GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #12

[Colombo]

I'm trying to follow the train of thought here but I seem to be missing some links. Many who are convicted of crimes do not confess, and evidence is often circumstantial. Is the argument here that convictions are necessarily suspect in the absence of confessions or if based upon circumstantial evidence? If confessions are taken as concrete proof, where do those who confess and are convicted but who did not in fact commit the crimes fit in?

I'm also unclear on which people or groups would want to frame, or conspire to frame, suspects in this case. Those with vested interests seem to be the Yeates family and LE. If LE is assumed to want to protect its reputation, wouldn't it be far riskier for LE (especially in light of all the recent controversy over police procedures and tactics) to stage a grand conspiracy to frame someone? If the theory is that someone other than VT committed the murder and therefore would have a vested interest in framing him, whose interests would this be protecting other than the murderer's? Who would breathe a sigh of relief if CJ was not convicted besides CJ?

Apologies for so many questions -- I've been following the threads but I seem to be missing pieces.

its clear from reading posts here and on other sites that many have total faith in the police and the authorities to do the right thing!

unfortunately, history and the numerous cases of miscarriages of justice prove that this faith is misplaced

regarding confessions,

obviously if a suspect confesses when confronted with evidence then its likely that that is probably a genuine confession especially if the evidence is very strong

however in the past it has been known for vunerable people and those put under undue pressure by the police to confess to crimes which they did not commit .. hence the need for the evidence to be as strong as it can be

if in doubt see the case of Barry George

regarding who would benefit from a frame up....

only the naieve and most trusting in society would surely ask this question?

it does not take a huge conspiracy to achieve a miscarriage of justice

it only takes the people who have vested interests to allow one decision to be made and to accept the repercussions of that decision

it does not require meetings or phone calls - no paper trail , just an acceptance that for the good of all concerned that certain people should not answer for what they have done

again if in doubt look at the numerous cases in different parts of society.... many in recent months

with regard to this particular case ,

one has to realise that there was huge public interest and pressure on the police to get a result...numerous people disappeared and were killed over the last few months but did no receive the media attention as this case did

the apparent failure of one very public enquiry of a suspect and the apparent admission by some connected to the case that it had reached a brick wall obviously produced a situation of re appraisal of the case

however as with many similar cases one is not aware of the pressure exerted from unseen quarters

for those unaware of who these vested interests may be then I suggest you appraise yourself with the school, university , political, and economic background of the British political and social elite

it may very well be proven to be that VT is found guilty of this crime

If there is overwhelming physical and circumstantial evidence then many concerns will be allayed

However if there is limited evidence and no confession or plea of diminished responsibility then surely there must be grounds for concern

as for the question of who would breathe a sigh of relief?

well if I listed them here then like the press and other people who have attempted to do so then the post would probably be deleted

 

[Colombo]

Originally Posted by whitedove
I remember reading about the Police studying private CCTV footage which shows the area around J/Y Canynge Road home, so they may have found a car on cctv, and then found the same car on Clifton Bridge, it would be very strong evidence.


This car must have been found to be connected to VT since he has been charged. They must be confident they have got their man, by cancelling the Crimewatch appeal and do not seem to be appealing for any more information. I would say they have strong evidence against him.

It would be very easy Whiterum, they tested everyone in the pub for D.N.A., so they must also have tested people living in the flats, they find the same car in Canynge road and later on Clifton Bridge, they find the car reg, test the car for D.N.A., test it against all the people they have had tested, and Bingo, they have their man.

one small problem with your theory

if its low level dna ..it only rules certain people out ... not certain people in

its not like CSI !!! no instant 99% direct hit...case closed

the cancellation of the crimewatch programme and the lack of any more appeals is not a sign that they have strong evidence but that the police have decided to go ahead with what evidence they have

again look at the Barry George case if unsure of how the police in the UK have and continue to operate in such cases

 

[Colombo]

Quite. If the police were going to pick a fall guy for the murder they'd pick, well, someone like Barry George wouldn't they?

I would agree that A&SC have obtained sufficient evidence to justify a charge of murder against VT, although whether or not they've 'got their man' is a matter for the jury, and the jury alone, to decide in due course. In the circumstances it would seem to be rather a pointless exercise to speculate as to what that evidence might or might not be.

it appears that you accept in the first part of your post that the police are capable of finding and prosecuting a 'fall guy'

but then go on to state that its a pointless exercise to speculate on what the evidence may be while accepting that in your opinion it must be enough to justify a charge of murder

is it not logical to challenge the premise of the second part of your post to ensure that the first part does not occur?

