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

[Lynn R]

It was VT's sister, it was report as a direct quote in the Daily Mail amongst other papers. I can think of no reason why a paper would attribute a direct quote to someone that they had made up, unless they really wanted to pay out large amounts of money in compensation.

Ah - ok. Then all the more reason to doubt the sobbing girl story surely?!

 

[Redgoblin]

About the jumper perhaps he's trying to indicate something, 'Hey look I'm a target, bullseye' or perhaps he just likes the colour red?

 

[Lynn R]

Ah - ok. Then all the more reason to doubt the sobbing girl story surely?!

Ah I stand corrected this was in the mail too.

 

[Curious Alice]

One Person with Access to every Flat at Cannynge Rd:

I cannot help think that a myriad of possible scenarios could exist regarding this murder case.

If the owner of the apartment block had access to enter all apartments, couldn't that person also have access to spare sets of car keys, therefore cars and who knows what?

This is not the case. Nobody owns all the properties within the building. Records published early on show that CJ owns two (or three, can't recall) and we do not even know if he owns the VT/TM flat, unless someone can confirm otherwise.

He has lived at number 44 since 1991, where he is thought to own two flats other than his own. It is believed he also owns other properties in Clifton and a flat in Nice, France.

Edit: just found this

 

[enqueteur]

Could someone help with my confusion re cars on or near the Clifton Suspension Bridge and did the the following information come from LE directly:

A. There was a sighting of a suspicious car on Longwood Lane, Failand reported by passersby on December 18th. Yes or no?

B. Initially it was reported that no CCTV cameras picked up any pertinent information of activity on the bridge. Yes or no?

C. Then it is revealed that a car with a bag in the front seat crossed the bridge Dec 18th and did show up on the CCTV camera. The owner of the car was interviewed and dismissed. Yes or no?

Please correct the above statements if they are not accurate because I am not understanding how we get from B to C.

Also would like to know if A is related to C, and if the owner of car C was dismissed, why is it now considered the vehicle which housed the victim.

Lastly, has LE used ANPR information to corroborate evidence relating to these cars being sighted at Longworth and Bridge?

 

[enzeder]

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

 

[enzeder]

......

He was remanded in custody for a week, after which he is due to appear at Bristol crown court. But the court was told today that he may also attend the crown court tomorrow for a bail hearing. A plea and case management hearing was scheduled for 29 April.

Paul Cook, representing Tabak, confirmed that his client wished to apply for bail and would be present for that application tomorrow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/24/vincent-tabak-court-joanna-yeates-murder-charge

 

[Phillb]

Could someone help with my confusion re cars on or near the Clifton Suspension Bridge and did the the following information come from LE directly:

A. There was a sighting of a suspicious car on Longwood Lane, Failand reported by passersby on December 18th. Yes or no?

B. Initially it was reported that no CCTV cameras picked up any pertinent information of activity on the bridge. Yes or no?

C. Then it is revealed that a car with a bag in the front seat crossed the bridge Dec 18th and did show up on the CCTV camera. The owner of the car was interviewed and dismissed. Yes or no?[/COLOR]

Please correct the above statements if they are not accurate because I am not understanding how we get from B to C.

Also would like to know if A is related to C, and if the owner of car C was dismissed, why is it now considered the vehicle which housed the victim.

Lastly, has LE used ANPR information to corroborate evidence relating to these cars being sighted at Longworth and Bridge?

Some good points there, and agreed that some of these things are not making sense to me either.

A. There was a sighting of a suspicious car on Longwood Lane, Failand reported by passersby on December 18th. Yes or no?

Yes there was, driven up and down the lane about 4 times I believe according to paper stories.

B. Initially it was reported that no CCTV cameras picked up any pertinent information of activity on the bridge. Yes or no?

Absolutely, the paper stories (If to be believed) said early on that the C.C.T.V was very poor quality at night, number plate recognition was either very difficuilt, but I think it was not possible due to the glare of the bridge lights as I read it. The police seemed to be very dissapointed with this line of enquiry. It would ask the question, then how did they question the owner of the car three weeks ago in that scenario. They wouldn't have known who it was would they?

That REALLY puzzles me and does not make any sense.

C. Then it is revealed that a car with a bag in the front seat crossed the bridge Dec 18th and did show up on the CCTV camera. The owner of the car was interviewed and dismissed. Yes or no?

Again this ones a little vague IMO.
The recent press story, the one that proved so far to be pretty accurate said. The case has shifted dynamics, we have C.C.T.V footage showing a car believed to be carrying Jo crossing the bridge. Were now looking at the possibility she was transported in a bag or suitcase.

That looks to me like very recent developments, and a new shift in direction. But that rules out they questioned the owner three weeks ago.

