jo yeates

I did see something the ohter day and it said 88% of murdered people know their killer.

Given that it's unlikely poor Madeleine will ever go home safe it means it's only a 12% chance she was taken by a stranger and of course the English police said 'look at the parents' and the Portuguese police found no abduction evidence but cadaver scent....

Alpine Aster wrote: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.

But the body would need to have stayed in the flat (hers or someone else's) for approximately 1½ - 2 hours for the cadaver dog to be able to detect the death scent which is only produced in sufficient quantity after this time. So if someone murdered Jo and took her body away asap and got rid of it, there would be no scent of cadaverine in the flat, car or on the murderer's clothes.

As for Mark William Thomas mentioned by some posters, yes, I saw him on the news yesterday. While he does have experience, he's by no means an expert in a case he's not working on, because every case is different. Trust the media to bring him in, knowing how keen he was to air his views on the work of the PJ in the Madeleine case. No one is saying the police do everything perfectly, either in the UK or Portugal or anywhere else; GA said himself mistakes were made. But when someone can find me a profession or trade where mistakes aren't made I'll be very glad to hear about it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; it's easy to look back and say 'Hmm, maybe we should have done' or 'Why didn't we think of doing that?' but people, including the police, do what seems to them the right thing at the time.

If the idiots at ITV think 10 days is ample time to solve a very puzzling murder case then they really have overdosed on Agatha Christie on the box over the holidays. Come to think of it, both the Poirot and Miss Marple stories are on ITV, so maybe that explains it.

ETA - just thinking again about getting rid of the body. Is it really possible the body was in the place it was found if Joanna was murdered on the Friday? I know there was snow, but could it really have been there that long without being spotted? If the murderer stored it somewhere else and then moved it days later, that would of course mean the scent of cadaverine could be in their car or on their clothes.

Marky wrote: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?

Yes but one of them passed away shortly afterwards and so it is significant and needs investigating. The police have probably got more CCTV and better images from the walk down Clifton Down road.

Dimsie wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote: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.

But the body would need to have stayed in the flat (hers or someone else's) for approximately 1½ - 2 hours for the cadaver dog to be able to detect the death scent which is only produced in sufficient quantity after this time. So if someone murdered Jo and took her body away asap and got rid of it, there would be no scent of cadaverine in the flat, car or on the murderer's clothes.

As for Mark William Thomas mentioned by some posters, yes, I saw him on the news yesterday. While he does have experience, he's by no means an expert in a case he's not working on, because every case is different. Trust the media to bring him in, knowing how keen he was to air his views on the work of the PJ in the Madeleine case. No one is saying the police do everything perfectly, either in the UK or Portugal or anywhere else; GA said himself mistakes were made. But when someone can find me a profession or trade where mistakes aren't made I'll be very glad to hear about it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; it's easy to look back and say 'Hmm, maybe we should have done' or 'Why didn't we think of doing that?' but people, including the police, do what seems to them the right thing at the time.

If the idiots at ITV think 10 days is ample time to solve a very puzzling murder case then they really have overdosed on Agatha Christie on the box over the holidays. Come to think of it, both the Poirot and Miss Marple stories are on ITV, so maybe that explains it.

Agree. The police have reiterated that this is a very complex case. If one only looks at finding all the dna in the flat and identifying who it belongs to and then interviewing everyone, it should be obvious just how complex and that the exercise could take a long time. At the same time, they cannot put all other activities on hold but must continue to work on all other leads and possibilities. Criticism of the police is easy; the media haven't exactly covered themselves in glory this time. They should back off and let the police get on with the job.

T4two wrote:

Dimsie wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote: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.

But the body would need to have stayed in the flat (hers or someone else's) for approximately 1½ - 2 hours for the cadaver dog to be able to detect the death scent which is only produced in sufficient quantity after this time. So if someone murdered Jo and took her body away asap and got rid of it, there would be no scent of cadaverine in the flat, car or on the murderer's clothes.

As for Mark William Thomas mentioned by some posters, yes, I saw him on the news yesterday. While he does have experience, he's by no means an expert in a case he's not working on, because every case is different. Trust the media to bring him in, knowing how keen he was to air his views on the work of the PJ in the Madeleine case. No one is saying the police do everything perfectly, either in the UK or Portugal or anywhere else; GA said himself mistakes were made. But when someone can find me a profession or trade where mistakes aren't made I'll be very glad to hear about it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; it's easy to look back and say 'Hmm, maybe we should have done' or 'Why didn't we think of doing that?' but people, including the police, do what seems to them the right thing at the time.

