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

[Chester]

This appears to be the chap representing VT in court today:

http://www.albionchambers.co.uk/paul-cook

 

[Luna15]

One thing is certain - VT doesn't have a convincing alibi about being anything other than alone at his flat on the evening of 17th December. If he did, he couldn't have been charged. That doesn't make him guilty of course but the lack of an alibi isn't helpful to his case. I presume CJ was in the same position - no alibi for that evening after about 9pm.

He could have an 'electronic footprint' for the time he was alone in the flat i.e computer (emails), mobile (texts, calls etc) < surely triangulation would show where he was on Friday eve/night.

When I replied to the original post on his jumper, I was not really being serious. I doubt very much the colour of his jumper is in any way significant.

Saying that wearing red is supposed to be a sexy colour or a dominate alpha-male colour, and females are supposed to relate to it in some sexual way, according to several studies.

That and perhaps he wanted to look like a red-herring?

'Red flag' is a warning sign....... having said that, I dont think he planned his attire.

I was quite surprised to see him handcuffed to a female custody officer, if the artists impression was anything to go by, she was quite short as well.

Anyway, I would very much like to know who owns this company that runs out of 37 Aberdeen Road, and what link VT has to them, especially as in some on line directories, they appear in "professional services/architecture" and "Architectural, technical consult" - was VT doing consultancy work for them? Could it be the owner of the company who loaned VT his car?

I know I bleat on but, I am just not 'feeling' VT as the perp.

 

[Chester]

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.

Not sure there are many parallels with the Perugia case tbh.

 

[Nausicaa]

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>

From the start I have read this as CJ being a bit of a bigmouth, rather enjoying the excitement and publicity and doing plenty of gossiping with neighbours before the body was found. During that period he might well have, not consciously lied, but embroidered or improved somewhat on the truth. For instance, he might have seen this mysterious group but not have been sure what day he saw it on, but told the neighbours it was the day that would make it most interesting. Or again, he might just have had a vague impression or half-memory, which his imagination consolidated for gossip purposes. Then, when it all turned into a murder enquiry and he realised that every detail was going to be gone over with a fine tooth comb, he may have regretted having blabbed so much, softened his exaggerations down in the direction of reality, and found himself in the embarrassing situation of having to ask the nieghbours not to quote him without explicitly admitting that he had been improving on reality a bit.

All that doesn't make him a murderer or anything like, but of course altering statements one is known to have made does make him very vulnerable under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) which is really rather generous in the circumstances in which it allows the police to arrest people. And the police would be able to make good use of having him under arrest to grill him very hard, and to grill others in his absence. You might reveal things about a neighbour or landlord when he was under arrest which you would not say in other circumstances.

Meanwhile, as I have suggested before, one other possible aspect of the CJ situation is that CJ may have made a statement incompatible with some statement made by VT. That spells that one or other of them is in trouble. But it doesn't follow that the police are going to pounce on the most likely culprit first.

You have to remember all the time that the police have 4 simultaneous tasks:
1. catch the criminal;
2. secure guilty verdict at trial of criminal;
3. stay within their rights under the 1984 Act, even if this means dancing a bit;
4. Not upset media-fired public opinion too much.

The potentially conflicting requirements of some of those tasks may mean - however deplorably - that the less likely suspect is the one who gets arrested and grilled first, while the more likely one is apparently ignored...

 

[Chester]

He could have an 'electronic footprint' for the time he was alone in the flat i.e computer (emails), mobile (texts, calls etc) < surely triangulation would show where he was on Friday eve/night.

Mobile records would only exist if his phone was on and he either made a call, received a call, sent a text or received a text. All other networks records are momentary and will long since have been over written.




'Red flag' is a warning sign....... having said that, I dont think he planned his attire.

I was quite surprised to see him handcuffed to a female custody officer, if the artists impression was anything to go by, she was quite short as well.

Anyway, I would very much like to know who owns this company that runs out of 37 Aberdeen Road, and what link VT has to them, especially as in some on line directories, they appear in "professional services/architecture" and "Architectural, technical consult" - was VT doing consultancy work for them? Could it be the owner of the company who loaned VT his car?

I know I bleat on but, I am just not 'feeling' VT as the perp.

From what I understand that business is more in the line of JY & GR's business rather than VT's.

 

[MissMarple2]

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?

A - don't know
B- that's right, it was
C - YES, but as I noted from the Mail on Sunday's report yesterday, it was implied that the owner of the car had been interviewed prior to the CCTV footage coming to light - and therefore they wouldn't have been questioned about why the car was on the bridge as this wasn't known to the police 'earlier in the month' when the owner of the car was interviewed.

Hope this helps with the confusion about why the car owner might initially have been eliminated from the frame

 

[columbosstogey]

Yes that says on the 18th (day after she was killed) I'm not sure does that actually mean the day time? Or the early hours overnight.

Plus who was the driver they interviewed and eliminated weeks ago. If it was V.T, then why wasn't her next door neighbour questioned in more detail???? :waitasec:

And if it wasn't V.T, then who was driving her body across. Non of it makes sense to me :waitasec:

I must be thick.

