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

[gotaloton]

My mind is boggled at to why a man who by all reports is a very nice man, everyone who knows him insists he is not the killer. He is successful. He has a girlfriend. So how has this man ended up killing his neighbour whom he had apparently no contact with!!

I do wonder about the reports which say he and his girlfriend had split up and now a report is saying she was at a party 30 miles away the night Joanna went missing. I think he bumped into Joanna and got chatting about Christmas. He maybe got a bit upset that they had broken up or that she was at this party without him. She comforted him but he took it the wrong way and pushed his luck, she rejects him and he snaps.

He's innocent until proven to be guilty.

 

[Nausicaa]

He's innocent until proven to be guilty.

Would it not be more accurate to state the rule as follows ?

The murderer, whoever he is, became guilty at the very moment he took Joanna's life. Like everyone else, he will be legally presumed innocent until the contrary has been proved. To say (write) as a fact, at the present time, that Mr VT is guilty, would be contempt of court (even if he is later found guilty) and potentially libellous (if he is found not guilty). To hypothesise on a cyber sleuth forum, where even the most outragous hypotheses are expressed and tolerated, about how, if guilty, he might have carried out what he may have done, probably isn't contempt of court or potentially libellous, provided it is clear that one is hypothesising. To say that Mr VT is innocent, is certainly not illegal, but may perhaps turn out to be false in fact. The legalities as to contempt of court when statements are posted on internet forums hosted outside the relevant jurisdiction remain somewhat obscure.

The above is my understanding, but open to correction by those better informed than I am.

 

[kemo]

The press accounts are muddled with contradiction, misinformation and conjectures written as fact yet from what I can gleam:

In the morning hours of Sat Dec 18, "a few hours" after Jo vanished, a vehicle believed to have been driven by VT and containing the body of Jo was recorded by the CCTV cams crossing the suspension bridge. It had been snowing lightly and continued to snow all night.

This would suggest that the car question crossed in the "wee hours" i.e. perhaps 12-3 AM. In light of the bad weather, I would guess very few vehicles crossed during those hours. Certainly every registered owner (whose tags could be read) were contacted and asked to account for themselves that night. Presumably all but one would have had an explanation that could be verified. Probably the most common account would be "driving home to the eastern suburbs from a social engagement in Bristol". I would expect anyone who LIVED in the vicinity of Clifton would raise an eyebrow since they would be driving away from home at an odd hour during a bad time for driving. If that person were the immediate neighbor of Jo, it should have set of bells and whistles. If the owner reported that they had lent the car to a neighbor of Jo's; the same reaction.

For this reason, giving the police the benefit of any doubt, the owner of the vehicle must have managed to give a very convincing lie. If VT owned the vehicle (which I doubt), he must have worked out something very good. Possibly, VT asked the owner to lie for him on the pretence that "he had nothing to do with the crime but he was afraid that 'involvement' might jeopardize his job, get him deported, whatever.
It is also possible that it took a while to locate the owner; because she was in Chile or something. It should all come out soon enough.

I don't have a clear idea how visible the body was but 5 inches of snow could probably conceal a body pretty well. It is very likely that it was "dumped" that night and not discovered until the snow had melted some.

It is unusual but not unprecedented that an otherwise respectable, law abiding type would do a murder like this. I really hope they aren't jumping into this to fast (like they did with CJ).

 

[Robin Hood]

Quote Kemo

''For this reason, giving the police the benefit of any doubt, the owner of the vehicle must have managed to give a very convincing lie. If VT owned the vehicle (which I doubt), he must have worked out something very good. Possibly, VT asked the owner to lie for him on the pretence that "he had nothing to do with the crime but he was afraid that 'involvement' might jeopardize his job, get him deported, whatever''.

IMO you are right on this quote. However I think the car owner was CJ who was taken in due to his car reg being caught on CCTV. I strongly believe he denied lending out the car truly believing the person who 'borrowed' it to be innocent. That is why I think he is still being kept on bail having mis-led the investigation.

