jo yeates - Updated:Tabak charged with murder

fedrules wrote: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.

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

kitti wrote:

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

Still waiting for a reply regarding people being found years down the line after cadaver dogs detecting death where they were last seen.


Also you still haven't given evidence that the mccanns paid their mortgage payments back into the so called fund.

kitti wrote:

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

Still waiting for a reply regarding people being found years down the line after cadaver dogs detecting death where they were last seen.


Also you still haven't given evidence that the mccanns paid their mortgage payments back into the so called fund.

sans_souci wrote:Thank you Chris.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

Alpine Aster wrote:

sans_souci wrote:Thank you Chris.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.
I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.
If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

Chris wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

sans_souci wrote:Thank you Chris.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.
I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.
If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

The Famous Grouse wrote:

kitti wrote:

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

Still waiting for a reply regarding people being found years down the line after cadaver dogs detecting death where they were last seen.


Also you still haven't given evidence that the mccanns paid their mortgage payments back into the so called fund.

Or what That Gesture, apparently known only to male medics and male doctors, really means.

Alpine Aster wrote:

sans_souci wrote:Thank you Chris.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.
I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.
If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

SUSPECT CHRIS JEFFERIES HAD NAME ‘BLACKENED’ CLAIM LAWYERS
Thursday January 6,2011
By John Chapman

MURDER suspect Chris Jefferies has had his name “blackened” and “privacy invaded”, it has been claimed.
Lawyers representing the former Clifton College teacher, 65, said they were “extremely concerned” about how he had been portrayed in the media.

They claimed his right to a fair trial may be “ultimately prejudiced” by reports into his character and background.Rhys Mardon, of London-based Stokoe Partnership, who acted on Mr Jefferies’ behalf during interviews with detectives, said information from potential witnesses had been published.

He said: “We are extremely concerned about how our client is being portrayed in the media, and how material of potential relevance to the investigation has been published.

“His name has been blackened and his privacy invaded. This may ultimately prejudice his right to, and any prospect of, a fair trial.”

Mr Jefferies, who is vice-chairman of his local Neighbourhood Watch, was arrested at his home last Thursday on suspicion of murder. He was released on bail pending further inquiries after three days of questioning at Trinity Road police station in Bristol.

He is currently on police bail and believed to be staying in Bath.

Friends say he is distressed over the accusation and will seek “massive damages” for wrongful arrest.

Retired Mr Jefferies’ house was forensically examined by police and two cars – a Chrysler and a Volvo originally thought to belong to him – were towed away from the street outside the flats.

But it emerged yesterday that he was looking after the silver Chrysler Neon LX for Irving Steggles, 65, a church minister in South Africa.

Retired classics master Geoffrey Hardyman, 78, a friend of Mr Jefferies for 40 years, said: “No one has heard from Chris since police released him. We don’t know when he might be back.”


Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/221403/Suspect-Chris-Jefferies-had-name-blackened-claim-lawyersSuspect-Chris-Jefferies-had-name-blackened-claim-lawyers#ixzz1AHib30ew

Alpine Aster wrote:

Chris wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

sans_souci wrote:Thank you Chris.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.
I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.
If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.
I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Chris wrote:

kitti wrote:

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

Still waiting for a reply regarding people being found years down the line after cadaver dogs detecting death where they were last seen.


Also you still haven't given evidence that the mccanns paid their mortgage payments back into the so called fund.

In fairness I think SS did answer the latter point by trying to argue that by foregoing a personal payment in favour of a fund payment by the Express (not that it was ever confirmed a personal payment was on the cards) the mortagage payments should be somehow deemed to be repaid. (No doubt he will correct me if that is not what he said or if my shorthand falls short of his explanation).

Of course it was a totally spurious argument.

SkyNewsBreak

The Sun newspaper is offering a £50,000 reward in connection with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

sans_souci wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

Chris wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

sans_souci wrote:Thank you Chris.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.
I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.
If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.
I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Jesus wept. Some people take themselves So seriously!

