't eaten the pizza. so who had and why did she buy it.
4. No sexual interference, so presumably not a sex crime.
5. No forced entry to the flat. Did she let this other person in? If she did, she must have known them.

I haven't read everything about the case. Did she have a cat living with her? Was it still in the flat? time lapse between the last sighing, going missing and being found. Who was feeding the cat?

There are so many strange parts to this case. it is even stranger than Maddy and we have a pretty good idea of what happened there!

Guest Wed 5 Jan - 12:47

I honestly don't think the pizza has any relevance. Do we know if Jo had consumed any ?
My thoughts were that she had bought the pizza and/or cider for someone else .[ sorry Keela ,just saw you say there was evidence if cider in the flat ]
We have to be looking at a very careful killer here thinking about removing a pizza box while leaving traces of himself in the flat...hmm ?
ETA additional text

**ann_chovey** Wed 5 Jan - 12:50

Sunday Telegraph , Dec. 26th quoted Jo's parents as 'knowing within 30 minutes of arriving at the flat that she had been abducted.'

Her Dad said 'we knew what the flat was like, we know what it's normally like. We know what she does and doesn't do'
We were 100% convinced within 30 minutes of arriving at the flat that she had been abducted'

he added that there were 'other factors , other reasons, that we've been asked by the police not to go into' that left him convinced that she had been abducted.'

So how come the bf was there for 4 hours and didn't think she'd been abducted, although her keys/coat were there, before he called the police? And he said the cat was 'going mad'.

**Keela** Wed 5 Jan - 12:55

ann_chovey wrote: Sunday Telegraph , Dec. 26th quoted Jo's parents as 'knowing within 30 minutes of arriving at the flat that she had been abducted.'

Her Dad said 'we knew what the flat was like, we know what it's normally like. We know what she does and doesn't do'
We were 100% convinced within 30 minutes of arriving at the flat that she had been abducted'

he added that there were 'other factors , other reasons, that we've been asked by the police not to go into' that left him convinced that she had been abducted.'

So how come the bf was there for 4 hours and didn't think she'd been abducted, although her keys/coat were there, before he called the police? And he said the cat was 'going mad'.

How come it took them 30 minutes to decide. Surely they would have known immediately.

**mumbles** Wed 5 Jan - 12:56

ann_chovey wrote: Sunday Telegraph , Dec. 26th quoted Jo's parents as 'knowing within 30 minutes of arriving at the flat that she had been abducted.'

Her Dad said 'we knew what the flat was like, we know what it's normally like. We know what she does and doesn't do'
We were 100% convinced within 30 minutes of arriving at the flat that she had been abducted'

he added that there were 'other factors , other reasons, that we've been asked by the police not to go into' that left him convinced that she had been abducted.'

So how come the bf was there for 4 hours and didn't think she'd been abducted, although her keys/coat were there, before he called the police? And he said the cat was 'going mad'.

That baffles me too Ann_chovey!

Not only that - but he had lunch with her that day so must have known that she was wearing boots.

These were in the flat too - and yet he didn't wonder why???

All very strange.

**Dimsie** Wed 5 Jan - 12:57

The sock - I suppose it could just have come off but a long sock wouldn't come off as easily as a short one, would it? I have to say the idea of the murderer keeping it as a trophy just seems too crazy, though.

The dogs - unless Jo's body was kept in one of the flats or transported in a car more than approximately 2 hours (at the very least 1½ hours) after she was killed, a cadaver dog wouldn't be able to smell cadaverine as it wouldn't yet have been produced. So if someone murdered her and took the body away as quickly as possible, the dog would find nothing.

The cat - I'm still very curious to know if the cat was confined to the flat all weekend. If so, the litter tray would tell a tale if Jo had been abducted or killed on the Friday night. Same with the amount of food, if Greg was aware of what cat food was in the flat on the Friday (though I admit he probably wasn't, if he's like most men).

I have to agree with those who say it's odd there was no contact between the couple over the weekend. Maybe this was their usual pattern, but with all the warnings about the dangers of travelling in snowy weather, the problem with the car and Jo alone for the first time in the flat for a weekend I too would have thought they'd have made sure to be in some contact, got worried if no reply. Giving someone space is all well and good, but ensuring someone is safe is better IF the circumstances warrant it (as I think they did here).

