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

[veggiefan]

The three murders GC , JY and MH were similar in that all three had an element of trophy killings, In JY and GC it was certain footwear

GC's sandals were found next to her body, so I'm not sure if they could really be described as a "trophy".

 

[aneurin]

The three murders GC , JY and MH were similar in that all three had an element of trophy killings, In JY and GC it was certain footwear in MH Case it was a some bones and clothes.

A 32 year-old man has been charged with the murder of Jo Yeates. He would have been 18 at the time of Melanie Hall's death. I imagine that it would be possible that he spent the summer of 1996 on holiday in the UK, and that he might have visited Bath. But given that he has not been convicted of anything, it would be rather prejudicial to his right to a fair trial to engage in such speculations.

Besides, I hardly think it likely he can be held responsible for a murder that took place before he was born.

As to the Trophy Killing Theory there is, as has been pointed out, no evidence of any 'trophy' being taken in the GC case; in JY's case all we have is speculation that the missing sock was taken as a trophy (as opposed to being simply lost and/or discarded at some point), and a complete absence of any evidence of such a practice in MH's case. (Note that you can't take bones as a trophy from a victim until their body has decomposed.)

The Police would only be too aware of the type of killer/killers they are dealing with.

Indeed. Which is why they've ruled out any connection between the GC and JY cases, and why they have connected neither with the MH case, because they think Christopher Clark did that one.

 

[Deckard]

I still follow my earlier thoughts that JY discovered something shocking and VT believed he had no option but to silence her. This is going to be one of "those" trials!

This is one of the bizarre things about this case, the difficulty in pinning down the primary motive.

If JY had prior knowledge of something the killer did not want in the public domain she felt safe enough to return to her flat unaccompanied with the aggrieved party(s) nearby. If she only gained insight on the Friday night itself she had a mere 15 minutes to discover the 'secret' before the screams were heard. What could she have seen or heard in that short time to have resulted in her death? The killer would supposedly have double the headache in hiding his unsavoury secret and removing JY from the scene.
Imo the perp felt driven to interact with Jo because the tight timeline would suggest this.

Driven by what I can only speculate. Desire, hatred, jealousy? Why does anyone kill anyone?
The hamfisted disposal would point to someone having to think on their feet so perhaps a lesser degree of premeditation? Their initial motive not being to harm but things escalating to the point of no return?

 

[whiterum]

veggiefan;6138470]Not necessarily. It's quite possible that he's in jail for other offences, but has never been linked to (or charged with) the 1974 murder. it doesn't necessarily follow that it is someone who is still walking free.

The murderer of Glenis may well be in prison or dead but unfortunately there is no evidence that anyone in custody or has previously been in custody, has committed this vile crime. The family of Glenis will have no closure of any sort, until someone has been convicted and made to pay for the particular crime of murdering their loved one.

Whether the actual killer of Glenis may be locked up for another offence, is no consolation whatever for the family of Glenis. The only fact that they/we are aware of is that no-one has been charged, tried and convicted, in the 37 years since the murder, meaning no justice has as yet been served for Glenis and in effect, the killer is still walking free.

The new police campaign to try and identify her killer, seem to be of the opinion that he is still out there somewhere in the community and has escaped justice for the past 37 years. Hopefully his time is soon about to run out.

 

[veggiefan]

If JY had prior knowledge of something the killer did not want in the public domain she felt safe enough to return to her flat unaccompanied with the aggrieved party(s) nearby. If she only gained insight on the Friday night itself she had a mere 15 minutes to discover the 'secret' before the screams were heard.

But that does assume that the screams heard just after 9pm are related to the case.

The issue is clouded by the other person who heard a scream of "Help me!" at around midnight.

I doubt that both reports could refer to JY, from what we know of the case, but which (if either) is relevant I really don't know.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Joanna Yeates' murder linked to unsolved murder of Glenis Carruthers?

Although the murder of Glenis Carruthers was 37 years ago, her parents believe there are similarities between their daughter’s murder and that of Joanna. Having looked at the details it’s easy to see why they’ve reached that conclusion.

“Both women were found without shoes, neither were sexually assaulted and they were attacked at the same time of night.”

What kind of killers are obsessed with removing shoes and as in the case of MH removing bones.Not your normal sex attack or murder is it..

 

[Deckard]

One possible theory in the 'JY stumbled upon a secret' is that she caught sight of a hidden camera system in her flat shortly after arriving home with the perp watching live so to speak.

VT might cover some of the bases in this scenario being technically minded. To install a camera you would think CJ would have better access to the victim's flat to remove masonry residue and aid concealment.