 

[Colombo]

with regard to the 'theories' that have been posted

just a few points

there has been no confirmation of the time line of this crime or even crime scene

it is 'believed' from the evidence found at the flat that JY arrived home around 845 onwards

there were reports of 'scream' heard by 2 people at around 9 pm

and a 'scream' at midnight heard by a resident of the building

whether these were foxes is still unclear

the cry of 'help me' at a time around midnight was reported by an elderly neighbour resident at the rear of 44 who could not remember what day he actually heard it!!

the landlord claims that he saw 2 / 3 people leaving the vicinity of JY's flat around nine but could not tell if they were male or female or even give a description of height or clothing

a text message was sent to JY's phone at around 9.20 by the last person she contacted ...and this was not replied to

various calls and texts from GR were not replied to over the weekend 17th - 19th

a silver salloon car was reported by a passing motorist to be blocking the road outside 44 Canynge Road in the early hours of the 18th

on arrival at the flat at around 8pm 19th Dec GR found JY to be missing and the police were called at around 12 midnight

the body of JY was found around 8am on 25th Dec in Longwood Lane


some background information

CJ owns

both flats on the lower ground floor as well as his own on the first floor

a Silver / grey Volvo

a silver Chrysler

and

is reported to be outside 44 at 7pm and then have claimed he arrived home around 9pm 17th Dec


VT

rents a flat from CJ on the left hand side of the lower ground floor of 44 Canynge Road

apparently does not own a car and rides a bike and uses a train to commute to work

and

is reported to have arrived at home from work around 7 pm on 17th Dec

 

[veggiefan]

I would say they have strong evidence against him.

If the evidence against him really is strong, his counsel would have advised him to plead guilty from the outset, as this would undoubtedly lead to a more lenient sentence.

The fact that he has not yet entered a plea and apparently seems set on fighting the charge suggests that either (a) he is not guilty, or (b) he is guilty, but confident that the evidence may not stand up in court.

 

[Colombo]

If the evidence against him really is strong, his counsel would have advised him to plead guilty from the outset, as this would undoubtedly lead to a more lenient sentence.

The fact that he has not yet entered a plea and apparently seems set on fighting the charge suggests that either (a) he is not guilty, or (b) he is guilty, but confident that the evidence may not stand up in court.

I would strongly agree with all of these statements

he will get a much more lenient sentence if he pleads guilty and asks for forgiveness

lots of previous trials show this is usually the case


if the evidence is weak then they may think they can win in court

 

[goldielox]

If the evidence against him really is strong, his counsel would have advised him to plead guilty from the outset, as this would undoubtedly lead to a more lenient sentence.

The fact that he has not yet entered a plea and apparently seems set on fighting the charge suggests that either (a) he is not guilty, or (b) he is guilty, but confident that the evidence may not stand up in court.

Why would he enter a plea, when neither he nor his lawyers yet know the strength ..or the weakness.. of the case against him? There's nothing to read in the fact he hasn't pleaded yet. It would be highly unusual had he done so. He'll plead at the May hearing which is more the norm than not.

Sentence wise, any reduction given for a guilty plea where murder is concerned isn't a particularly great incentive. A reduction can only be a maximum of a sixth (up to a maximum of 5 years) of the sentence he would receive had he pleaded not guilty.

If we take the "starting point" figure of 15 years sentence wise as an example then for a guilty plea he'd possibly end up with just under 13 years instead. If there are aggravating features (abduction/concealing the body, sexual element) to be taken into account he'll get more than 15 years. That's assuming the starting point is "only" 15 years. So where murder is concerned a guilty plea to get a sentence reduction really hardly reckons in the equation where strategy as to how and when to plead comes into play.

 

[bos]

If the evidence against him really is strong, his counsel would have advised him to plead guilty from the outset, as this would undoubtedly lead to a more lenient sentence.

The fact that he has not yet entered a plea and apparently seems set on fighting the charge suggests that either (a) he is not guilty, or (b) he is guilty, but confident that the evidence may not stand up in court.

Or, that he is guilty of killing JY but it was accidental(he was just trying to silence her) & the DNA on her upper body was evidence that he tried to resusitate her & the charge should be the lesser one of manslaughter?