 

[little_miss_smart]

Of course, I should've added in my post "if it's him", you are right, he is innocent until proven guilty but at this stage he is the one and only person charged with her murder. I feel more comfortable pointing the finger at the man charged with her murder than someone who has not been charged with her murder.

 

[Pisces Cloud]

Quote Kemo

''For this reason, giving the police the benefit of any doubt, the owner of the vehicle must have managed to give a very convincing lie. If VT owned the vehicle (which I doubt), he must have worked out something very good. Possibly, VT asked the owner to lie for him on the pretence that "he had nothing to do with the crime but he was afraid that 'involvement' might jeopardize his job, get him deported, whatever''.

IMO you are right on this quote. However I think the car owner was CJ who was taken in due to his car reg being caught on CCTV. I strongly believe he denied lending out the car truly believing the person who 'borrowed' it to be innocent. That is why I think he is still being kept on bail having mis-led the investigation.

If his car's been caught on CCTV how do we know that he wasn't driving it?

 

[killearn]

Quote Kemo

''For this reason, giving the police the benefit of any doubt, the owner of the vehicle must have managed to give a very convincing lie. If VT owned the vehicle (which I doubt), he must have worked out something very good. Possibly, VT asked the owner to lie for him on the pretence that "he had nothing to do with the crime but he was afraid that 'involvement' might jeopardize his job, get him deported, whatever''.

IMO you are right on this quote. However I think the car owner was CJ who was taken in due to his car reg being caught on CCTV. I strongly believe he denied lending out the car truly believing the person who 'borrowed' it to be innocent. That is why I think he is still being kept on bail having mis-led the investigation.

All assuming VT can drive and have a driving licence that is ?
Hello folks..

 

[Trio]

The press accounts are muddled with contradiction, misinformation and conjectures written as fact yet from what I can gleam:

In the morning hours of Sat Dec 18, "a few hours" after Jo vanished, a vehicle believed to have been driven by VT and containing the body of Jo was recorded by the CCTV cams crossing the suspension bridge. It had been snowing lightly and continued to snow all night.

This would suggest that the car question crossed in the "wee hours" i.e. perhaps 12-3 AM. In light of the bad weather, I would guess very few vehicles crossed during those hours. Certainly every registered owner (whose tags could be read) were contacted and asked to account for themselves that night. Presumably all but one would have had an explanation that could be verified. Probably the most common account would be "driving home to the eastern suburbs from a social engagement in Bristol". I would expect anyone who LIVED in the vicinity of Clifton would raise an eyebrow since they would be driving away from home at an odd hour during a bad time for driving. If that person were the immediate neighbor of Jo, it should have set of bells and whistles. If the owner reported that they had lent the car to a neighbor of Jo's; the same reaction.

For this reason, giving the police the benefit of any doubt, the owner of the vehicle must have managed to give a very convincing lie. If VT owned the vehicle (which I doubt), he must have worked out something very good. Possibly, VT asked the owner to lie for him on the pretence that "he had nothing to do with the crime but he was afraid that 'involvement' might jeopardize his job, get him deported, whatever.
It is also possible that it took a while to locate the owner; because she was in Chile or something. It should all come out soon enough.

I don't have a clear idea how visible the body was but 5 inches of snow could probably conceal a body pretty well. It is very likely that it was "dumped" that night and not discovered until the snow had melted some.

It is unusual but not unprecedented that an otherwise respectable, law abiding type would do a murder like this. I really hope they aren't jumping into this to fast (like they did with CJ).

A good Post, but I do not agree with the last your last Paragraph.

Murderer's do come from all walk's of life, not just low life's commit murder, sometimes People just snap.
I am not saying VT is guilty, but it look's that way,the LE must have substantial evidence, to get the CPS to allow the LE to charge VT with murder.
VT may have confessed that has to be taken in account in this Case.

 

[Robin Hood]

If his car's been caught ot CCTV how do we know that he wasn't driving it?

Because I think after he was kept overnight in the police station he gave a water tight alibi to disposal. However how far that would go depends again IMO how much he was involved with said 'disposal'. Like everybody else I'm trying to give an explanation to the CCTV.

