jo yeates - Updated:Tabak charged with murder

Dimsie wrote:I don't know what it is about socks, you can have all the pairs in the world and throw them into the washing machine and when they come out there's always at least one, sometimes more, with no match. I swear the washing machine eats them or changes their colour. So yes, Jo could have been wearing slightly different socks; after all, no one sees them with boots so it doesn't really matter.

You know, just thinking of this makes me feel so sad for Jo and her family. Just an ordinary young girl, doing the everyday things everybody does, going to work, having a drink in the pub with colleagues, a little bit of shopping, making plans with a friend, home, maybe feed the cat, have some cider ... and then something happened, though we don't know exactly when or what. But that was the end of all her hopes and dreams, as well as an end to her everyday routine, the end of her parents having a daughter, her brother having a sister, her boyfriend having a girlfriend, even an end for her cat having a woman to fuss over him and love him. All over, for no reason that seems to make sense, just someone with a wish to kill or at least no objection to killing. How can that person live with himself? Isn't he scared to go to sleep at night? Isn't he haunted by what he's done to an innocent girl and to the lives of her loved ones? I suppose what I'm asking is - how could he do it? I couldn't bear to be responsible for ending anyone's life, it would destroy me.

'

Exactly how I feel. How can anyone live with themselves after committing such a dreadful act ? Although, if the perpetrator is mentally ill, then they are not responsible for / may not even be fully aware of what they have done..

I felt sad also when I saw the sock held up by the police as my 21 year-old son has some very similar ski socks. I imagine the one displayed was the one poor Jo was wearing when she died...

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

'

Hi Pennylane. The police said they were keeping an ' open mind' about that, but I expect they just don't want to give too much away. It might explain how a relatively weak person may have managed to kill a fit young woman like Jo and why the perpetrator decided to get rid of it. However, it will be difficult to find. It may already have been destroyed and even if it was just discarded somewhere, what are the chances of it being found ? I hope the case does not rely too much on this evidence turning up..If Melanie Halls' body lay undiscovered by the side of a busy road for so many years, what is the likelihood of a small sock turning up ?

According to the Telegraph, Jefferies expects to be cleared 'imminently' and may sue the police. A close friend of his, who was at Oxford with him, describes him as being of impeccable character..It's interesting to observe how different these reports are from the ones put out by even the respectable papers last week..I'm pretty sure it was the Telegraph that talked of Jefferies's taste for avant guarde violent films and the 'death obsessed' poetry of Christina Rossetti..

Which version to believe ? Probably neither !!

fedrules wrote:According to the Telegraph, Jefferies expects to be cleared 'imminently' and may sue the police. A close friend of his, who was at Oxford with him, describes him as being of impeccable character..It's interesting to observe how different these reports are from the ones put out by even the respectable papers last week..I'm pretty sure it was the Telegraph that talked of Jefferies's taste for avant guarde violent films and the 'death obsessed' poetry of Christina Rossetti..
ing
Which version to believe ? Probably neither !!

I remember thinking, FFS! at the poetry thing as well. I am quite passionate about the music of Piotr Illyich Tchaicovsky, but as far as I know I am not a repressed homosexual, I'm not a drug addict, I don't have a sugar mamma and I have no intention of committing suicide by drinking cholera-infested water.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

fedrules wrote:According to the Telegraph, Jefferies expects to be cleared 'imminently' and may sue the police. A close friend of his, who was at Oxford with him, describes him as being of impeccable character..It's interesting to observe how different these reports are from the ones put out by even the respectable papers last week..I'm pretty sure it was the Telegraph that talked of Jefferies's taste for avant guarde violent films and the 'death obsessed' poetry of Christina Rossetti..
ing
Which version to believe ? Probably neither !!

I remember thinking, FFS! at the poetry thing as well. I am quite passionate about the music of Piotr Illyich Tchaicovsky, but as far as I know I am not a repressed homosexual, I'm not a drug addict, I don't have a sugar mamma and I have no intention of committing suicide by drinking cholera-infested water.