 

[aneurin]

it appears that you accept in the first part of your post that the police are capable of finding and prosecuting a 'fall guy'

but then go on to state that its a pointless exercise to speculate on what the evidence may be while accepting that in your opinion it must be enough to justify a charge of murder

is it not logical to challenge the premise of the second part of your post to ensure that the first part does not occur?

In their eagnerness to close a case the police are indeed perfectly capable of picking on the local neighbourhood nutter,
the examples of Barry George and Stefan Kiszko spring to mind. But then again the police also appear to be perfectly capable of finding and prosecuting the right person from time to time. Both of these statements are true, and neither is of any help in determining which of either of those categories any particular case may fall into.

The evidence is enough to justify a charge of murder, because that's the way the system works in the UK. (The police can't just pick someone off the streets and lock em 'up indefinitely on a charge of murder you know.) It's the CPS who have decided on the charge, based on the file passed to them by A&SC. They think there's sufficient evidence, the court has accepted that there is sufficient evidence, and so presumably does the defence, since they have so far raised no objection. And what you fail to appreciate is that there is a difference between having sufficient evidence to charge a suspect, and having sufficient evidence to persuade a jury to convict.

It is pointless exercise speculating on what the evidence might or might not be, because you don't know what it is, and can't know what it is, until the trial opens in October.

 

[aneurin]

If the evidence against him really is strong, his counsel would have advised him to plead guilty from the outset, as this would undoubtedly lead to a more lenient sentence.

The fact that he has not yet entered a plea and apparently seems set on fighting the charge suggests that either (a) he is not guilty, or (b) he is guilty, but confident that the evidence may not stand up in court.

To be honest, VT's counsel would (at the time of his previous appearances in court} have had nothing more than the vaguest notion of the strength of the case against him. And he hasn't entered a plea, because he's not due to enter a plea until the 4th May. The way the system works is this; the prosecution file their case, the defence have a good look at it, then they file their case, then everybody goes back to court before a judge to organise where they go from there. It's at that Plea and Case Management Hearing that the murder charge will formally be made and the defendent formally required to make a plea.

 

[aneurin]

regarding confessions,

obviously if a suspect confesses when confronted with evidence then its likely that that is probably a genuine confession especially if the evidence is very strong

however in the past it has been known for vunerable people and those put under undue pressure by the police to confess to crimes which they did not commit .. hence the need for the evidence to be as strong as it can be

if in doubt see the case of Barry George

But Barry George never confessed to the murder of Jill Dando.

 

[naturally suspicious]

I would strongly agree with all of these statements

he will get a much more lenient sentence if he pleads guilty and asks for forgiveness

lots of previous trials show this is usually the case


if the evidence is weak then they may think they can win in court

but surely vt and those representing him would have no idea about which facts the police would use against him....

so, they might have no idea how good or not the case for vt is going to be...


hypothetically, if he stands trial and is deemed not guilty...might he be able to have his job back/continue his life as before December 2010....



but, columbo, your arguments, to me, ring true and show an experienced eye/opinion of what is happening /has happened....

(Plaster off broken wrist tomorrow so i shall be able to punctuate thereafter...)

 

[Colombo]

But Barry George never confessed to the murder of Jill Dando.

this is indeed true

however

At the original Old Bailey trial in 2001, the prosecution relied on four categories of evidence. One had been identification evidence, provided by neighbours of Dando, which placed George near the scene on two occasions on the day of the murder; the second was the "repeated lies" told by George in police interviews; the third category was a supposed attempt to create a false alibi; and the fourth was that tiny particle of firearms discharge residue (FDR) found in his overcoat about a year after the murder. The jury, swayed by the firearms residue evidence, convicted him and he was jailed for life.

and also

One senior Scotland Yard source said the not guilty verdicts posed two dilemmas for the force: how do they limit the damage to its reputation, and how they could tear up all their work so far and effectively admit they had pursued the wrong man for eight years.

"It's not good for us. The fact the jury took 13 hours to acquit means they were utterly convinced he was not guilty," the source said. "The fact he has previous bad character will help protect the organistaion and weather the storm."

The source added: "Are they really going to say to Hamish Campbell, 'we're going to disembowel your investigation and see where it went wrong'? ... It probably needs an external force to reinvestigate."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/02/jilldando.ukcrime

 

[whiterum]

If the evidence against him really is strong, his counsel would have advised him to plead guilty from the outset, as this would undoubtedly lead to a more lenient sentence

I've never heard of anyone being advised by their counsel to plead guilty from the outset, especially not on a murder charge. The evidence may be strong that he drove the car, dumped the body, got rid of evidence etc but he may not plead guilty to the charge that he intentionaly murdered JY.