Let's hope the two people seen on cctv come forward; it would be some help to the police who already have a very difficult case on their hands.

Guest Wed 5 Jan - 13:06

ITV News banned from Joanna Yeates press conference
Avon & Somerset constabulary move follows News at Ten report critical of force's murder investigation

Josh Halliday
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 January 2011 12.37 GMT

News at Ten: Geraint Vincent reports on Joanna Yeates's murder
ITV News was today banned from a press conference by Avon & Somerset police after broadcasting a critical report on the force's investigation into the murder of Joanna Yeates.

The broadcaster's reporters were told they would not be allowed into today's briefing on the murder of the landscape architect in Bristol last month, but were given no further detail about why.

Last night's News at Ten ran a report critical of the force's investigation into the 25-year-old's murder, claiming that police were no closer to finding her killer 10 days after her body was found.

Reporter Geraint Vincent questioned whether the Avon & Somerset constabulary's inquiries had followed procedure. A former murder squad detective, interviewed for the programme, claimed that the police were failing to conduct "certain routine inquiries", such as painstakingly sweeping the murder scene for fresh evidence.

Vincent reported: "There may be good reasons why certain routine inquiries may not have been followed. But while this investigation has arrested and released one suspect, 10 days in it is still apparently short of evidence."

The News at Ten report also said the police were giving "mixed messages" on the possible circumstances of Yeates's death.

It is understood that Avon & Somerset police did not respond to ITV's request for comment before the programme was broadcast.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jan/05/itv-news-joanna-yeates-investigation?CMP=twt_fd

Guest Wed 5 Jan - 13:09

I wouldn't set too much store by the fact that worried parents would claim that Jo must have been abducted unless of course the police are holding some very relevant information back.
Re no contact between Jo and boyfriend. It has been said that they spent their weekends apart .

Reading like a Nicci French novel this lot is ....if anyone in here reads their quite scary novels think they will see what I mean .

**MaryB** Wed 5 Jan - 13:13

I agree up to a point that mixed messages have been given. For a start nobody seems to have reported whether or not she actually contacted anyone that weekend by phone. I think it would be strange for a young person not to contact any of her friends for a chat or text message all weekend from Friday evening to Sunday night. I also think her boyfriend would have called her parents asking if they heard from her. Not saying it is suspicious but you would have thought he'd have called her parents or friends to see if they had heard from her before 4 hours had elapsed especially when her bag and keys and everything was there in the flat. Or even knocked on a neighbours flat asking if they'd seen her. But police haven't reported everything and I don't blame them.

Guest Wed 5 Jan - 13:25

The police must know a lot more that they're saying ?
To have the public now told, after the missing pizza box, that a sock is missing too ,is hardly endearing me to them!
ETA : Could imagine Jo was in the process of removing her boots and one sock, was disturbed by killer whom she knew, a row erupted, killer used the sock to quieten /kill her [ but we know a ligature wasn't used ?] put sock in his pocket and dumped her body.

**Alpine Aster** Wed 5 Jan - 13:27

kitti wrote:Wonder who the crack profiler is......not the same person I hope who said Madeleine woke up and left the apt and THEN was abducted!!!!o

It could be Kitti I don't know whether the Police will reveal who the Criminal Psycholgist is, I hope it is not Mr Paul Britton who is a well known Criminal Psychologist, he has not alway's been correct.

Guest Wed 5 Jan - 13:30

Alpine Aster wrote:
kitti wrote:Wonder who the crack profiler is......not the same person I hope who said Madeleine woke up and left the apt and THEN was abducted!!!!o

It could be Kitti I don't know whether the Police will reveal who the Criminal Psycholgist is, I hope it is not Mr Paul Britton who is a well known Criminal Psychologist, he has not alway's been correct.

It will be interesting to see if it's David Canter jo yeates - Page 37 192282

keepingmum Wed 5 Jan - 13:54

why do i still feel so uncomfortable about the boyfriend? I wish I didn't.

