jo yeates

Alpine Aster wrote:

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.

Totally agree, I bet it is either a work collegue or a close friend who murdered her.

Chris wrote:

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.

Disagree and I note that it is ITV News who were banned and that it is Kier Simmonds who is in charge of ITV News. The same Kier Simmonds incidently who regards people on fora such as this as Internet scum. Let the banning of ITV be a warning to all the media to behave a bit more responsibly in future. This action has certainly restored my faith in the police in this case who initially gave me the impression of being a bit too close to the media or 'media savvy' as it was once so famously described. I'm afraid no number of articles of the media interviewing the media is going to alter my view.

A sock would seem to be a peculiar trophy so I tend to think it came off during the transportation of Jo's body. Maybe Jo's boots were removed so that it was quieter when she was dragged along the floor or perhaps she simply took them off when she got home...

It doesn't seem so odd that 2 people were behind Jo on a Friday night, unless it was a really quiet street.

I think we can't really speculate about the BF's involvement when we don't know if he tried to phone Jo, what time his calls were and from where.I think the police have certainly verified this and are satisfied.

I still tend to think Jo knew her killer, but maybe someone rang the bell and, being a trusting person, she opened the door and they forced their way in. However, what would the motive for this be if nothing was stolen ? It could be that Jo had no money in her purse after her purchases and the evening at the pub and someone killed her in rage ( for example a drug addict...). However, you have to wonder why such an opportunist would bother moving Jo's body from her flat..?

http://www.channel4.com/news/police-search-for-joanna-yeates-missing-socks


At Wednesday's press conference by Avon and Somerset police, a TV crew from ITN was told it was not welcome. Channel 4 News Chief Correspondent Alex Thomson blogs on a "peculier" situation:

Extraordinary goings-on in Bristol where a British police force decided to exclude a team from ITV News on the basis that they did not like their last report. Clearly, if we are moving along the road to a place where the police decide they will only take questions from "trusted" reporters - then we are heading for a very bad ploace indeed.

ITV News is part of ITN which produces Channel 4 News among other programmes. So, interest duly declared - what happened? It seems Avon and Somerset police have objected to an item on ITV News at Ten last night by Geraint Vincent.

In that report a former murder squad detective was taken to where the body was found. He made some criticisms of the police investigation. He suggested pieces of litter possibly covered with DNA had not been picked up - although they could have been dropped after the event ten days ago.

But this morning, ITV roll up to the presser in Bristol, only to be denied entry. The police explained this very rare action in the following way:

"We have made a complaint to Ofcom in respect of the unfair, naïve and irresponsible reporting on the ITN ten o'clock news yesterday evening.

"As we are still awaiting a response to our complaint it would be inappropriate for us to comment any further at this time.

"A live murder investigation has been under way now for just twelve days and the media have played an important role in helping us to appeal for witnesses. While we appreciate the support we have received so far from most of the media we must step in if we feel coverage will hamper the investigation. Our primary aim will always be to secure justice for Joanna."

I make no judgement at all about last night's report. But surely nor should the police. Their business is to solve a terrible murder and it's hard to see how diverting energy into the distraction of media censorship will further that paramount aim.

I followed the Raoul Moat business last year and Northumbria police complained long and hard about some aspects of the reporting of that case. But they never, ever, contemplated anything like this.

So is there something peculiar about Avon and Somerset police force? Well the evidence suggests there might be.

Back in 2007 the same force held a briefing for the media which revealed that the police would be exhuming the bodies of former residents at the Parkfields care home who were suspected of having been poisoned by the home's owners.

Freelance journalist Simon Trump found himself uninvited to this event. He'd been covering the story closely for some time.

When Trump, a former national newspaper journalist of 12 years who worked for the Sunday Times and Today, contacted them he was told he was not invited.

A press officer told him that only journalists who the police have a special working relationship with and could trust were invited.

So it seems we have a police force here that does believe in censoring any media outlets with whose coverage it disagrees or with whom it feels it does not have a working relationship. Other forces will be watching closely.