 

[Colombo]

but surely vt and those representing him would have no idea about which facts the police would use against him....

so, they might have no idea how good or not the case for vt is going to be...


hypothetically, if he stands trial and is deemed not guilty...might he be able to have his job back/continue his life as before December 2010....



but, columbo, your arguments, to me, ring true and show an experienced eye/opinion of what is happening /has happened....

(Plaster off broken wrist tomorrow so i shall be able to punctuate thereafter...)

my point is just based on logic

if VT is guilty , he knows this

as an obviously highly intelligent man if he believes that the police have only limited circumstantial evidence then he will attempt to challenge that evidence

he will know basically what the police have as they have interviewed him for 3days and will have challenged him over a number of issues

alibi, timings, forensics that place him at possible scenes, cctv that place him a certain locations and times, possible previous knowledge of the victim, possible previous violent acts / threats, use of drugs / drink, etc etc

he will know the likelihood of this evidence being strong or weak against him

that is what will determine his mindset and plea

if he is a cold and calculating killer he may fight the charge for the hell of it

if it was an act of diminished responsibilty then logic would point to a plea on that basis

if he is innocent then he will make that plea and hope that he can win the case

thus if he knows he sat in his flat from 7 pm til when his gf returned, smoking his 'rizla' cigarettes and drinking wine, watching tv or working on a people flow 3 d simulation , did not leave that flat til his gf arrived, was with her continually until 25th, did not drive or loan a vehicle the entire weekend, did not visit any of the locations that JY visited on 17th

then he will feel quite content that the police will find it difficult to place him in the frame

obviously if he did leave the flat and visit any of those locations, realises that there is cctv that places him and any vehicle that he had access to in those locations, that knows he indeed did know the victim better than as a passing neighbour and has the dna type that matches the low key dna found on the body

then he may well be slightly peturbed that the police could match that up to put him in the frame


ih he knows he committed this crime either as a calculated act or as an act of madness then he will know that despite his best efforts to cover up his involvement that he may well have been caught on cctv , with dna / forensics

then he will either fight the case and realise that he will go to jail for life with a recommendation that its a life tariff

or

attempt to reduce the sentence tariff though a plea of diminished responsibility / manslaughter

whatever the result he will know his life will never be the same

 

[angel10510]

its clear from reading posts here and on other sites that many have total faith in the police and the authorities to do the right thing!

unfortunately, history and the numerous cases of miscarriages of justice prove that this faith is misplaced

regarding confessions,

obviously if a suspect confesses when confronted with evidence then its likely that that is probably a genuine confession especially if the evidence is very strong

however in the past it has been known for vunerable people and those put under undue pressure by the police to confess to crimes which they did not commit .. hence the need for the evidence to be as strong as it can be

if in doubt see the case of Barry George

regarding who would benefit from a frame up....

only the naieve and most trusting in society would surely ask this question?

it does not take a huge conspiracy to achieve a miscarriage of justice

it only takes the people who have vested interests to allow one decision to be made and to accept the repercussions of that decision

it does not require meetings or phone calls - no paper trail , just an acceptance that for the good of all concerned that certain people should not answer for what they have done

again if in doubt look at the numerous cases in different parts of society.... many in recent months

with regard to this particular case ,

one has to realise that there was huge public interest and pressure on the police to get a result...numerous people disappeared and were killed over the last few months but did no receive the media attention as this case did

the apparent failure of one very public enquiry of a suspect and the apparent admission by some connected to the case that it had reached a brick wall obviously produced a situation of re appraisal of the case

however as with many similar cases one is not aware of the pressure exerted from unseen quarters

for those unaware of who these vested interests may be then I suggest you appraise yourself with the school, university , political, and economic background of the British political and social elite

it may very well be proven to be that VT is found guilty of this crime

If there is overwhelming physical and circumstantial evidence then many concerns will be allayed

However if there is limited evidence and no confession or plea of diminished responsibility then surely there must be grounds for concern

as for the question of who would breathe a sigh of relief?

well if I listed them here then like the press and other people who have attempted to do so then the post would probably be deleted

I'm sorry, this still does not make much sense. Vague allusions to the protection of wide-ranging interests seems awfully premature. A suspect has been charged, only charged. It's been only a few weeks since the murder. No plea has even been entered. No trial has taken place. It may be the defense has not even had a chance to review the evidence properly yet. No conviction has been obtained. Surely allegations of a fall guy are a bit hasty.