AA - go and have a look at Chris' post on page 68 of this thread. In it he used the word spurious in relation to my post. I used it back in a similar context. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

So stop running round like a virgin at an orgy, getting your knickers in a twist.

Lioned wrote:Several of the tabloids seem to be leading again in tomorrows papers with what look mostly like 'nothing' stories.Sun putting up 50k reward and the Star think they have someone who knows who done it (well they would wouldnt they).

Sandi wrote:Seems Mr Jeffries already has contacted solicitors over it and there is mention of not a fair trial if he is charged.

SUSPECT CHRIS JEFFERIES HAD NAME ‘BLACKENED’ CLAIM LAWYERS
Thursday January 6,2011
By John Chapman

MURDER suspect Chris Jefferies has had his name “blackened” and “privacy invaded”, it has been claimed.
Lawyers representing the former Clifton College teacher, 65, said they were “extremely concerned” about how he had been portrayed in the media.

They claimed his right to a fair trial may be “ultimately prejudiced” by reports into his character and background.Rhys Mardon, of London-based Stokoe Partnership, who acted on Mr Jefferies’ behalf during interviews with detectives, said information from potential witnesses had been published.

He said: “We are extremely concerned about how our client is being portrayed in the media, and how material of potential relevance to the investigation has been published.

“His name has been blackened and his privacy invaded. This may ultimately prejudice his right to, and any prospect of, a fair trial.”

Mr Jefferies, who is vice-chairman of his local Neighbourhood Watch, was arrested at his home last Thursday on suspicion of murder. He was released on bail pending further inquiries after three days of questioning at Trinity Road police station in Bristol.

He is currently on police bail and believed to be staying in Bath.

Friends say he is distressed over the accusation and will seek “massive damages” for wrongful arrest.

Retired Mr Jefferies’ house was forensically examined by police and two cars – a Chrysler and a Volvo originally thought to belong to him – were towed away from the street outside the flats.

But it emerged yesterday that he was looking after the silver Chrysler Neon LX for Irving Steggles, 65, a church minister in South Africa.

Retired classics master Geoffrey Hardyman, 78, a friend of Mr Jefferies for 40 years, said: “No one has heard from Chris since police released him. We don’t know when he might be back.”


Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/221403/Suspect-Chris-Jefferies-had-name-blackened-claim-lawyersSuspect-Chris-Jefferies-had-name-blackened-claim-lawyers#ixzz1AHib30ew

sans_souci wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

Chris wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

sans_souci wrote:Thank you Chris.

Mind you, if it is spurious, it is in very good company on this forum......

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.
I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.
If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.
I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Jesus wept. Some people take themselves So seriously!

AA - go and have a look at Chris' post on page 68 of this thread. In it he used the word spurious in relation to my post. I used it back in a similar context. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

So stop running round like a virgin at an orgy, getting your knickers in a twist.

dazedandconfused wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

Chris wrote:

Alpine Aster wrote:

So you are saying that Member's here are not genuine then Sans!?.
I notice this Thread has gone away slightly now from Jo Yeates, and its gone on to little dig's.
If we the Members here are so beneath you with their opinion's why bother to come here? but you like to goad?, come on tell the truth!.

I would like to point out that stating that SS's argument was spurious was not a little dig but a statement of fact.

I was quoting what San's said in his Post!, not your Post, San's used the word spurious in his Post, and that it was in good company on this Forum, by San's saying spurious was in good company on this Forum, mean's San's does think that the Member's here are not genuine, San's did not have to say that did he.
I do not come here to row with anyone, I never have, but if I feel someone is having a go at the Member's here of which I am one then I will speak my mind.

Jesus wept. Some people take themselves So seriously!

AA - go and have a look at Chris' post on page 68 of this thread. In it he used the word spurious in relation to my post. I used it back in a similar context. IT WAS A JOKE!!!!

So stop running round like a virgin at an orgy, getting your knickers in a twist.

Sans - I'm sure you are going for a record number of red stripes and you're very close to 200, so I've given you a green one, just to keep you away from your target for a while. Also unusual to read any of your posts which almost make me smile, but that one did.