Because the police of course have one major thing in common with the media - given a proverbial inch, they will happily take a country mile. If other chief constables see that Bristol and Avon can get away with this - rest assured they will all be at it.

fred wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

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.

Totally agree, I bet it is either a work collegue or a close friend who murdered her.

OOpps red striped as well. huh! Shame!

Alpine Astor...I also didn't think your post warranted a red stripe so I gave you a + as I think using dogs is a good move.

They are useful for several different types of work.

whatsupdoc wrote:Alpine Astor...I also didn't think your post warranted a red stripe so I gave you a + as I think using dogs is a good move.

They are useful for several different types of work.

Dogs are fantastic, how people can dispute them is a mystery. I once worked as a student at a post sorting centre, (Christmas help) they had dogs, sniffing drugs on the conveyer belt for drugs in parcels, letters etc they were lively creatures full of joy, but boy when they got the sniff, the noise!!! They used to run up and down, it was a huge game to them. I was only there a week it was hard work, but good.

On the daily mail article they have a photo of a man handing police the other sock shortly after the press conference. Fallen off is the most likely option.

One thing of note is why the media are awash with stories about asian sex (specifically pakistani muslim) gangs at the moment?

Any connection do you think and perhaps they are trying to desensitise the public to the possibility so there isnt racial uproar if this turned out to be the case.

Nb if you goto www.thisisbristol.co.uk most of the sex assaults on there are done by asians.

Double post

This Guardian article explains the police use of the media exceptionally well. It helps one to understand how the police use the media and why if a conflict of interest arises with a particular media outlet, it may be perceived as necessary to exclude that media outlet from receiving critical information in order to safeguard the investigation. It's a very fine line but at the end of the day it's the police who have the responsibility of solving the crime.

Joanna Yeates murder: How media appeals can help the police
Former head of Scotland Yard's homicide command explains key ways in which appeals can shape investigations
Tarique Ghaffur says Avon and Somerset police have done well to walk the public through the police procedure.
When Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones sat before the media today, every message he gave had been carefully crafted.
The aim was not just to update the public on the murder of Joanna Yeates but also to help the investigation gain new evidence and develop lines of inquiry.
Police have become adept at using the media in high-profile cases, says Tarique Ghaffur, a former head of Scotland Yard's homicide command who went on to establish the specialist crime directorate.
Ghaffur says the senior investigating officer sets the parameters of the inquiry, with media messages and press conferences shaped to fit.
Past cases have shown that there are three key ways by which media appeals help the police.
The first is a straightforward appeal for witnesses. The second is when police want to rule in, or out, of their investigation someone close to the victim.
"If you have a suspect, you can put them before the media and put the person on public view to see if their behaviour seems normal," Ghaffur says. "A psychologist can help you do this. Behavioural science is becoming quite important."
The third way media appeals help is by monitoring the reaction of a suspect to the release of information by police. Does their reaction seem normal, do they even start to make admissions?
Ghaffur says: "Giving lots of detail adds pressure on a suspect. Avon and Somerset [police] … have introduced the senior investigating officer, giving more facts about the supermarket receipts and other details. It helps close the net."
The public often needs reassurance in such high-profile cases, he says, adding: "There is public anxiety … in a few days time, daughters will be going to new year parties. The public wants to know that someone is in control, that there is hands-on leadership on the ground."
Ghaffur says Avon and Somerset police have done well to walk the public through police procedure, explaining why postmortems need time, about identification of the body, and why preserving the scene is so important.

http://tiny.cc/y9nn4

whatsupdoc wrote:Alpine Astor...I also didn't think your post warranted a red stripe so I gave you a + as I think using dogs is a good move.

They are useful for several different types of work.

Thanks Doc .
I don't think it was about using the Dog's I got the red stripe, but what I said about the McCann's.
Using a Cadaver dog would give the Police some pointer's to a timeline perhap's, as to if Jo was removed soon after her death or at a later time from the Flat after her demise, that is if Jo met her demise on the Friday Night!?, and if Jo's demise took place in her Flat, also the Area around her Flat the Cadaver dog could be used on the Drive way and the gate Area to see if Jo was carried or dragged in that Area and into a vehicle, because Jo was not carried three Miles.
Its a strange Case.