 

[aneurin]

this is indeed true

however

At the original Old Bailey trial in 2001, the prosecution relied on four categories of evidence. One had been identification evidence, provided by neighbours of Dando, which placed George near the scene on two occasions on the day of the murder; the second was the "repeated lies" told by George in police interviews; the third category was a supposed attempt to create a false alibi; and the fourth was that tiny particle of firearms discharge residue (FDR) found in his overcoat about a year after the murder. The jury, swayed by the firearms residue evidence, convicted him and he was jailed for life.

Some of us, and that us would include a number of newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, were never particularly convinced of George's guilt from the beginning, if only because an 11.5 micron particle of FDR found in the internal right pocket of a dark blue Cecil Gee coat that had been left lying around a police station for some time seemed to be conclusive evidence of nothing in particular. (Which, as it turned out, was exactly the conclusion reached by the Forensic Science Service.)

Of course Barry George was an epiletic with learning difficulties, had previous convictions for indecent assault and attempted rape, and had once been prevented from breaking into Kensington Palace equipped with a twelve inch hunting knife, fifty foot of rope, and dressed in a military-style uniform. Now that's the kinda guy you'd be looking for if you wanted a 'fall guy' for a tricky murder case. With that kind of bad character evidence you're half way to a conviction before you even get to the evidence.

One senior Scotland Yard source said the not guilty verdicts posed two dilemmas for the force:

All fine and dandy, but it clearly doesn't pose any dilemmas for A&SC who are a different force altogether.

 

[aneurin]

I'm sorry, this still does not make much sense. Vague allusions to the protection of wide-ranging interests seems awfully premature. A suspect has been charged, only charged. It's been only a few weeks since the murder. No plea has even been entered. No trial has taken place. It may be the defense has not even had a chance to review the evidence properly yet. No conviction has been obtained. Surely allegations of a fall guy are a bit hasty.

Quite.

I fail to see what is the point of all these ramblings. It all amounts to nothing more than speculation piled upon speculation. A man has been charged with the murder of Jo Yeates. If the defendant chooses to dispute the charge there will be a trial, when all these issues will be addressed.

 

[Colombo]

In their eagnerness to close a case the police are indeed perfectly capable of picking on the local neighbourhood nutter,
the examples of Barry George and Stefan Kiszko spring to mind.

COLUMBO = C

C and many more can be added to that list

But then again the police also appear to be perfectly capable of finding and prosecuting the right person from time to time.

Both of these statements are true, and neither is of any help in determining which of either of those categories any particular case may fall into.

C agreed but it is a sad fact of life that the British police often appear to turn a blind eye to crimes right under their nose ... the current phone hacking scandal being a case in point

with regard to murder it often appears that they follow the usual refrain that its the 'usual suspect' ....and obviously in many cases that is true but in a large number of cases it isnt

The evidence is enough to justify a charge of murder, because that's the way the system works in the UK. (The police can't just pick someone off the streets and lock em 'up indefinitely on a charge of murder you know.)

C agreed but its not that they or the authorities havent tried to get those powers!

It's the CPS who have decided on the charge, based on the file passed to them by A&SC. They think there's sufficient evidence, the court has accepted that there is sufficient evidence, and so presumably does the defence, since they have so far raised no objection.

And what you fail to appreciate is that there is a difference between having sufficient evidence to charge a suspect, and having sufficient evidence to persuade a jury to convict.

C I do appreciate the difference but would ask people to appreciate the possibility based on previous miscarriages of justice that the police may well be pursueing a case based on political pressure and preservation of vested interests rather than justice

It is pointless exercise speculating on what the evidence might or might not be, because you don't know what it is, and can't know what it is, until the trial opens in October.

C well if you follow that logic I don't understand why you are posting on the site

what do you suggest we do? just accept what the police and the govt tell us is true and go to bed happy in our dreams?

or maybe move to Egypt or some other bastion of free speech and justice?

 

[Cherwell]

he sat in his flat from 7 pm til when his gf returned, smoking his 'rizla' cigarettes and drinking wine

What are you getting at?