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

[Colombo]

With all due respect Deckard, I have made no previous reference to the naming of beast719 on a public forum. My only point 'Regarding the individual calling himself Beast719' is that, from an examination of the available evidence, my conclusion was that he was clearly a humourist. Or to put it another way; I don't think that there really was an Architects' ball where "it kicked off big time" any more than I think that there really was a pro-am invitational chess tournament held in Caernarfon featuring Tom Jones as a competitor.

If you really want to find out who beast719 might (or indeed might not) be then type "beast719 limited" into Google and see what turns up. I must admit that I don't really care one way or another regarding the issue of naming him or not. If you're going to take part in a public forum (even if it is only the comments section of the SkyNews blog) and make some fictitous statement regarding an active murder inquiry, you really have no grounds for complaint if the hellhounds start snapping at your ankles.

still waiting for your answer !

are you a lawyer?

and what is your view or theory re this case?

re the beast ...if he is merely the humourist that you claim ..why are you so concerned that some people wish to try and find out his identity? is would surely be their time they are wasting? and surely he will see the funny side of that being the 'viz' fan that he appears to be

 

[Deckard]

I already have a good idea who he may be and agree that dragging his name into a public debate wouldn't be constructive.

I do think it best not to stifle possible lines of investigation however hair brained on the surface they may appear to be. If it's a dead end, so be it.

Is beast719 a joker? Judging by his chess posts, obviously.

If it can be proven he has links to major players in the case then his posts come over as more sinister than mere Viz humour. His off the cuff comments on the Sky blog may come back to haunt him if the "hellhounds" circle.

 

[notsure]

The only thing I'm certain about is that whoever did this is dangerous and should never be released.

 

[Colombo]

The only thing I'm certain about is that whoever did this is dangerous and should never be released.

I am sure we all agree with you

the problem is it is possible that the person may still be free

 

[barriem]

Here's another link ive found: http://fjlathome2.blogspot.com/2011/01/vincent-tabak-may-have-been-framed.html

 

[Trio]

Yep, I agree the whole sock thing is very curious. She could potentially have popped into his flat shoe-less given the close proximity and that her ski socks were thick. VT could have replaced the keys after the crime. If she went around with just socks, then that would explain the boots being still in the flat.

.

Do men really know how many pair's of shoes or indoor shoes a Woman has!.
Would GR know how many pair's of shoes etc JY had?, a pair of shoes or indoor shoes could have been worn by JY, if GR had no idea of the shoes etc JY owned, then a pair of shoes or indoor shoes would not be missed, its also possible if JY did wear a pair of shoes or indoor shoes to Flat no 2, the shoes could have been returned to JY's Flat by the Perp.

That could be why JY never went round to the Flat in her socks alone,that is if all this happened in Flat 2 of course.

 

[Deckard]

.

Do men really know how many pair's of shoes or indoor shoes a Woman has!.
Would GR know how many pair's of shoes etc JY had?, a pair of shoes or indoor shoes could have been worn by JY, if GR had no idea of the shoes etc JY owned, then a pair of shoes or indoor shoes would not be missed, its also possible if JY did wear a pair of shoes or indoor shoes to Flat no 2, the shoes could have been returned to JY's Flat by the Perp.

That could be why JY never went round to the Flat in her socks alone,that is if all this happened in Flat 2 of course.

Every theory is possible. You have to ask yourself what did the killer have to gain by removing Jo's shoes/boots and placing them back in her flat?

What possible difference to the killer would it make if Jo was found in the lane with her boots on?

It is interesting to note that in the 1974 GC murder she also was found strangled without footwear.

 

[notsure]

.

Do men really know how many pair's of shoes or indoor shoes a Woman has!.
Would GR know how many pair's of shoes etc JY had?, a pair of shoes or indoor shoes could have been worn by JY, if GR had no idea of the shoes etc JY owned, then a pair of shoes or indoor shoes would not be missed, its also possible if JY did wear a pair of shoes or indoor shoes to Flat no 2, the shoes could have been returned to JY's Flat by the Perp.

That could be why JY never went round to the Flat in her socks alone,that is if all this happened in Flat 2 of course.

It's very difficult to get ordinary shoes over ski socks, though, and I think she was still wearing one of the socks.

 

[naturally suspicious]

Here's another link ive found: http://fjlathome2.blogspot.com/2011/01/vincent-tabak-may-have-been-framed.html

there are so many aspects of felicity's argument that i agree with.
definitely worth a read...

 

[Colombo]

there are so many aspects of felicity's argument that i agree with.
definitely worth a read...

yes I can see your point

I have seen many of the issues she points out before and have researched and commented on them

however

where I differ with this lady is her movement from pointing out features that may warrant investigation to direct linking with 'suspects' and quite frankly to creating an evidence scene that she has no right to do

she has no idea of what the flat scene looked like ...only the occupants and the police do

its this sort of site that actually gives researchers a bad name ...similar to Mr O'Gara's

they are not scientific ..they read almost like a novel ..and is why they are not taken seriously

she is also incorrect on a number of points ...eg CJ was already working in Bristol in 1974 ..he didnt move there after the murder

its also clear that she only takes the issues that match her theory and does not look at any that do not..again similar to Mr O'Gara

what is required is a balanced approach that can point out the possibilities and probabilities of events and point to possible involvement by certain players

if this is then considered to be likely by a large number of people then one can attempt to launch an investigation

 

[kemo]

I've followed crimes in the US but also in Canada and Europe and I have never seen anything like the pracice in the UK of withhold practically all evidence from the Press.