Presumably VT would also have to conceal his voyeuristic side from his g/f as well whereas CJ lived alone.

I'm sure the police took all of this into consideration when dismantling the interiors of 44 Canynge Rd.

It wouldn't be the first time a LL or neighbour has been implicated in spying but I see no reason for A&S not to release this information if found. Would it prejudice their case in some way?

 

[Deckard]

Motive 3 : Self Preservation

JY returns to flat and dumps coat and bag. Puts pizza in oven to cook and takes a few sips of cider.

She's been drinking for a couple of hours in the Bristol Ram so decides to go to the bathroom. It there she notices for the first time the micro camera.

Incensed she grabs her keys and marches round to flat 1. VT is confronted at his front door at the rear of the property and accused of being a voyeur.

He realises this means professional suicide for him. A people flow expert who also happens to be a convicted voyeur won't go down well.

JY is silenced in VT's flat. Maybe VT tried to resuscitate, but it's too late. He has control of his own environment and now has time to figure out his next move. He obviously has to move the body, it is actually less hazardous to remove Jo to a car parked at the rear of Canynge Rd than to struggle around the corner of the building to flat 2. He thinks. Time passes. He'll remove Jo's boots and her key and place them back in her flat to suggest any struggle occurred there.

When he eventually gets around to set the scene in flat 2 he sees the smoking pizza in the oven and decides to bin it to remove the smell and discourage interlopers.

He has a long night ahead. Remove the body from the flat and conceal all traces of his hidden camera/battery/transmitter system.

The sock could have come off at any time after he removed the boots. Ski type socks are not as tight fitting as ordinary cotton ones.

 

[Cherwell]

“Both women were found without shoes, neither were sexually assaulted and they were attacked at the same time of night.”

What kind of killers are obsessed with removing shoes and as in the case of MH removing bones.Not your normal sex attack or murder is it..

I don't see these 'similarities' as particularly significant.

Glenis's killer was interrupted, so the question of sexual assault has to be left open as it may have been intended.

Her shoes were not removed, they were found with her. As they are described as 'sandals', they were most likely slingbacks or mules, the type a woman would wear to an evening do (nobody wears sandals in January otherwise). They probably came off when she was on the ground, as these types of shoe fall off easily.

As for your comment re bones, Aneurin has already made the point.

Note that you can't take bones as a trophy from a victim until their body has decomposed.

I see no reason for A&S not to release this information if found. Would it prejudice their case in some way?

But there is no reason for the police to release any information. They only do so if they are looking for witnesses or other help from the public.

 

[MMENJBRIT]

I wish the general public could be give more information on this case and the details as to why VT was arrested. It almost seems as if the Victim has less rights than the accused. It also stops the general public from being able to critique whether L/E are doing a credible job. Surely if the evidence is so watertight waiting until October for trial seems an overly long time to wait.

 

[goldielox]

I wish the general public could be give more information on this case and the details as to why VT was arrested. It almost seems as if the Victim has less rights than the accused. It also stops the general public from being able to critique whether L/E are doing a credible job. Surely if the evidence is so watertight waiting until October for trial seems an overly long time to wait.

An October date for the trial is actually surprisingly quick. Go back just a few years and this wouldn't have got to trial for at least a year.

 

[goldielox]

If VT denies this to the bitter end we'll never know the motive. If he's convicted we'll read the prosecution's interpretation of why they think he did it but that's not necessarily the actual reason and best taken with a pinch of salt unless it comes from the horses mouth ie VT.

If VT goes down the route at trial that yes he did it but it was because of xx and accidental or for whatever reason he gives, then it may possibly help us to piece together what happened that night/weekend and why he did what he did. Even then there's no guarantees and probably will only reveal half the story.

I'm always reminded of the Soham murders and Ian Huntley here. He did admit he'd done it, or sort of. He said the first girl had a nosebleed, panicked, fell in the bath and hit her head and died. The other girl then panicked and started to scream. To silence her he put his hand over her mouth and accidentally strangled (or smothered...can't recall exact details) her.

I think, if VT did the crime this sort of c ock and bull story is perhaps as close as we might get as to what actually happened and what drove him to do it.

 

[Deckard]

Being a voyeur could mean the crime has sexual overtones without being a sexual assault. The police wouldn't feel inclined to alert the public to a rampaging killer other than to say to take the normal vigilant precautions.

It's not going to matter how many Phd's the perp has if he finds himself landed on the sex offenders register. Not good for business.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Originally Posted by aneurin View Post
Note that you can't take bones as a trophy from a victim until their body has decomposed.