So yes I agree with you that non of these factors add up at all. Either the driver/owner was a good suspect three weeks ago and had come to light, or he wasn't, but has now. :waitasec:

 

[Redgoblin]

The police made the arrest after the alleged tip off, I wonder what was said that prompted them to arrest him?

 

[Chester]

Some good points there, and agreed that some of these things are not making sense to me either.



Yes there was, driven up and down the lane about 4 times I believe according to paper stories.



Absolutely, the paper stories (If to be believed) said early on that the C.C.T.V was very poor quality at night, number plate recognition was either very difficuilt, but I think it was not possible due to the glare of the bridge lights as I read it. The police seemed to be very dissapointed with this line of enquiry. It would ask the question, then how did they question the owner of the car three weeks ago in that scenario. They wouldn't have known who it was would they?

That REALLY puzzles me and does not make any sense.



Again this ones a little vague IMO.
The recent press story, the one that proved so far to be pretty accurate said. The case has shifted dynamics, we have C.C.T.V footage showing a car believed to be carrying Jo crossing the bridge. Were now looking at the possibility she was transported in a bag or suitcase.

That looks to me like very recent developments, and a new shift in direction. But that rules out they questioned the owner three weeks ago.

So yes I agree with you that non of these factors add up at all. Either the driver/owner was a good suspect three weeks ago, or he wasn't, but is now. :waitasec:

You may have missed it, but someone was quoted as saying that the CCTV was useless when the lights were on (floodlights that light up the bridge at night). Once they were switched off (at midnight) apparently the CCTV worked perfectly well.

 

[Redgoblin]

The tipster was reported to have been a male person by the Mail on Sunday paper. It had be reported in the media that VT's work always sent him to other offices, if this is the case could it be that he borrowed a work colleagues car?

 

[Chester]

The tipster was reported to have been a male person by the Mail on Sunday paper. I had be reported in the media that VT's work always sent him to other offices, if this is the case could it be that he borrowed a work colleagues car?

Interesting I had not picked up on that. It would fit with the parents appeal.

 

[bees]

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.

 

[Phillb]

You may have missed it, but someone was quoted as saying that the CCTV was useless when the lights were on (floodlights that light up the bridge at night). Once they were switched off (at midnight) apparently the CCTV worked perfectly well.

There's so many differing quotes in different papers, and elaborated stories on the net about this case. It's very hard to know what you've read, or what you've not read is the truth really.

Until it's official from the Police, we'll never know the truth I guess.

 

[Chester]

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.

Ok I am intrigued, please expand.

 

[Nausicaa]

What would psychologists say about a man who wore a red jumper to court?

I hope they would say that he had bad dress sense and that this tells us nothing whatever about his guilt or innocence.

 

[MMENJBRIT]

Curious Alice

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMENJBRIT
One Person with Access to every Flat at Cannynge Rd:

I cannot help think that a myriad of possible scenarios could exist regarding this murder case.

If the owner of the apartment block had access to enter all apartments, couldn't that person also have access to spare sets of car keys, therefore cars and who knows what?
This is not the case. Nobody owns all the properties within the building. Records published early on show that CJ owns two (or three, can't recall) and we do not even know if he owns the VT/TM flat, unless someone can confirm otherwise.

Re CURIOUS ALICE:

Hi Curious and thank you for pointing that out

 

[bees]

Ok I am intrigued, please expand.

If the car owner is a neighbour or somehow connected to neighbours, he might have been interviewed as part of the routine investigation and eliminated at that stage. Later, during a trawl of CCTV, his car is spotted going over Clifton bridge on the morning of 18th December being driven by him or someone else.

 

[Chester]

I hope they would say that he had bad dress sense and that this tells us nothing whatever about his guilt or innocence.

Precisely, unless it said "I did it", or "Serial Killer" on the front of the jumper I think we can park that one.

 

[Nausicaa]

Could someone help with my confusion re cars on or near the Clifton Suspension Bridge and did the the following information come from LE directly:

A. There was a sighting of a suspicious car on Longwood Lane, Failand reported by passersby on December 18th. Yes or no?

B. Initially it was reported that no CCTV cameras picked up any pertinent information of activity on the bridge. Yes or no?

C. Then it is revealed that a car with a bag in the front seat crossed the bridge Dec 18th and did show up on the CCTV camera. The owner of the car was interviewed and dismissed. Yes or no?

Please correct the above statements if they are not accurate because I am not understanding how we get from B to C.

Also would like to know if A is related to C, and if the owner of car C was dismissed, why is it now considered the vehicle which housed the victim.

Lastly, has LE used ANPR information to corroborate evidence relating to these cars being sighted at Longworth and Bridge?

I don't recall that the police have ever made any of the above statements A B and C. However, it is pretty clear that in among the numerous inaccurate or merely inferential statements made by the press aboutt his case, there has been some well-founded information which must have been leaked by persons in the know. The difficulty is distinguishing the well-founded leaks from the dross of guesswork and invention.