Alpine Aster wrote:
Thanks Doc .
I don't think it was about using the Dog's I got the red stripe, but what I said about the McCann's.
Using a Cadaver dog would give the Police some pointer's to a timeline perhap's

I think certain keywords annoy certain people. You mentioned CADAVER DOGS and McCANNS

Is the missing sock thought to be what was used to strangle Jo with?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344276/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Strangled-sock.html

Joanna Yeates could have been strangled with her own sock and the killer might have kept it as a macabre trophy.
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones today said the missing sock may hold the key to solving the murder of the architect whose body was found dumped by a roadside in Bristol on Christmas Day.
And police are refusing to rule out the theory that the 25-year-old's killer may have used the sock to murder Miss Yeates.
------------
After the press conference, a man approached officers at the couple's flat and handed them a dark-coloured sock.
The man, who had white hair and was wearing a black and khaki-coloured jacket, put the sock he was carrying in an evidence bag presented to him by police.
Strangled: Jo Yeates's body was found in a country lane near Bristol on Christmas Day
Following his conversation with officers by the side of the building, he left the premises via the front gate, telling the waiting media only that he had been told not to say anything.

He was then escorted away by a police officer.

pennylane wrote:Is the missing sock thought to be what was used to strangle Jo with?

considered to be a possibility

the sock in the pic I posted previously looks darker than the one on the police appeal, but maybe because it is wet/muddy?

Thank you for your replies ann chovey and Badboy.

margaret wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:
Thanks Doc .
I don't think it was about using the Dog's I got the red stripe, but what I said about the McCann's.
Using a Cadaver dog would give the Police some pointer's to a timeline perhap's

I think certain keywords annoy certain people. You mentioned CADAVER DOGS and McCANNS

That could well be Margaret .

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.

Taking the dogs in would prove a point too........if the cadaver dog smelt a dead body in the flat then that would whittle the suspects down to TWO.............whoever had a key and whoever knew that KNOWONE would be entering the flat WITHOUT a key for TWO days......enough time to go away and come back after figuring out where to hide the body!

Why the hell are people handing in old socks!!



I mean, does a BLACK sock look like a GREY sock or is he colour blind.

kitti wrote:Why the hell are people handing in old socks!!



I mean, does a BLACK sock look like a GREY sock or is he colour blind.

could be covered in mud?

My heart goes out to Joanna's family, her life was cut too short and I hope the police catch the person responsible.

I've been following this thread since the beginning of this case and I enjoy reading everyones thoughts on it, up to now I haven't commented.

What has made me comment now is the article in the Daily Mail about the sock being handed in. Are they hinting that it's the landlord who handed the sock in?

I am with many of you on this. I don't think it's the landlord, I would be amazed if he is involved. I am also in agreement with some of you that the boyfriend not getting any response from Joanna for the entire weekend and him not showing concern is a little strange. I have never really felt the need for a mobile phone, my husband doesn't use one either so I am not saying they should've been in contact with one another 24/7. But the fact that he tried to contact her over the course of the weekend without response and the fact he did not alert the police for 4 hours after his return to the flat certainly makes me raise an eyebrow. Having said that I don't believe it's the boyfriend, I just find the whole case rather odd.

ETA: I think the sock could be wet, making it appear much darker than it actually is.

Loooks like some old mans black sock.


Suppose the police will be unindated with dirty socks now!

No sock has been handed in, the sock given to the police at the gate is a black sock that was found.



Jo had one sock on when found and they need to find the other sock and are insinuating that the murderer took it either by mistake or intentionally.

pennylane wrote:Is the missing sock thought to be what was used to strangle Jo with?

It could be, the perpetrator may have kept the sock because his DNA could have transferred to the sock, if gloves were worn then fibres from the gloves could have transferred to the sock, or if bare hand's were used with the sock then skin, sweat, DNA could be detectable by FSS giving his DNA profile to the FSS.