It is interesting isn't it that none of the lurid reporting on the "weirdo" suspect was in anyway deemed by A&S police to hamper their investigation but as soon as ITV news dared to mention any criticism of the investigation itself they respond with a ban. IMO the mass of "it was him wot done it" type reporting across much of the media while Mr J was in custody has far greater potential for damage than pointing out a couple of bottles on a grass verge yet largely goes without official comment from the police themselves. Presumably the mass media effectively concluding "case solved" in no way affected the police's ability to continue with a proper investigation or maybe the police themselves had come to the same premature conclusion. As David Mannion pointed out the police have adequate and proper recourse for any complaint on ITV's reporting if deemed necessary without resort to what must be inappropriate action with a ban particularly when directed at one of 3 principal news broadcasters for getting the police appeals for information across to the public.

I see in the Telegraph that the police have now shown some sense in lifting the ban. No doubt the force making headlines themselves over their actions didn't sit comfortably somewhere up the chain of command.

Dimsie wrote:I don't know what it is about socks, you can have all the pairs in the world and throw them into the washing machine and when they come out there's always at least one, sometimes more, with no match. I swear the washing machine eats them or changes their colour. So yes, Jo could have been wearing slightly different socks; after all, no one sees them with boots so it doesn't really matter.

You know, just thinking of this makes me feel so sad for Jo and her family. Just an ordinary young girl, doing the everyday things everybody does, going to work, having a drink in the pub with colleagues, a little bit of shopping, making plans with a friend, home, maybe feed the cat, have some cider ... and then something happened, though we don't know exactly when or what. But that was the end of all her hopes and dreams, as well as an end to her everyday routine, the end of her parents having a daughter, her brother having a sister, her boyfriend having a girlfriend, even an end for her cat having a woman to fuss over him and love him. All over, for no reason that seems to make sense, just someone with a wish to kill or at least no objection to killing. How can that person live with himself? Isn't he scared to go to sleep at night? Isn't he haunted by what he's done to an innocent girl and to the lives of her loved ones? I suppose what I'm asking is - how could he do it? I couldn't bear to be responsible for ending anyone's life, it would destroy me.

I agree this is what l feel, how dare anyone end someone elses life??

fedrules wrote:According to the Telegraph, Jefferies expects to be cleared 'imminently' and may sue the police. A close friend of his, who was at Oxford with him, describes him as being of impeccable character..It's interesting to observe how different these reports are from the ones put out by even the respectable papers last week..I'm pretty sure it was the Telegraph that talked of Jefferies's taste for avant guarde violent films and the 'death obsessed' poetry of Christina Rossetti..

Which version to believe ? Probably neither !!

And how DARE he!! I'm pretty sure he'd have no grounds to sue the police anyway, they can't drag anyone in for questioning - only those who they want answers from. But maybe, just maybe the Mcs have cast their dark shadow again - and everyone thinks they can sue the police if the police have the temerity to suspect them and haul them in for questioning.

margaret wrote:

Dimsie wrote:I don't know what it is about socks, you can have all the pairs in the world and throw them into the washing machine and when they come out there's always at least one, sometimes more, with no match. I swear the washing machine eats them or changes their colour. So yes, Jo could have been wearing slightly different socks; after all, no one sees them with boots so it doesn't really matter.

You know, just thinking of this makes me feel so sad for Jo and her family. Just an ordinary young girl, doing the everyday things everybody does, going to work, having a drink in the pub with colleagues, a little bit of shopping, making plans with a friend, home, maybe feed the cat, have some cider ... and then something happened, though we don't know exactly when or what. But that was the end of all her hopes and dreams, as well as an end to her everyday routine, the end of her parents having a daughter, her brother having a sister, her boyfriend having a girlfriend, even an end for her cat having a woman to fuss over him and love him. All over, for no reason that seems to make sense, just someone with a wish to kill or at least no objection to killing. How can that person live with himself? Isn't he scared to go to sleep at night? Isn't he haunted by what he's done to an innocent girl and to the lives of her loved ones? I suppose what I'm asking is - how could he do it? I couldn't bear to be responsible for ending anyone's life, it would destroy me.