So what happened was the body stored somewhere else and the bones taken and used before they removed it to the roadside or did they go back again to the same spot and then remove the bones. Whichever way it is still a trophy killing.

 

[goldielox]

To me anyway I believe the killer was acting in pure panic mode after the murder. I don't think much more immediately afterwards was on his mind other than to get Jo's body away from that building...to get it away somewhere else, and as quickly as possible.

Longwood Lane is still too close to Canynge Road- just 3 miles away and not exactly the most secluded of spots so I think the killer just wanted to distance himself and his homebase from her body, as soon as he could. That was by far his primary objective. Why? Other than the obvious one that he probably didn't want her found in the same building he resided, I can only think that he needed to do it because he didn't live alone and the person he lived with was due back imminently, or his transport he had only for a limited time (hence couldn't drive a great distance because the car was only on loan for him to pop to a shop or something closeby..) or he was due to be somewhere else later so only had a limited amount of time in which to be "missing" or explain his reasons for being late elsewhere.

I don't think whoever did this was particularly cool, cunning or thoughtful immediately after Jo's death, though certainly must have demonstrated these traits in the days and weeks after her death.

 

[Cherwell]

So what happened was the body stored somewhere else and the bones taken and used before they removed it to the roadside or did they go back again to the same spot and then remove the bones. Whichever way it is still a trophy killing.

Animals is the most likely answer. Not a pleasant thought, but that's 'Mother Nature'.

 

[notsure]

If VT denies this to the bitter end we'll never know the motive. If he's convicted we'll read the prosecution's interpretation of why they think he did it but that's not necessarily the actual reason and best taken with a pinch of salt unless it comes from the horses mouth ie VT.

If VT goes down the route at trial that yes he did it but it was because of xx and accidental or for whatever reason he gives, then it may possibly help us to piece together what happened that night/weekend and why he did what he did. Even then there's no guarantees and probably will only reveal half the story.

I'm always reminded of the Soham murders and Ian Huntley here. He did admit he'd done it, or sort of. He said the first girl had a nosebleed, panicked, fell in the bath and hit her head and died. The other girl then panicked and started to scream. To silence her he put his hand over her mouth and accidentally strangled (or smothered...can't recall exact details) her.

I think, if VT did the crime this sort of c ock and bull story is perhaps as close as we might get as to what actually happened and what drove him to do it.

Perhaps under cross-examination, a witness close to him might reveal something that he has said about JY, or at least inform the court that he had noticed her existence before. It all depends on how the trial goes, I suppose.

 

[aneurin]

So what happened was the body stored somewhere else and the bones taken and used before they removed it to the roadside or did they go back again to the same spot and then remove the bones. Whichever way it is still a trophy killing.

Animals is the most likely answer. Not a pleasant thought, but that's 'Mother Nature'.

Well yes exactly. Or predation by animals as I believe it is technically known. That's the simple explanation. In order to justify the theory that the bones were removed as a trophy or a souvenir, you have to construct a complicated explanation that involves the killer either (a) storing the body somewhere else and then dumping her skeletal remains or (b) revisiting the dump site at regular intervals.

According to the official line from A&SC (see http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/special_appeals/melanie-hall/)

A post-mortem concluded that she died from severe head injuries. Her body was then wrapped in black bin bags and tied with blue rope before being left in vegetation alongside the motorway slip-road.

So it has been determined that it was her body that was left at the site, so that eliminates option (a). And if you intended to return to the body and remove some bones, why make like difficult for yourself and wrap the body in black bin bags and parcel it up with blue rope?

 

[whiterum]

It's not going to matter how many Phd's the perp has if he finds himself landed on the sex offenders register. Not good for business.

His defence could always be

“Certainly not a peephole sir, I was merely conducting a survey, observing the simulation of human movement, the interaction between the occupants while performing their activities and the utilisation of space capacity in the bathroom next door”.

Would the jury fall for it or think Space Cadet?

 

[Deckard]

His defence could always be

“Certainly not a peephole sir, I was merely conducting a survey, observing the simulation of human movement, the interaction between the occupants while performing their activities and the utilisation of space capacity in the bathroom next door”.

Would the jury fall for it or think Space Cadet?

Talk about a busman's holiday. Maybe he just couldn't immerse himself fully in tracking people's movement on the job, he had to bring his work home with him!

It has been suggested by a few posters here that VT was not attractive enough to have had a relationship with JY.

Maybe he did have a 'relationship' with her.

She just knew nothing about it?