If the idiots at ITV think 10 days is ample time to solve a very puzzling murder case then they really have overdosed on Agatha Christie on the box over the holidays. Come to think of it, both the Poirot and Miss Marple stories are on ITV, so maybe that explains it.

Agree. The police have reiterated that this is a very complex case. If one only looks at finding all the dna in the flat and identifying who it belongs to and then interviewing everyone, it should be obvious just how complex and that the exercise could take a long time. At the same time, they cannot put all other activities on hold but must continue to work on all other leads and possibilities. Criticism of the police is easy; the media haven't exactly covered themselves in glory this time. They should back off and let the police get on with the job.

While your observation is perfectly reasonable it does seem a little petty if the police retaliate by banning one of the biggest media news outlets from the press conference. The whole purpose of the press conference is to communicate with the public in the hope of gleaning new information. Banning ITV news from attending seems a little like tasering your own foot.

Of course on the face of it there's nothing odd about two people walking a little way behind someone else along the street. So hopefully these two people will come forward to be eliminated from the inquiry, thus saving the police time and trouble (and no doubt a rollicking from ITV for being slow and bumbling).

In a way it's a bit like the man the the Smiths saw carrying a child in Praia da Luz, the man Mr Smith later said was very like Gerry McCann. If this was an man innocently carrying his own child home, wouldn't he have come forward to say so? I hope if there's a serious crime committed near me I'm not in the wrong place at the wrong time, but if I am I'll want to be ruled out long before anyone even thinks of ruling me in.

Chris - fair point, the police do need publicity to get as much info as possible. Maybe they just wanted to fire a warning shot across the media's bows, knowing that a certain amount of criticism today can lead to constant criticism tomorrow, as in the Madeleine case.

It would seem that no-one knows when or where she died...only supposition at the moment. That said, I don't see how anyone can be sure that the body wasn't in that flat for 1 1/2 - 2 hours, thereby leaving a scent. Unless the Police do actually know more about when/where she was killed than they are admitting, I think taking dogs in would be a good idea.

Angelina wrote:It would seem that no-one knows when or where she died...only supposition at the moment. That said, I don't see how anyone can be sure that the body wasn't in that flat for 1 1/2 - 2 hours, thereby leaving a scent. Unless the Police do actually know more about when/where she was killed than they are admitting, I think taking dogs in would be a good idea.

Yes, I think it would be good to check this out, just in case. I wonder if they've already had the dogs in the cars? They could have done that without anyone knowing. I suppose it's just possible they could have had the dogs in the flats without anyone having seen them go in, though usually they don't keep it secret. It would be very interesting if the dogs are used and do find something - rather an uncomfortable moment for some people.

Alpine Aster wrote: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.

That's a perfectly valid set of questions.

Have they really not shown any sniffer dogs being taken in on the constant rolling news?

Wallflower wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote: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.

That's a perfectly valid set of questions.

Have they really not shown any sniffer dogs being taken in on the constant rolling news?

The way those news teams have been hanging about outside I'd have thought getting dog(s) in there without being seen would be quite a challenge

Chris wrote:

T4two wrote:

Dimsie wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote: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.

But the body would need to have stayed in the flat (hers or someone else's) for approximately 1½ - 2 hours for the cadaver dog to be able to detect the death scent which is only produced in sufficient quantity after this time. So if someone murdered Jo and took her body away asap and got rid of it, there would be no scent of cadaverine in the flat, car or on the murderer's clothes.

As for Mark William Thomas mentioned by some posters, yes, I saw him on the news yesterday. While he does have experience, he's by no means an expert in a case he's not working on, because every case is different. Trust the media to bring him in, knowing how keen he was to air his views on the work of the PJ in the Madeleine case. No one is saying the police do everything perfectly, either in the UK or Portugal or anywhere else; GA said himself mistakes were made. But when someone can find me a profession or trade where mistakes aren't made I'll be very glad to hear about it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; it's easy to look back and say 'Hmm, maybe we should have done' or 'Why didn't we think of doing that?' but people, including the police, do what seems to them the right thing at the time.

If the idiots at ITV think 10 days is ample time to solve a very puzzling murder case then they really have overdosed on Agatha Christie on the box over the holidays. Come to think of it, both the Poirot and Miss Marple stories are on ITV, so maybe that explains it.

Agree. The police have reiterated that this is a very complex case. If one only looks at finding all the dna in the flat and identifying who it belongs to and then interviewing everyone, it should be obvious just how complex and that the exercise could take a long time. At the same time, they cannot put all other activities on hold but must continue to work on all other leads and possibilities. Criticism of the police is easy; the media haven't exactly covered themselves in glory this time. They should back off and let the police get on with the job.

