GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #10

[brownbread]

It's entirely possible that the car owner was questioned as part of the routine investigation before his car was spotted on CCTV going over the bridge.

Yes indeed - in fact on my second reading of the daily mail article that mentioned this whole car-on-bridge thing, this was what I had understood. initially interviewed and eliminated, then the CCTV footage turned up and this changed the direction of the case.

This doesn't discount possibility of REinterviewing the owner and/or driver after the CCTV turned up, and of a reason for the cross-bridge journey being given which was plausible if not wholly satisfactory.

Incidentally I have still seen nothing much to suggest VT doesn't own of have access to a car, other than he has a bicycle. I'm pretty sure the two things aren't mutually exclusive! I think the only evidence to suggest not having a car is the wording of the parents' appeal

 

[MMENJBRIT]

2/3 PEOPLE - HUSHED TONES - WHO TOLD WHAT?

re: Colombo and Philb. (in answer to your posts)

On top of who told what/who saw what, it was also reported that LL also told neighbors, (words to the effect) =oh by the way, best not tell police what I told you about what I saw, may get misconstrued... = what kind of reasoning was going on in his head to even enter into such a discussion? (if indeed this is true). Again (it was reported) that this is what sent one of the neighbors to immediately call the L/E>

 

[Phillb]

2/3 PEOPLE - HUSHED TONES - WHO TOLD WHAT?

re: Colombo and Philb. (in answer to your posts)

On top of who told what/who saw what, it was also reported that LL also told neighbors, (words to the effect) =oh by the way, best not tell police what I told you about what I saw, may get misconstrued... = what kind of reasoning was going on in his head to even enter into such a discussion? (if indeed this is true). Again (it was reported) that this is what sent one of the neighbors to immediately call the L/E>

It really is just paper reports, and second hand words from neighbours, neighbours, and Misses Jones in the corner shop said this.

Take those with a pinch of salt.

Just look at the dirt their capable of digging up regarding the C.J arrest.
Without fact what he said, it's best not to elaborate on hearsay, it only paints false pictures.

JMO.

 

[brownbread]

Well he (C.J) told the Police the truth didn't he under questioning?
So there can't be a shred of truth in these 2/3 people ever existing, or the Police would have wanted to talk to them, if only to eliminate them. The fact that no mention, or such an appeal strongly suggests there never was these 2/3 people.

JMO.

Or more likely the LE easily tallied this sighting with the reported movements of other residents in the block of flats or their legitimate visitors, hence no appeal required?

 

[Robin Hood]

what kind of reasoning was going on in his head to even enter into such a discussion?

It's bizarre isn't it, you just wouldn't.

 

[Lynn R]

That wouldn't stop the police confiscating all his belongings though would it? A killer might dispose of what they were wearing at the time but accidentally transfer the victim's hairs or fibres to their other clothes.

That may explain the red jumper if all his clothes were confiscated!

 

[Chester]

what kind of reasoning was going on in his head to even enter into such a discussion?

It's bizarre isn't it, you just wouldn't.

???

Context, I think I missed the post you are referring to.

 

[happyanne]

What I find really hard to understand is Why, If VT did it, did he return back to the UK? He knew the body had been found, knew he didn't have a solid alibi, knew he'd borrowed someone's car, knew there was CCTV on the bridge. He could have feigned illness or many other excuses to not return.

 

[whiterum]

It's entirely possible that the car owner was questioned as part of the routine investigation before his car was spotted on CCTV going over the bridge.

Good thinking Bees!

 

[Chester]

What I find really hard to understand is Why, If VT did it, did he return back to the UK? He knew the body had been found, knew he didn't have a solid alibi, knew he'd borrowed someone's car, knew there was CCTV on the bridge. He could have feigned illness or many other excuses to not return.

If he had stayed in Holland he might as well have sent a postcard to A&S saying "Having a lovely time, if you hadn't worked it out yet, it was me, love V."

