I can't see either side wanting him but, depending on the ins and outs of the case and what we don't yet know, they might end up lumbered with him regardless.
GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #12
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
I can't see either side wanting him but, depending on the ins and outs of the case and what we don't yet know, they might end up lumbered with him regardless.
Whoever made that call I don't think it was TM. She's still bound to be a prosecution witness though. Whether they call her on the day however is another matter.
Cherwell
Ice Cream
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 6,541
- Reaction score
- 16,738
We don't know that, though, do we? It could have been something else.
And we don't know what he said to the neighbours. He may have given everyone the same version, and it is one or more of the neighbours who has distorted what he told them. People don't always listen with full attention, or don't always remember exactly what was said. (Actually that may have been why he asked them not to say anything, if he did.)
When questioned he would probably answer, " I made some comment which was very,very,very much vaguer than the pimple on the end of your snout your honour "
But seriously, I think it will be his car or the use of it, which will be the main concern if it comes to trial.
Patticake
Member
That brings up an interesting question: Do they allow a potential "witness for the prosecution" to visit the accused in jail? Couldn't that jeopardize testimony?
.
notsure
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 932
- Reaction score
- 4,188
It's an inference I drew from the fact that the murderer hasn't confessed to his crime. If it had just been one moment of madness in an otherwise sane life, I don't understand how he could carry on pretending to be innocent.
Hypothetically speaking of course. As far as the JY case is concerned who have yet to establish the identity of the murderer, or indeed, if it was a murder at all. We simply have a situation where one person has been charged with the offence of murder. He may well be acquitted. Or not, as the case may be.
That brings up an interesting question: Do they allow a potential "witness for the prosecution" to visit the accused in jail? Couldn't that jeopardize testimony?
.
Yes they do. The police won't be exactly ecstatic that they're still in contact for obvious reasons -they'll have been hoping TM washed her hands of him completely instead.
Years ago an ex of mine was remanded. I was called as a prosecution witness. At least once a week for the nine months until the trial I went to visit him.
In the first couple of months after his arrest I had a few calls from the DS in charge of the case, ringing for not much more than because he was on a "fishing" exercise to ask if I was still in contact, was I standing by him, how I should be thinking about myself in it all, and then he'd turn quite nasty by the end of the conversation. In the end I complained about it to my ex's solicitor when I popped in to see him, and the police calls stopped after that. That copper was still sadistically nasty a few times to me outside the court room but inside the court building at the trial and sentencing though. TM's father being a lawyer I guess the police won't do this to her though.
If you picked up on the fact I mentioned I popped in to see my ex's solicitor I'll elaborate. As a prosecuton witness this isn't allowed. Regardless, and though obviously we kept that quiet, I met with his solicitor quite a few times. I spent hours in his office with him reading and going over the statements and evidence bundle with him. In due course the old begger then made a pass at me so I stopped going. Thankfully by that point he'd given me my own copy of the depositions to take home to study anyway.
Anyway, the above wasn't allowed, and probably is a rarity rather than the norm, but it can happen, depending on how wily/dodgy/ethical (choose your own word) the defence's lawyer is or chooses to be with that case.
Another snippet too about what goes on - on the day of the trial they delayed the start, trying heavily to get the defendant to go guilty. He wouldn't, and wanted to see me. They (the judge) delayed the start till after lunch to allow me (a prosecution witness) to go down and visit him in the court cells. That's not allowed either. He did go guilty once I'd been down to see him, but had he not and the trial went ahead I doubt I'd have been called as a witness after that.
Anyway, both sides ignore and bend the rules when it suits them to and when they can. There's a lot goes on behind the scenes the general public haven't got a clue about.
I have been following the case with great interest for weeks now; and if I may join in and add a couple of my thoughts.
I totally agree. I have tossed this around in my head for weeks now. If it were an accident, then I would have thought that the guilt of what he had done would have driven him almost insane. Covering up tracks in the way they seem to have been covered and keeping this composed silence are not the actions I would have expected from someone who is normal and innocent; makes me feel this was premeditated.
It takes an awful lot of planning to commit the perfect murder, no clues, no witnesses and no remorse etc.
The trouble is, I dont believe VT is guilty I just cannot see why someone who has everything, nice family, great job, nice flat, girlfriend and a fairly good social life would do something like this on his very own doorstep. If it were a moment of madness, I would have expected to hear him shout from the rooftops saying he didnt mean it and feel unbelievable remorse, as we all know this hasnt happened. I know that I am in the minority, but it just doesnt make sense to me!
Or to put it another way; it appears that in order to commit the perfect murder, all you have to do is ensure that you have a "nice family, great job, nice flat, girlfriend and a fairly good social life". That's pretty much a green light for every wannabe serial out there - just fit in with the conventional social norms and no one will suspect you. (Which is of course, pretty much what a lot of them try and do.) In any case, that all seems rather presumptive. For all we know, VT hated his basement flat, was frustrated at work, disappointed by his girlfriend, and had no social life to speak of.
I don't think you are in a minority at all, until we know the real evidence,
i think alot of us have doubts about this one. :waitasec:
Reading another forum reminded me about something - that item that was handed in by a member of the public.
The police were doing urgent soil and pollen tests on this item, and at the time if was reported denied the item was the missing sock.
So I wonder what this item was? I'm not ruling out that it might have been the sock just because the police denied it was the sock, and I don't think the item was pizza related because I think they were still reporting later that the pizza still hadn't been found.
So what on earth could it have been that was handed in? And if it wasn't pizza or sock related why would a member of the public think to hand in any other item that wasn't reported as missing?
The police were doing urgent soil and pollen tests on this item, and at the time if was reported denied the item was the missing sock.
So I wonder what this item was? I'm not ruling out that it might have been the sock just because the police denied it was the sock, and I don't think the item was pizza related because I think they were still reporting later that the pizza still hadn't been found.
So what on earth could it have been that was handed in? And if it wasn't pizza or sock related why would a member of the public think to hand in any other item that wasn't reported as missing?
That would be the "credible piece of evidence" reported here;
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3341986/Jo-Yeates-Crucial-clue-found.html
I can't recall there being any updates to this story either. But it all came from a "police source", so it may be nothing.
My guess would be the item used to transport the body to the deposition site. If a bike bag/surf board type bag were found in a field or hedge it would look out of place to a member of the public which would prompt them to ring it in. Connection with the deposition site as soil/pollen tests were to be carried out?
naturally suspicious
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
notsure
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 932
- Reaction score
- 4,188
Yes, that's what I meant: if he is the one, then it seems unlikely that it was accidental, unless he's very cold indeed. The same applies if it's somebody else: if accidental, wouldn't they be racked with guilt and have confessed by now? Whoever it is, they want to get away with it - at the moment, at least.
naturally suspicious
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
it just could be ...that the person who killed jy also killed before in 74 gc....in which case that person would be a very cold individual, certainly as far as women are concerned...
just a thought that nags and won't go away....
My hunch is between the police's two suspects until further evidence is revealed.
If the partial DNA found were due to attempted CPR I would veer towards VT being the killer rather than CJ imo.
The LL however seems to have the most opportunity of any of the suspects. Lives alone, keys to flats, vehicles etc.
If I went back to my theoretical 'sharing a train ride' idea, CJ would still be left in the station.
The person would certainly be a very old individual.
Based on Home Office numbers - for a 25 year old murder victim, there is a 96% probability that the perpetrator will be 50 years old or less.
slightly ageist remark there!
do the Home office state what type of crime this refers to?
also do they have the probability of someone knowing 2 victims of strangulation murder
- Status