Now I understand the principle of "pre-trial publicity" undermining that judicial process. In vast majority of cases, there has been no "pretrial publicity" and jurors are only privy to information introduced in court. In those cases the press finds interesting, it is possible that no potential juror would not know a certain amount of information about the case. This is a problem, particularly for the defence. The most damageing situation is when significant information is reported in the press but not introduced in court. How can a juror "disregard" "significant" information?

The trouble is, that when information is withheld from the Press and the Public, it is replaced by "information" that is obtained through "informal" sources that can even more damagings to the judicial process. The rumors, conjecture, uncomfirmed information reported as fact and the scope of speculation that occured in this case are likely to cause more problems for the administration of justice than reportage based on information released from L:aw Enforcement

 

[aneurin]

re the beast ...if he is merely the humourist that you claim ..why are you so concerned that some people wish to try and find out his identity? is would surely be their time they are wasting? and surely he will see the funny side of that being the 'viz' fan that he appears to be

The only point I have made regarding the 'Person Known As Beast719' is that he is not a credible witness. I have no concerns whatsoever about people finding out his identity, and I have provided fairly simple instructions on how that task can be accomplished.

 

[Colombo]

The only point I have made regarding the 'Person Known As Beast719' is that he is not a credible witness. I have no concerns whatsoever about people finding out his identity, and I have provided fairly simple instructions on how that task can be accomplished.

credible witness to what?

and how can we find this identity?

and

again

are you a lawyer

and what are your views on this case

please tell us!

 

[aneurin]

Here's another link ive found: http://fjlathome2.blogspot.com/2011/01/vincent-tabak-may-have-been-framed.html

That's Felicity Jane Lowde who once got six months for cyberstalking. See:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1456078.cyberstalker_caught/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2326692.ece

 

[aneurin]

yes I can see your point ....

Well I'd agree with you there; neither Lowde's nor O'Gara's respective sites should be taken that seriously.

 

[Colombo]

Well I'd agree with you there; neither Lowde's nor O'Gara's respective sites should be taken that seriously.

still awaiting answers to the questions

or should I take the absence of them as

no

and

i havent got any

 

[angel10510]

yes we get it

you think we are all idiots / conspiracy theorists and that we should all wait till the trial and then decide if the verdict is correct

the problem is that we aren't and we won't

Can we step back for a moment? This suggests you are running around trying to find out the truth while others are trying to halt, silence, misdirect, foil, sabotage, or otherwise prevent you from doing so. In my previous post I was trying to point out another way of looking at it.

If anyone is mistaking you for a conspiracy theorist, it may be because you are using the language and framework of conspiracy theorists. Someone, whether an individual or group, is trying to stop you and others like you from uncovering the truth. People, unnamed or perhaps unnameable, are working behind the scenes trying to direct the course of events, pull strings, and manage the flow of information. Vested interests, unnamed or perhaps unnameable, have a stake in the outcome and are complicit, or at least compliant. Because ‘they’ are trying to leave no trace, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. To find proof one only need look to JFK. That there have been other miscarriages of justice signalls that one may be at work here. Those who do not see or feel this are naïve sheep at best or saboteurs at worst.

This sort of framework uses the theory as the starting point and looks for clues or supporting evidence from there. Another framework uses clues or supporting evidence to build the theory. This may be a source of confusion or can explain why we are talking past each other.

 

[naturally suspicious]

That's Felicity Jane Lowde who once got six months for cyberstalking. See:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1456078.cyberstalker_caught/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2326692.ece

oh dear.....

 

[goldielox]

I've followed crimes in the US but also in Canada and Europe and I have never seen anything like the pracice in the UK of withhold practically all evidence from the Press.

Now I understand the principle of "pre-trial publicity" undermining that judicial process. In vast majority of cases, there has been no "pretrial publicity" and jurors are only privy to information introduced in court. In those cases the press finds interesting, it is possible that no potential juror would not know a certain amount of information about the case. This is a problem, particularly for the defence. The most damageing situation is when significant information is reported in the press but not introduced in court. How can a juror "disregard" "significant" information?

The trouble is, that when information is withheld from the Press and the Public, it is replaced by "information" that is obtained through "informal" sources that can even more damagings to the judicial process. The rumors, conjecture, uncomfirmed information reported as fact and the scope of speculation that occured in this case are likely to cause more problems for the administration of justice than reportage based on information released from L:aw Enforcement

Hi Kemo

I have to say that I much prefer the UK way where the subject of pre-trial publicity is concerned. I'm thinking here specifically of Conrad Murray and proceedings to do with him when I say I've been quite horrified with the amount of rumours, conjecture and speculation in the press to do with that entire case - a lot of it coming I suspect from his defence team themelves.

Of the two systems I'd take the UK's way any day

 

[barriem]

That's Felicity Jane Lowde who once got six months for cyberstalking. See:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1456078.cyberstalker_caught/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2326692.ece

Yes i read that about her too, she maybe abit of a loose cannon :crazy: however i just find it interesting how in the last few years she has a few random blogs except this one which she obviously feels strongly about....