 

[killearn]

What I find really hard to understand is Why, If VT did it, did he return back to the UK? He knew the body had been found, knew he didn't have a solid alibi, knew he'd borrowed someone's car, knew there was CCTV on the bridge. He could have feigned illness or many other excuses to not return.

Maybe Love for TM
His whole life was here

 

[Dr Talent]

Tabak in court ... artist's impression of accused Jo neighbour
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...n-court-over-Jo-murder.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

VT chose to wear a casual jumper and then roll his sleeves up - given the nature of the situation and more typical convention - that is quite a laid back approach.

 

[killearn]

VT chose to wear a casual jumper and then roll his sleeves up - given the nature of the situation and more typical convention - that is quite a laid back approach.

I noted the same with the sleeves.

 

[Chester]

VT chose to wear a casual jumper and then roll his sleeves up - given the nature of the situation and more typical convention - that is quite a laid back approach.

Or it was very warm.

 

[Robin Hood]

???

Context, I think I missed the post you are referring to.

Post 462

 

[Colombo]

One thing though - did CJ actually say he saw 2/3 people? Didn't he say he had been much more vague than that? As far as I can remember the 2/3 people thing was never confirmed? Or maybe I missed it

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...ested-on-suspicion-of-murder-115875-22815694/


But his neighbour Liz Lowman, who lives on the opposite side of the road from Miss Yeates's flat, said yesterday that Mr Jefferies had told her three people were coming out of a communal entrance to the mansion house.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ith-two-people-her-landlord-tells-police.html

Geoffrey Hardyman, 78, who lives in the top floor flat, said: “He [Mr Jefferies] saw people coming out after dark as he was parking his car. I don’t think he was really paying any attention but just assumed they were from Flat 1, Joanna’s flat. He didn’t know if they were male or female.”
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/editor-s-picks/joanna-murder-landlord-held-1.1077202

Neighbour Liz Lowman insists Mr Jefferies told her three people came out of a communal entrance to the house.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Jefferies-searched-bags-evidence-removed.html

Jefferies told only friends and neighbours that he had seen a mystery trio, possibly including Miss Yeates, that night.

On Wednesday, however, he appeared evasive and attempted to contradict reports that he had seen Miss Yeates on the night she was last seen alive.

Officers then approached him for a statement – although they are believed to have spoken to him informally after she was reported missing.

It also emerged that just hours before his arrest Jefferies contacted his neighbours begging them not to repeat what he had told them.

The neighbour added: ‘He rang up last night in a real panic telling us that we shouldn’t say what he said and that it would muddy the waters.
‘He seemed very worried and when I asked why not he got very flustered and quickly ended the call.’



Other residents suggested Jefferies had been very willing to discuss the mystery of Miss Yeates’s disappearance.
One neighbour said: ‘He started coming up to all of us and telling us everything about it.

‘He said he had seen two to three people at the flat. When I asked him if he had told the police – he said not yet.

‘I was shocked and had to ring up the police myself and I was told he was reinterviewed about it.’

 

[Lynn R]

What I find really hard to understand is Why, If VT did it, did he return back to the UK? He knew the body had been found, knew he didn't have a solid alibi, knew he'd borrowed someone's car, knew there was CCTV on the bridge. He could have feigned illness or many other excuses to not return.

Or, maybe, just maybe, he is innocent! Look at the case in Perugia - convictions can be and are frequently made on a combination of circumstantial evidence and flimsy DNA evidence. But seriously if they get this one wrong, heads will roll - I can't believe they would risk it. If so they must really believe its him.

 

[Dr Talent]

For what it is worth - the short clip at the end of the video on The Sun website is of VT hearing that he had been awarded a PHD - posted originally here:

http://qik.com/video/924588

 

[Curious Alice]

and then roll his sleeves up - given the nature of the situation and more typical convention - that is quite a laid back approach.

Yes, perhaps suggests a quiet confidence and self assuredness. Body language experts, what do you think ? Any relevance in this ?

 

[Robin Hood]

If it is VT then I can see why the waters have been muddied. Helps if the timeline can be fudged and moved about to correspond with being out of the country.