While your observation is perfectly reasonable it does seem a little petty if the police retaliate by banning one of the biggest media news outlets from the press conference. The whole purpose of the press conference is to communicate with the public in the hope of gleaning new information. Banning ITV news from attending seems a little like tasering your own foot.

It's not completely clear just why the police took this action and IMO they should be given the benefit of the doubt in that they must be confident that in doing so they are not compromising the investigation. Of course the police need to work together with the media even if, as you say, only to glean new information, but if it is their belief that it is better to exclude ITV news from the process then that is their call. Whether they have possibly shot themselves in the foot by doing so will become apparent as the investigation proceeds or fails as the case may be. Perhaps it is a good thing to remind the media just who is responsible for running this investigation - they do seem to be a bit too full of their own importance at times.

Dimsie wrote:Of course on the face of it there's nothing odd about two people walking a little way behind someone else along the street. So hopefully these two people will come forward to be eliminated from the inquiry, thus saving the police time and trouble (and no doubt a rollicking from ITV for being slow and bumbling).

In a way it's a bit like the man the the Smiths saw carrying a child in Praia da Luz, the man Mr Smith later said was very like Gerry McCann. If this was an man innocently carrying his own child home, wouldn't he have come forward to say so? I hope if there's a serious crime committed near me I'm not in the wrong place at the wrong time, but if I am I'll want to be ruled out long before anyone even thinks of ruling me in.

Chris - fair point, the police do need publicity to get as much info as possible. Maybe they just wanted to fire a warning shot across the media's bows, knowing that a certain amount of criticism today can lead to constant criticism tomorrow, as in the Madeleine case.

Many years ago I happened to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time" (about 200 yards away crossing a road junction) when a murder occurred at about the same time down the other road. It never crossed my mind not to go and make a statement albeit it resulted in being reinterviewed on several occasions as a consequence (hopefully as a potential witness but you never know what the police had in mind!). But then again I guess as I knew and liked the victim it wasn't just "civic duty". (Incidentally as it turned out I also knew the murderer still currently residing in Broadmoor I believe).

Chris wrote:(Incidentally as it turned out I also knew the murderer still currently residing in Broadmoor I believe).

oh that's interesting. a couple miles from me. what's the inmates name if that's not a problem?

T4two wrote:
It's not completely clear just why the police took this action and IMO they should be given the benefit of the doubt in that they must be confident that in doing so they are not compromising the investigation. Of course the police need to work together with the media even if, as you say, only to glean new information, but if it is their belief that it is better to exclude ITV news from the process then that is their call. Whether they have possibly shot themselves in the foot by doing so will become apparent as the investigation proceeds or fails as the case may be. Perhaps it is a good thing to remind the media just who is responsible for running this investigation - they do seem to be a bit too full of their own importance at times.

Equally the same could be said about whoever took the decision to exclude the "press" from a "press" conference because of a bit of oversensitivity. If they had a chance to comment and declined it (even if only to say they were keeping their powder dry for operational reasons) as I said before it is petty in the extreme to then retaliate by means which could actually hinder the possibility of information coming forward. The good thing about our public bodies is that they are there to be criticised without fear of retribution unlike some tin pot dictatorships.

Dimsie wrote:

Angelina wrote:It would seem that no-one knows when or where she died...only supposition at the moment. That said, I don't see how anyone can be sure that the body wasn't in that flat for 1 1/2 - 2 hours, thereby leaving a scent. Unless the Police do actually know more about when/where she was killed than they are admitting, I think taking dogs in would be a good idea.

Yes, I think it would be good to check this out, just in case. I wonder if they've already had the dogs in the cars? They could have done that without anyone knowing. I suppose it's just possible they could have had the dogs in the flats without anyone having seen them go in, though usually they don't keep it secret. It would be very interesting if the dogs are used and do find something - rather an uncomfortable moment for some people.

Tried to give you a rep but have run out!! So sending a virtual one instead. What an interesting situation we'd have if they sent in Martin Grimes with Eddie and Keela and they gave positive indications! Methinks there'd be some considerable squirming going on in certain quarters.

Dimsie wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote: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.

But the body would need to have stayed in the flat (hers or someone else's) for approximately 1½ - 2 hours for the cadaver dog to be able to detect the death scent which is only produced in sufficient quantity after this time. So if someone murdered Jo and took her body away asap and got rid of it, there would be no scent of cadaverine in the flat, car or on the murderer's clothes.