I agree this is what l feel, how dare anyone end someone elses life??

fedrules wrote:According to the Telegraph, Jefferies expects to be cleared 'imminently' and may sue the police. A close friend of his, who was at Oxford with him, describes him as being of impeccable character..It's interesting to observe how different these reports are from the ones put out by even the respectable papers last week..I'm pretty sure it was the Telegraph that talked of Jefferies's taste for avant guarde violent films and the 'death obsessed' poetry of Christina Rossetti..

Which version to believe ? Probably neither !!

And how DARE he!! I'm pretty sure he'd have no grounds to sue the police anyway, they can't drag anyone in for questioning - only those who they want answers from. But maybe, just maybe the Mcs have cast their dark shadow again - and everyone thinks they can sue the police if the police have the temerity to suspect them and haul them in for questioning.

The police cannot arrest someone without having good grounds for doing so otherwise they can be sued for wrongful arrest.

Updated news on Sky:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Joanna-Yeates-Skys-Crime-Correspondent-Martin-Brunt-Speaks-To-Former-Detective-About-Murder-Case/Article/201101115881245?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Region_1&lid=ARTICLE_15881245_Joanna_Yeates%3A_Skys_Crime_Correspondent_Martin_Brunt_Speaks_To_Former_Detective_About_Murder_Case

T4two wrote:The police cannot arrest someone without having good grounds for doing so otherwise they can be sued for wrongful arrest.

as i suspect may be the case here.

Off course they can arrest sombody if they think this person has something to hide, remember what he said to the police as diff from what he said to the media.....big mistake by him and once again.....a newspaper person prob layed suspicion about him to the police...hmmmmm.



He cant sue the police unless he was treated badly and i doubt he was....did murat sue the PJ...no he didnt....did the mcanns sue the PJ...not yet.


Now, he can sue the newspapers if he can prove that what they wrote is a lie....unless his name is mccann off course..they can sue regardless.

Not true Kitti. In the UK the onus is on the defendant to prove that what they said was justified. And they could not, hence the libel payout.

Marky wrote:

T4two wrote:The police cannot arrest someone without having good grounds for doing so otherwise they can be sued for wrongful arrest.

as i suspect may be the case here.

Which way do you mean? The police went to a magistrate and were granted extra time to question Jeffries, l think they must have had very good grounds for doing so and Jeffries has no basis for suing.

The media are certainly having a feeding frenzy with this case. On Breakfast this morning they were talking to people in the Clifton area. The owner of a bar said that his female staff are too afraid to walk home alone, one girl said that she had fitted extra locks to her doors. The media are making people believe that there is a serial killer out there inside of someone who has to our knowledge killed once. The police have said that women should be aware and not walk in areas alone. That is commonsense advice but the media in general are going to have to take some responsibility in their reporting. They are making out that this is akin to the Yorkshire Ripper where no woman is safe alone out at night. This is not the case. The Ripper killed more than once, this person hasn't as far as we know ( sorry to repeat myself ). It is very sad that this has happened but I do wonder why this case and not any of the other murders which have happened in recent weeks has been given such high priority. It is on every news bulletin every day. There is something definitely not right about the case and it needs to be solved. I feel that people need to get things into perspective. More people are killed and injured by people they know than are by strangers. Odds on that Jo knew her killer, maybe even trusted him/her/them literally with her life. The media should resist from scaring people into thinking that they could be next if they live in the Bristol/Clifton area.

margaret wrote:

Marky wrote:

T4two wrote:The police cannot arrest someone without having good grounds for doing so otherwise they can be sued for wrongful arrest.

as i suspect may be the case here.

Which way do you mean? The police went to a magistrate and were granted extra time to question Jeffries, l think they must have had very good grounds for doing so and Jeffries has no basis for suing.

well, it's being reported that he's considering legal action hence my comment to t4two that i suspect that may be the case here.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

fedrules wrote:According to the Telegraph, Jefferies expects to be cleared 'imminently' and may sue the police. A close friend of his, who was at Oxford with him, describes him as being of impeccable character..It's interesting to observe how different these reports are from the ones put out by even the respectable papers last week..I'm pretty sure it was the Telegraph that talked of Jefferies's taste for avant guarde violent films and the 'death obsessed' poetry of Christina Rossetti..
ing
Which version to believe ? Probably neither !!