I thought it snowed really heavily early morning on the 18th in Bristol. How would the CCTV be able to see anyone in a car if it was snowing heavy, and not that are we talking early hours of the morning? I thought the CCTV cameras were useless.

Also didnt Tabaks girlfriend go out that night perhaps he borrowed a car to collect her...........

What I dont get is this.

We are told that Reardon and Joanna had never met Tabak.

So what would have taken her to his door on the 17th.....?

Tabak states he was out well apparently he doesn't come home early from work anyway with trains etc, so lets say he came home earliesh and for someone reason decided to murder this poor girl, keep calm enough to move her in the early hours of the morning after borrowing someone's car, drive in treacherous conditions (I know that road and believe me it is treacherous in the winter), not give anything away to his girlfriend, and then the next day be cool and calm and go off on holiday to see his mum without even breaking a sweat....

ALSO they say they have CCTV of someone going over the Clifton Bridge but have they got the same person in the same car coming back over the Clifton Bridge very soon after.

Crikey he must be one chilled monster.

I dont get any of this....

Its all very odd.

 

[Luna15]

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.

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

I am no expert at all, but, 'rolled up sleeves' indicates to me that he is not afraid of 'showing his hand(s)' when you read that someone who is concealing their hands is 'hiding something'.... well to me, it's the opposite.

From what I understand that business is more in the line of JY & GR's business rather than VT's.

Why wouldn't the police use it to prove where a 'suspect' was? It could put him in the same place as JY at the time.

 

[MissMarple2]

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.

-------End quote

I think that the owner of the car was one of the people they questioned in the early part of the enquiry. Presumably LE were interviewing close neighbours in the early part of the enquiry. They might have interviewed a neighbour saying, 'did you hear anything?/were you here that night?' etc etc .. Answer might have been no. LE had no reason to suspect otherwise of this person UNTIL the car footage came up. hence the shift.


YOUR QUOTE:
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.
END QUOTE

Why does that rule out they questioned the owner? I think you're confused because you are assuming the owner was interviewed about the car. I don't think the owner was interviewed about the car - the LE didn't know about the car at the time when he/she was first interviewed.

 

[MissMarple2]

Or maybe workmates also live in Bristol all share a lift or deligated a driver for the night....

Yes, but that would mess up the theory that VT knew he would be alone all night. I was looking for reasons why VT would know that nobody would spot him disappearing to dispose of a body - or committing the crime or simply making a move on JY in the first place.

 

[Colombo]

From the start I have read this as CJ being a bit of a bigmouth, rather enjoying the excitement and publicity and doing plenty of gossiping with neighbours before the body was fund. During that period he might well have, not consciously lied, but embroidered or improved somewhat on the truth. For instance, he might have seen this mysterious group but not have been sure what day he saw it on, but told the neighbours it was the day that would make it most interesting. Or again, he might just have had a vague impression or half-memory, which his imagination consolidated for gossip purposes. Then, when it all turned into a murder enquiry and he realised that every detail was going to be gone over with a fine tooth comb, he may have regretted having blabbed so much, softened his exaggerations down in the direction of reality, and found himself in the embarrassing situation of having to ask the nieghbours not to quote him without explicitly admitting that he had been improving on reality a bit.

All that doesn't make him a murderer or anything like, but of course altering statements one is known to have made does make him very vulnerable under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984) which is really rather generous in the circumstances in which it allows the police to arrest people. And the police would be able to make good use of having him under arrest to grill him very hard, and to grill others in his absence. You might say things about a neighbour or landlord when he was under arrest which you would not say in other circumstances.

Meanwhile, as I have suggested before, one other possible aspect of the CJ situation is that CJ may have made a statement incompatible with some statement made by VT. That spells that one or other of them is in trouble. But it doesn't follow that the police are going to pounce on the most likely culprit first.

You have to remember all the time that the police have 4 simultaneous tasks:
1. catch the criminal;
2. secure guilty verdict at trial of criminal;
3. stay within their rights under the 1984 Act, even if this means dancing a bit;
4. Not upset media-fired public opinion too much.

The potentially conflicting requirements of some of those tasks may mean - however deplorably - that the less likely suspect is the one who gets arrested and grilled first, while the more likely one is apparently ignored...

agreed but

the description that he was a being a bit of a bigmouth, rather enjoying the excitement and publicity and doing plenty of gossiping with neighbours before the body was fund. During that period he might well have, not consciously lied, but embroidered or improved somewhat on the truth.

read the descriptions of him by the people who know him best and its not the impression that they give

Former history master Richard Bland, 74, who worked with Jefferies for three decades, described him as an eccentric loner.Mr Bland, who lives a short walk from Jefferies’s flat, said: ‘He was dedicated to his job, strongly academic and deeply involved.
‘He was respected at the school and his students used to get good results under him.
‘But he was a very strange character, a bit of a loner and a very private individual. He was notorious for his odd hairstyle, it was often poetically long, and definitely had a blue tinge.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ched-bags-evidence-removed.html#ixzz1ByInvpr9

 

[Destroyer]

An artist impression of Tabak in court -

 

[bananas76]

The date next week will be to enter a plea.