I do know about the timing's of the marking's of the Cadaver dog, but there are other reason's for bringing in a Cadaver dog, if there is no detection of a deceased Person in the Flat, then that mean's Jo was removed soon after she was killed, if there was a marking by the Dog one and a half Hour's to two Hour's after death, then that mean's that the Perpetrator was not worried about anyone walking into the Flat unexpected, and could have known that Jo was on her own that Night, also the Perpetrator could have stayed and not risked being seen if Jo died shortly after she arrived home, the Perpetrator could have waited until later to remove the body, when there would not be so many People about early evening on that Friday Night, and the timeline on the CCTV footage.
I agree about noone noticing a body that lay on side of the Road a kind of pavement, yes it snowed and Jo was covered in snow, but I doubt the Killer laid her down all nice just dumped her...its sad.

I got a red stripe for asking about the Cadaver dog's, I expect it was not about the dogs, but my comment on the McCann's and the Cadaver dogs.

An interview regarding the banning of ITV at the press conference this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/audio/2011/jan/05/david-mannion-itv-news

Chris wrote:Many years ago I happened to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time" (about 200 yards away crossing a road junction) when a murder occurred at about the same time down the other road. It never crossed my mind not to go and make a statement albeit it resulted in being reinterviewed on several occasions as a consequence (hopefully as a potential witness but you never know what the police had in mind!). But then again I guess as I knew and liked the victim it wasn't just "civic duty". (Incidentally as it turned out I also knew the murderer still currently residing in Broadmoor I believe).

I'm glad you turned out to be innocent, Chris!

But yes, it's always good to make the police's job that bit easier, as tracking down and eliminating people takes a lot of time. I've only ever been close to one murder, that of a young policeman in Derry years ago, but as I'd gone into a nearby shopping centre before he was shot I didn't need to be interviewed. I still feel bad about it, though, because we'd chatted briefly (just passing the time of day) before I and the girl with me had gone into the shopping centre and I wonder if we'd stayed talking to him for a few more minutes maybe the gunman would have given up and gone home. Or maybe chatting to us had put him off his guard? I think he was only 21, a local lad, just a horrible thing to happen.

Anyway, it's to be hoped these 2 people in Joanna's case are identified asap. Odds on they were just innocent people on their way home or going out for the evening.

carmen wrote:An interview regarding the banning of ITV at the press conference this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/audio/2011/jan/05/david-mannion-itv-news

Good to see David Mannion agrees with my point about restricting coverage when the police are seeking information.

Dimsie wrote:

Chris wrote:Many years ago I happened to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time" (about 200 yards away crossing a road junction) when a murder occurred at about the same time down the other road. It never crossed my mind not to go and make a statement albeit it resulted in being reinterviewed on several occasions as a consequence (hopefully as a potential witness but you never know what the police had in mind!). But then again I guess as I knew and liked the victim it wasn't just "civic duty". (Incidentally as it turned out I also knew the murderer still currently residing in Broadmoor I believe).

I'm glad you turned out to be innocent, Chris!
But yes, it's always good to make the police's job that bit easier, as tracking down and eliminating people takes a lot of time. I've only ever been close to one murder, that of a young policeman in Derry years ago, but as I'd gone into a nearby shopping centre before he was shot I didn't need to be interviewed. I still feel bad about it, though, because we'd chatted briefly (just passing the time of day) before I and the girl with me had gone into the shopping centre and I wonder if we'd stayed talking to him for a few more minutes maybe the gunman would have given up and gone home. Or maybe chatting to us had put him off his guard? I think he was only 21, a local lad, just a horrible thing to happen.

Anyway, it's to be hoped these 2 people in Joanna's case are identified asap. Odds on they were just innocent people on their way home or going out for the evening.

Not half as glad as I was!

Alpine Aster wrote:
I do know about the timing's of the marking's of the Cadaver dog, but there are other reason's for bringing in a Cadaver dog, if there is no detection of a deceased Person in the Flat, then that mean's Jo was removed soon after she was killed, if there was a marking by the Dog one and a half Hour's to two Hour's after death, then that mean's that the Perpetrator was not worried about anyone walking into the Flat unexpected, and could have known that Jo was on her own that Night, also the Perpetrator could have stayed and not risked being seen if Jo died shortly after she arrived home, the Perpetrator could have waited until later to remove the body, when there would not be so many People about early evening on that Friday Night, and the timeline on the CCTV footage.
I agree about noone noticing a body that lay on side of the Road a kind of pavement, yes it snowed and Jo was covered in snow, but I doubt the Killer laid her down all nice just dumped her...its sad.