I remember thinking, FFS! at the poetry thing as well. I am quite passionate about the music of Piotr Illyich Tchaicovsky, but as far as I know I am not a repressed homosexual, I'm not a drug addict, I don't have a sugar mamma and I have no intention of committing suicide by drinking cholera-infested water.

I used to love Christina Rossetti poetry in my morbid youth. I don't think I have any undiscovered homicidal tendencies either.

Marky wrote:

margaret wrote:

Marky wrote:

T4two wrote:The police cannot arrest someone without having good grounds for doing so otherwise they can be sued for wrongful arrest.

as i suspect may be the case here.

Which way do you mean? The police went to a magistrate and were granted extra time to question Jeffries, l think they must have had very good grounds for doing so and Jeffries has no basis for suing.

well, it's being reported that he's considering legal action hence my comment to t4two that i suspect that may be the case here.

We do not know what evidence the police may have had on which to make the arrest, but the fact remains that being able to sue the police for wrongful arrest is an important civil liberty in a free society. The police are not free to go around arresting people on a whim or I may add, on the sayso of any scruffy little man in a dirty raincoat from the media.

Keela wrote:The media are certainly having a feeding frenzy with this case. On Breakfast this morning they were talking to people in the Clifton area. The owner of a bar said that his female staff are too afraid to walk home alone, one girl said that she had fitted extra locks to her doors. The media are making people believe that there is a serial killer out there inside of someone who has to our knowledge killed once. The police have said that women should be aware and not walk in areas alone. That is commonsense advice but the media in general are going to have to take some responsibility in their reporting. They are making out that this is akin to the Yorkshire Ripper where no woman is safe alone out at night. This is not the case. The Ripper killed more than once, this person hasn't as far as we know ( sorry to repeat myself ). It is very sad that this has happened but I do wonder why this case and not any of the other murders which have happened in recent weeks has been given such high priority. It is on every news bulletin every day. There is something definitely not right about the case and it needs to be solved. I feel that people need to get things into perspective. More people are killed and injured by people they know than are by strangers. Odds on that Jo knew her killer, maybe even trusted him/her/them literally with her life. The media should resist from scaring people into thinking that they could be next if they live in the Bristol/Clifton area.

What you say is very true Keela. It is the media who is whipping up the frenzy of panic in Bristol, not the police. The police have a job to do at the end of the day. I would think the reason they were so interested in Jeffries was because he made comments to the police about seeing Jo with two men outside. Therefore, he flagged himself up as being the last person to see her and then changed his account again. Of course the police had to question him and would have been failing in their duties if they had not. This reminds me of Ian Huntley. Now I am not saying this is anything to do with Jeffries, not in any way am I saying that, but the comparison can be made from the police point of view that anyone who flags themselves up as being the last person to see someone alive has to be questioned. This is what Ian Huntley did. This is why I do not think Robert Murat can be compared to Ian Huntley, because Murat had not flagged himself up as being the last person to see Madeleine alive, he was just helping the police with translations, as he had done on occasions before. However, both Jeffries and Huntley did make statements, they flagged themselves up no doubt about it, imo. However, this is a suing culture we live in. Lawyers jump on board without invitation, no win no fee, and of course if you feel aggrieved by action taken against you, you have nothing to lose at the end of the day. Does Jeffries expect to win any claims he makes? I doubt it. Does Jeffries think this should stop him from trying? I doubt that too.

LJC wrote:

Keela wrote:The media are certainly having a feeding frenzy with this case. On Breakfast this morning they were talking to people in the Clifton area. The owner of a bar said that his female staff are too afraid to walk home alone, one girl said that she had fitted extra locks to her doors. The media are making people believe that there is a serial killer out there inside of someone who has to our knowledge killed once. The police have said that women should be aware and not walk in areas alone. That is commonsense advice but the media in general are going to have to take some responsibility in their reporting. They are making out that this is akin to the Yorkshire Ripper where no woman is safe alone out at night. This is not the case. The Ripper killed more than once, this person hasn't as far as we know ( sorry to repeat myself ). It is very sad that this has happened but I do wonder why this case and not any of the other murders which have happened in recent weeks has been given such high priority. It is on every news bulletin every day. There is something definitely not right about the case and it needs to be solved. I feel that people need to get things into perspective. More people are killed and injured by people they know than are by strangers. Odds on that Jo knew her killer, maybe even trusted him/her/them literally with her life. The media should resist from scaring people into thinking that they could be next if they live in the Bristol/Clifton area.