 

[brownbread]

Quote Kemo

''For this reason, giving the police the benefit of any doubt, the owner of the vehicle must have managed to give a very convincing lie. If VT owned the vehicle (which I doubt), he must have worked out something very good. Possibly, VT asked the owner to lie for him on the pretence that "he had nothing to do with the crime but he was afraid that 'involvement' might jeopardize his job, get him deported, whatever''.

IMO you are right on this quote. However I think the car owner was CJ who was taken in due to his car reg being caught on CCTV. I strongly believe he denied lending out the car truly believing the person who 'borrowed' it to be innocent. That is why I think he is still being kept on bail having mis-led the investigation.

Hypothetically if this was the case, why on earth would CJ maintain this pretence under 3 days of questioning by the police whilst under arrest suspected of murder? All the while his personal reputation being shredded by the press. That would be some impressive loyalty to a lodger, and for what?

 

[Robin Hood]

All assuming VT can drive and have a driving licence that is ?
Hello folks..

Maybe thats why the 'lender' of the car kept their head down, would be a criminal offence to knowingly lend a vehicle to somebody when you knew that they didn't hold an appropriate licence.

 

[Robin Hood]

Hypothetically if this was the case, why on earth would CJ maintain this pretence under 3 days of questioning by the police whilst under arrest suspected of murder? All the while his personal reputation being shredded by the press. That would be some impressive loyalty to a lodger, and for what?

Maybe within 30 mins he had decided to tell he lent out the car, the next 3 days were spent checking everything out. I really don't know.

 

[loudoniii]

Maybe thats why the 'lender' of the car kept their head down, would be a criminal offence to knowingly lend a vehicle to somebody when you knew that they didn't hold an appropriate licence.

His CV says "Driving licence B (passenger car)".

 

[Robin Hood]

His CV says "Driving licence B (passenger car)".

Maybe no adequate insurance and the law abiding neighbour knew. Old Volvo, IMO 3rd party insurance and not fully comp to allow any driver. Again I'm just guessing.

 

[naturally suspicious]

it will be interesting to see if the police completely clear the landlord....as he says they must and will..... but if it were his car going over the bridge at night then he definitely won't be, whatever he says.

what do we know about dna reg vincent....have the investigations got any further than "partial".?

 

[brownbread]

Is there anything concrete to suggest either than VT didn't have his own car, or at least have easy access to a car owned by his GF? Or is the car lending hypothesis just arisen due to the wording of the parents' appeal?

 

[Pisces Cloud]

Hypothetically if this was the case, why on earth would CJ maintain this pretence under 3 days of questioning by the police whilst under arrest suspected of murder? All the while his personal reputation being shredded by the press. That would be some impressive loyalty to a lodger, and for what?

I have seen mentioned somewhere that the LL could be on his way to being charged with perverting the course of justice and that's why he's still on bail. Although, I think anyone would have coughed up straight away if their car was spotted on CCTV during a murder investigation and they weren't driving it.

 

[Robin Hood]

I have seen mentioned somewhere that the LL could be on his way to being charged with perverting the course of justice and that's why he's still on bail. Although, I think anyone would have coughed up straight away if their car was spotted on CCTV during a murder investigation and they weren't driving it.

I think in passing he said it wasn't lent out but once in the cop shop he would have told.

 

[goldielox]

Maybe thats why the 'lender' of the car kept their head down, would be a criminal offence to knowingly lend a vehicle to somebody when you knew that they didn't hold an appropriate licence.

I was thinking on the same lines earlier, except I was thinking perhaps he wasn't insured to drive the car. That could influence someone who'd let him drive their car not to ring the police, or at least initially. They may not have suspected the NUA, not until the LL was released and the parents' appeal followed.

 

[Pisces Cloud]

Because I think after he was kept overnight in the police station he gave a water tight alibi to disposal. However how far that would go depends again IMO how much he was involved with said 'disposal'. Like everybody else I'm trying to give an explanation to the CCTV.

We know he was faffing around outside the building at about 9pm and so it would be interesting to learn what his alibi is after that.