**Alpine Aster** Wed 5 Jan - 13:56

carmen wrote:
Alpine Aster wrote:
kitti wrote:Wonder who the crack profiler is......not the same person I hope who said Madeleine woke up and left the apt and THEN was abducted!!!!o

It could be Kitti I don't know whether the Police will reveal who the Criminal Psycholgist is, I hope it is not Mr Paul Britton who is a well known Criminal Psychologist, he has not alway's been correct.

It will be interesting to see if it's David Canter

It might be David Canter I do believe he worked on the Railway Case re Duffy.

Whoever the Criminal Psychologist is they do not have much to go on.
The Police are saying they do not know when Jo died, they do not know if she was killed in the Flat.

1...A stranger following Jo home if Jo was killed on her way home, would hardly go to her Flat and place her personal item's there.

2...A strange in a car if Jo was picked up, would have gone somewhere in the car, then dump poor Jo, and not took her personal item's back to the Flat.

3...A robbery gone wrong a robber would have high tailed it out of the Flat, not risk moving a body and risk being seen doing that.
IMO only of course.

No sexual attack, no robbery, there has to be a motive! a strange Case.
It is like it was all staged.

Guest Wed 5 Jan - 14:05

CCTV footage believed to be the last film of Jo Yeates alive was released today apparently showing two people following the architect as she walked along a deserted street.

The images, taken from a pub's CCTV camera on the night the 25-year-old was last seen alive, include that of a blurred woman carrying a Tesco bag.

Just 27 seconds later, two more people are seen walking in the same direction in the film which has been examined by police.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344276/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Does-CCTV-followed-final-walk-home.html#ixzz1AAYEPU9C

well i'll be damned. 3 people walking down the same street in the same direction almost 30 seconds or about 50 yards apart. oh, deserted? at 840pm on a friday night?

jo yeates - Page 37 25346

**Dimsie** Wed 5 Jan - 14:12

What interests me is when the ITV reporters did their stint in the police force, when they learned how detective work should be done, what the public should be told and when they should be told it. Just as I'm interested in when the McCanns did their police training, since they too seemingly think they know more about how an investigation should be carried out that those professionals trained and experienced in the work.

Honestly, the UK seems full of people who assume they know about something as complicated as crime detection than those who actually do the job. Have they no idea of difficulties involved, the procedures that have to be followed, the sheer amount of things that have to be meticulously investigated as the smallest thing might turn out to be the clue that eventually solves the case? Who'd be a police detective these days, with the media pack snapping at their heels and expecting every case to be wrapped up in a day or two, a bit like a murder mystery on tv?

Mind you, it might give British police some insight into how the Portuguese police were treated by the abominable British media in the Madeleine case, and some sympathy for their counterparts in the PJ.

**kitti** Wed 5 Jan - 14:22

mark Williams Thomas was somewhere giving his tuppence worth yesterday......

**wjk** Wed 5 Jan - 14:23

Dimsie wrote:What interests me is when the ITV reporters did their stint in the police force, when they learned how detective work should be done, what the public should be told and when they should be told it. Just as I'm interested in when the McCanns did their police training, since they too seemingly think they know more about how an investigation should be carried out that those professionals trained and experienced in the work.

Honestly, the UK seems full of people who assume they know about something as complicated as crime detection than those who actually do the job. Have they no idea of difficulties involved, the procedures that have to be followed, the sheer amount of things that have to be meticulously investigated as the smallest thing might turn out to be the clue that eventually solves the case? Who'd be a police detective these days, with the media pack snapping at their heels and expecting every case to be wrapped up in a day or two, a bit like a murder mystery on tv?

Mind you, it might give British police some insight into how the Portuguese police were treated by the abominable British media in the Madeleine case, and some sympathy for their counterparts in the PJ.