What you say is very true Keela. It is the media who is whipping up the frenzy of panic in Bristol, not the police. The police have a job to do at the end of the day. I would think the reason they were so interested in Jeffries was because he made comments to the police about seeing Jo with two men outside. Therefore, he flagged himself up as being the last person to see her and then changed his account again. Of course the police had to question him and would have been failing in their duties if they had not. This reminds me of Ian Huntley. Now I am not saying this is anything to do with Jeffries, not in any way am I saying that, but the comparison can be made from the police point of view that anyone who flags themselves up as being the last person to see someone alive has to be questioned. This is what Ian Huntley did. This is why I do not think Robert Murat can be compared to Ian Huntley, because Murat had not flagged himself up as being the last person to see Madeleine alive, he was just helping the police with translations, as he had done on occasions before. However, both Jeffries and Huntley did make statements, they flagged themselves up no doubt about it, imo. However, this is a suing culture we live in. Lawyers jump on board without invitation, no win no fee, and of course if you feel aggrieved by action taken against you, you have nothing to lose at the end of the day. Does Jeffries expect to win any claims he makes? I doubt it. Does Jeffries think this should stop him from trying? I doubt that too.

Agree with your points. The media are the ones doing the whipping up. The police have intimated that women should be careful. This is something they are forever making a point of. Commonsense really. I just wish the media would act in a more responsible manner. The recession was "talked up" to a great extent by the media, they were painting a very black picture. Still whilst we have numpties like Brunty and Keir Simmonds to contend with this is a forlorn hope of any sense of responsibility being displayed.

In Metro it is suggested that she may have popped out to the communal letterboxes:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/851918-was-joanna-yeates-fetching-christmas-cards-when-killer-pounced

Good heavens. Is keir simmonds now 'persona non grata' round here?

What happened? I thought he was a forum hero for breaking the news about the 'Murat v Tanner' case. (whatever happened to that...?

sans_souci wrote:Good heavens. Is keir simmonds now 'persona non grata' round here?

What happened? I thought he was a forum hero for breaking the news about the 'Murat v Tanner' case. (whatever happened to that...?

People found out that he is a complete knob.

He has got all the information at his fingertips ...... and he does f*ck all about it. Has he been got at and told to shut up? I believe he has.

You know YOUR the only hero around here, sans..

Another one. Oh dear. I am sorry. I didn't mean to intrude on private grief.

I don't think the media can be accused of whipping up hysteria to be honest. The BBC has frequently stressed that the police, whilst advising women to take 'normal' safety precautions, have discovered nothing to suggest that a serial killer is at work. Of course, there are always those who will overreact to stories like this one, in the same way as one of my brother's neighbours said they would never go to Portugal because of Maddie's 'abduction'. As the police seem to be giving out a lot of mixed messages at the moment, I can understand why young women feel scared to walk home alone. It's not very reassuring to be told that Jo's killer(s) is / are still at large, even though they are also telling people that a lot may hinge on forensic tests..which kind of suggests they know who killed Jo. There is much public interest in this case which is why the media responds by milking it as much as possible.

I think the fact that Jo was such an ordinary, pretty, likeable girl whose parents made their desperate appeal just before Christmas, has meant the story has struck a chord with the public. The sad discovery of her body on Christmas Day, as luckier families gathered to celebrate together, has added to this feeling.

Midas wrote:

sans_souci wrote:Good heavens. Is keir simmonds now 'persona non grata' round here?

What happened? I thought he was a forum hero for breaking the news about the 'Murat v Tanner' case. (whatever happened to that...?

People found out that he is a complete knob.

He has got all the information at his fingertips ...... and he does f*ck all about it. Has he been got at and told to shut up? I believe he has.

The Sun: ITN was banned from a police press conference on Jo yesterday after cops accused the news organisation of irresponsible "inaccuracies" in its News At Ten report on Tuesday night. But it will be welcome at future conferences after a "more measured" report yesterday lunchtime.

Par for the course