I got a red stripe for asking about the Cadaver dog's, I expect it was not about the dogs, but my comment on the McCann's and the Cadaver dogs.

I've no idea why anyone would give you a red stripe for making perfectly valid points both about the dogs and the McCanns, so I've given you a green one.

You're quite right that the absence of cadaver odour would also help the police in their efforts to try to work out what happened and when. The only reason I mentioned the time it takes for the odour to develop is because I was thinking how useful it would be if the murderer knew nothing about cadaver dogs and thus left the body long enough for the scent to be produced, either in Jo's flat or another one, ie this would indicate possibly where she was killed and thus who might be involved. But feeling pessimistic at the time I wrote the post, I thought probably no such luck, the murderer would know about the dogs and how they work and thus probably get rid of the body asap. (I forget that not everyone in the country knows as much about these dogs as we do here.)

It was a good point AspieD, as I said.

Chris wrote:

carmen wrote:An interview regarding the banning of ITV at the press conference this morning:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/audio/2011/jan/05/david-mannion-itv-news

Good to see David Mannion agrees with my point about restricting coverage when the police are seeking information.

But it might stop the idiocy of ITV reporters saying such things as 'But while this investigation has arrested and released one suspect, 10 days in it is still apparently short of evidence.'

Now that is a good example of the naivety of the media. How do they know what evidence the police have or haven't? That's as daft as Team McCann's various pronouncements about the evidence in Madeleine's case. Evidence isn't proof, no matter what some - including the media - seem to think, and the police can have plenty of evidence they can't or won't share with the public. They always need more evidence, of course, but to say 'apparently short of evidence' is ridiculous.

I don't think ITV will be banned for long, probably just from the one press conference. But this little contretemps between the police and the media is interesting, in view of the British media's attitude to the PJ in the Madeleine case. Are we going to see articles in the tabloids laying into the British police the way they did to the PJ? Are specific names going to be mentioned? When will the words 'bungling' and 'discredited' first appear?

Dimsie wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:
I do know about the timing's of the marking's of the Cadaver dog, but there are other reason's for bringing in a Cadaver dog, if there is no detection of a deceased Person in the Flat, then that mean's Jo was removed soon after she was killed, if there was a marking by the Dog one and a half Hour's to two Hour's after death, then that mean's that the Perpetrator was not worried about anyone walking into the Flat unexpected, and could have known that Jo was on her own that Night, also the Perpetrator could have stayed and not risked being seen if Jo died shortly after she arrived home, the Perpetrator could have waited until later to remove the body, when there would not be so many People about early evening on that Friday Night, and the timeline on the CCTV footage.
I agree about noone noticing a body that lay on side of the Road a kind of pavement, yes it snowed and Jo was covered in snow, but I doubt the Killer laid her down all nice just dumped her...its sad.

I got a red stripe for asking about the Cadaver dog's, I expect it was not about the dogs, but my comment on the McCann's and the Cadaver dogs.

I've no idea why anyone would give you a red stripe for making perfectly valid points both about the dogs and the McCanns, so I've given you a green one.

You're quite right that the absence of cadaver odour would also help the police in their efforts to try to work out what happened and when. The only reason I mentioned the time it takes for the odour to develop is because I was thinking how useful it would be if the murderer knew nothing about cadaver dogs and thus left the body long enough for the scent to be produced, either in Jo's flat or another one, ie this would indicate possibly where she was killed and thus who might be involved. But feeling pessimistic at the time I wrote the post, I thought probably no such luck, the murderer would know about the dogs and how they work and thus probably get rid of the body asap. (I forget that not everyone in the country knows as much about these dogs as we do here.)

Thanks Dimsie.
The Police do not know when Jo was killed, or are not saying but often I have heard the word's from the Policeman who is making Statement's to the Press on the Night she died, perhaps they do know but are not revealing that information.
The whole Case is very strange, like it was staged.
I am not saying the BF was involved,but after seeing so many People on TV making plea's and it turn's out in the end that they were the ones all along that were the perpetrator, that has made me a bit cynical.
A Woman from Norfolk way was reported missing near Christmas the Year before last, her BF made appeal's on TV crying etc, she was 22, it turned out he had killed her and he is now in Prison, there has been so many Cases like this, that all along it was someone very close to the victim was indeed the guilty party.

I might get a red stripe for saying it could be someone close to Jo, but who know's who killed this poor Woman, let's hope whoever did this to Jo and took away her Life are caught soon.

Wallflower wrote:It was a good point AspieD, as I said.

Thanks Wallflower.