The 'expert' with Geraint Vincent on last nights ITN news was Mark Williams-Thomas, he was critical of the cops.
ETA Cross post with kitti

**Keela** Wed 5 Jan - 14:24

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but did anyone see that well known criminologist Mark Williams-Thomas on the ITV news last night? He and the reporter talking to him were standing in the lane in which the body was found. W-T was saying that the police should be talking to all the people who drove down the lane ( did they have to sign in before driving down the lane, otherwise they are relying on people saying they did) as he said it was a busy lane. Personally it looked as though it was possibly being used as a "rat run" by cars. The body was found by someone walking their dog. Dog walkers usually walk down country lanes which do not have a lot of traffic up and down it. As we know he is not a fan of the PJ and a great fan of the McCanns. Very keen to say what the police should and shouldn't be doing. Bearing in mind that during the period in question, there was a heavy snowfall in that part of the country and the lane would well have been under a good laying of snow, thereby not many people would have gone down the lane.

ETA Kitti and WJK also mentioned him on TV last night.

**Krisy22** Wed 5 Jan - 14:26

keepingmum wrote:why do i still feel so uncomfortable about the boyfriend? I wish I didn't.

I too have the same feeling and also wish I didn`t. I suppose the lack of communication over the week-end is the thing.. considering the weather if nothing else.

**T4two** Wed 5 Jan - 14:31

The Madeleine case certainly does appear strange, but the solution will probably seem quite logical and straightforward when we learn what it is and we'll wonder just how we ever came to be so perplexed by it all. I suspect that this, to a lesser extent, will be true of the Jo case as well. So what have both cases got in common which lead to the same difficulty? Well, we do know for certain, that the Madeleine case appears complex because, the key participants/witnesses are all lying. The abduction story is patently untrue; the police files make this abundantly clear. This of course leads to the presentation of a completely confusing picture and one ends up after 4 years still discussing what might have, could have, or probably did, happen - although we can be pretty sure what the outcome was and who was involved.
Could this be why the Jo case appears to be complex at the moment too? Are all the main protagonists lying and if not all, then who is and why? Sometimes people lie about important things for reasons which are actually not connected to the murder. For all we know, a witness might have a secret life, say dressing up in drag for example. If asked by the police where they were at a certain time and what they were doing, it might be a bit difficult covering that up whilst still appearing innocent. In fact, desperately trying to cover up something very private which has no bearing on the case whatsoever can make an innocent person look quite guilty. I think also that the question of motive is important here. The information we have appears to rule out a sexual motive by an opportunist or random killer. Are there people around who get a kick out of strangling young women when the opportunity presents itself without the need to sexually assault them? Well, yes there probably are, but thankfully few and far between and, they don't usually go to all the trouble of removing a body, only to leave it where it can easily be found a few miles away. Added to that, it has been pointed out by posters that an opportunist would hardly follow Jo home, murder her and then go and fetch a car to remove her body from the flat. The idea that such a person would then retain a sock as a trophy doesn't seem very likely either.
So, this narrows motive down to basically three. Financial, unrequited amorous advance or jealousy.
Since there is no indication of Jo being a millionairess who had made a will to leave her millions to a particular person, IMO we can rule out the financial motive. Burglary is probably a none starter too, since there is no sign of a break in and opportunist following home type of suspect has already been ruled out. If the police are convinced that the murder took place inside her flat because she was not wearing coat, footwear and missing one sock, then unrequited amorous advance or jealousy would seem to be frontrunners for motive. This narrows the suspects down to boyfriend, landlord, close neighbour or ... someone who hasn't appeared on the scene yet, such as an old boyfriend or someone who wanted to be the new boyfriend. I suspect the solution will be found in forensic evidence from the flat, but examination and elimination of third-party dna could prove to be a time-consuming process. Let's hope the samples have not been sent to the FSS in Birmingham for analysis and that they prove conclusive. Of course if no evidence of a third party can be found in the flat, then IMO someone has a similar problem to the McCanns.

**Alpine Aster** Wed 5 Jan - 14:42

Has a Cadaver dog been taken into the Flat yet?, I have not seen one on any News Report, and I am sure that would be shown if a dog was taken into the Flat.
A Cadaver dog would be able to mark if Jo had laid in the Flat deceased.
If this did or does happen and the Police comment on that, we won't see Team McCann commenting on this Case will we.

Sponsored content