April 27th sounds way too early for a trial.

Yes i think that's too early as well. The guy that stabbed my friend to death in the summer has been on remand for over six months so far.

 

[Colombo]

An artist impression of Tabak in court -

would be interesting to know how tall the 2 females are from that sketch

if it was VT that CJ saw didnt he notice the height difference?

 

[Chester]

Yes i think that's too early as well. The guy that stabbed my friend to death in the summer has been on remand for over six months so far.

It appears to be a date to review the case, standard procedure it seems.

 

[Destroyer]

would be interesting to know how tall the 2 females are from that sketch

if it was VT that CJ saw didnt he notice the height difference?

Well put it like this, VT stands out a mile stood next to a women less than 6ft.

 

[columbosstogey]

would be interesting to know how tall the 2 females are from that sketch

if it was VT that CJ saw didnt he notice the height difference?

Thats great observation. He was tall like Greg.

What I want to know is how come this couple didnt know each other.

Strange coincidence for me is that Joanna belonged to a rowing club, and now recently Tanja Tabaks girlfriend has just taken up this sport......

Coincidence its an odd sport for a coincidence............

 

[Nausicaa]

agreed but

the description that he was a being a bit of a bigmouth, rather enjoying the excitement and publicity and doing plenty of gossiping with neighbours before the body was fund. During that period he might well have, not consciously lied, but embroidered or improved somewhat on the truth.

read the descriptions of him by the people who know him best and its not the impression that they give

Former history master Richard Bland, 74, who worked with Jefferies for three decades, described him as an eccentric loner.Mr Bland, who lives a short walk from Jefferies&#8217;s flat, said: &#8216;He was dedicated to his job, strongly academic and deeply involved.
&#8216;He was respected at the school and his students used to get good results under him.
&#8216;But he was a very strange character, a bit of a loner and a very private individual. He was notorious for his odd hairstyle, it was often poetically long, and definitely had a blue tinge.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ched-bags-evidence-removed.html#ixzz1ByInvpr9

I'm not sure that there need be much conflict here except at the level of one's first impressions on reading these statements.

Take also the recent statement from one of CJ's neighbours that on the evening of Friday 17th December CJ was chatting to VT about having to help jump-start GR's car for him to get away for the week-end. That and the accounts of his considerable involvement in neighbourhood organisations: the man is clearly not a recluse.
That reminds me : do we think his chat with VT on the evening of 17th Dec occurred while CJ was still outside just after GR left ? Or when he had finished parking his car at about 9 pm - simultaneously with his vague impression of seeing a group ? Or somewhere in between ? CJ appears to have been at home when PS and GR needed his jump leads and then must presumably have gone out again if he was coming in and parking his car at 9 pm.

 

[Curious Alice]

Well put it like this, VT stands out a mile stood next to a women less than 6ft.

It's a terribly difficult thing to do, describe who or what you saw. Earlier today I saw two people out of my front room window, standing on the wall between my house and the house next door, slightly odd behaviour. This was obviously something that captured my attention and was less than a couple of hours ago. I could not for the life of me describe them now; height, hair colour, nothing. They were less than 5 yards away from me. Some people just aren't terribly observant, even when something is out of the ordinary.

Having said that, if I was familiar with one of those people, as CJ was with VT, then yes, I think I would remember seeing someone I knew.

 

[MissMarple2]

I must be thick.

I
We are told that Reardon and Joanna had never met Tabak.

So what would have taken her to his door on the 17th.....?

ALSO they say they have CCTV of someone going over the Clifton Bridge but have they got the same person in the same car coming back over the Clifton Bridge very soon after.
Crikey he must be one chilled monster.

I dont get any of this....

Its all very odd.

We don't know that she went to his door. Might have been the other way round. But anyway, it was Christmas, she'd been in the pub with workfriends until 8pm so alcohol might have made her less inhibited in terms of chatting with someone that she had seen come and go from next door many times. Doesn't alcohol make us all a little more carefree? She certainly looked quite happy and relaxed on the CCTV of her going into Bargain Booze.

I was thinking that if I lived next door to someone and had done so for a couple of months, then I would not be suspicious of them if they acted in a friendly way, even if they suggested a Christmas drink. We know from JY's message to MW that she was up for going out or having some more to drink that evening, so she might have bumped into perp on way home, by front door, whilst getting something from somewhere in or outside the building (borrowing a bottle opener for the cider?) and just got chatting, he invites her in for drink, she says would he like pizza etc. Slightly surprised that her bottle of cider was only half drunk though. Why not finish it first? So did he surprise her?

Also, do we know for sure they'd never met. I'm sure I read somewhere that their companies had worked on joint projects. Even if not, there's something about seeing someone every day and knowing where they live that can lull you into a false sense of security ("I know where they live!!")

There is more than one way back from Failand - he could easily have driven another route home. Or, like someone said, he might have driven on to Malmesbury to collect his girlfriend....