GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #15

[Curious Alice]

Come on all you sleuths! has anyone got a comment?

Surely there must be a legal reason why that footage has been taken down, maybe to stop jurors accessing information during the trial (I know they are not supposed to but......bet some do).

Either it isn't him, or it is him but for some reason the evidence is not admissable. I have not seen it so need to rely on those of you that have for a definitive identification.

There seems to be several key elements of interest that we have not heard about, that was discussed or in the public domain pre-trial. The prosecution must have either deemed it irrelevant to their case or they are not allowed to introduce.

 

[veggiefan]

Sorry Kingfisher, I don't know. All I know is that the footage was removed from Avon and Somerset constab site and that all I can find now is The Telegraph's CCTV, where the bloke has been cut down, not showing his head and re-action.

Try this one:
[video=youtube;6U7WUtJIhb8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U7WUtJIhb8[/video]

 

[bijoux]

And while we're on the subject of knickers, when the prosecution asked VT if he had put a pair of JY's knickers on a console in the flat, he said he couldn't remember.

 

[whiterum]

Agreed, it's where I think it happened, the kitchen story is to back up his story of a pleasant social chit chat. I think this happened in the hall maybe even as soon as she opened the door. IMO any social exchange happened in the doorway, if indeed there was one and it was not a surprise attack.

Yes it would be a hard job to explain that one away, no time to exchange pleasantries, almost straight in for the kill. Strange though, his two scream scenario just happens to to be compatable with the couples 9pm account.

He probably had it already explained in his pathetic little tale fitted to suit. Scream, hand over mouth, remove hand, scream, hold neck but decided later that the time-line of 9pm didn't look to good, changing it to after 9:30.
( what a douche bag! )

 

[Curious Alice]

Thanks for that veggiefan. Hmmm, it has a look of him I suppose and the behaviour seems odd.

 

[edgedweller]

Has anyone seen a photograph of this pedestal? I've been wondering what exactly it is. The prosecution referred to it as a console. What height and shape is it? I don't remember seeing any green furniture. I do remember a wood-coloured shelf-unit with boots and shoes on the shelves.

I'm presuming it was either taken as evidence by police or thrown out as it was broken. I have no idea what it is!!!

 

[Curious Alice]

Yes it would be a hard job to explain that one away, no time to exchange pleasantries, almost straight in for the kill. Strange though, his two scream scenario just happens to to be compatable with the couples 9pm account.

He probably had it already explained in his pathetic little tale fitted to suit. Scream, hand over mouth, remove hand, scream, hold neck but decided later that the time-line of 9pm didn't look to good, changing it to after 9:30.
( what a douche bag! )

The problem with initial reports are that however hungry the public are for information, and it does help LE with an appeal for witnesses, it gives the accused a framework on which to build a story.

 

[Luna15]

Do you think they'll keep him in the UK? I don't think so. Not only because of his family, but perhaps also for his own safety. This case has caused a lot of upset, and given the circumstances and the BS he's been telling at the trial, the inmates may be less than friendly if he stays.

JY's family would not only walk barefoot to the end of the world to see her again, they'd gladly give their lives to have her alive, or at least to have spared her the ordeal, I'm sure. "A week of hell" that he admits to - the man has no idea what he's talking about.

I honestly dont know Firefly, I wonder if it would make any difference if his manslaughter plea is accepted? perhaps that might aid any request that he might have.

could this also be classed as perjury if that is him walking around waitrose with his camera. When he states on oath that he is home at that time.

I know you feel strongly that it's him in Waitrose, I agree it certainly looks like him, but trying to be logical - IF it was him and the police couldn't prove it by the CCTV in Waitrose - surely they would have tried to tie that in with other CCTV around town? I wonder if the police can place him somewhere else at @8.10? I know internet activity had him in the flat until 7.37 (IIRC) and then he says he was eating pizza, drinking beer and watching tv.

 

[Luna15]

Try this one: Jo Yeates trial CCTV footage 1 - YouTube

be useful if someone could 'save' that - I think that might disappear again.

 

[bos]

OK, I've gone through Rupert Evelyn's tweets, Steven Morris and Harriet Tolputt but can't find where I read that GR said the green pedastol was chipped and Jo's knickers were on top and that he FOUND IT STRANGE her knickers were THERE. I definately read it, if another poster can maybe check another tweeter to find it, I would be grateful.
The date GR gave evidence is the 17th Oct. Thanks.
Sorry if this has been covered, I'm a little behind on the posts.

Martin Evans from the Telegraph was the only person I remember tweeting this; just gone back for a look & it's not there :shocked2:

 

[kINGFISHER]

sorry kingfisher, i don't know. All i know is that the footage was removed from avon and somerset constab site and that all i can find now is the telegraph's cctv, where the bloke has been cut down, not showing his head and re-action.

the one on the bbc website is better but does not show him leaving.
Must admit the avc one was much clearer. But you can still see he has somthing slung over his shoulder the bbc one.

 

[veggiefan]

I honestly dont know Firefly, I wonder if it would make any difference if his manslaughter plea is accepted? perhaps that might aid any request that he might have.

Prisoner repatriation to countries with which we have an agreement (and the Netherlands is one) is pretty standard practice these days. The prisoner must not have any appeals outstanding and must have at least 6 months to serve before an application is made.

 

[Nausicaa]

[...]He knows he is going to prison for killing her, but he wants to save his skin and get a manslaughter verdict & a lesser sentence. It's all he's got left to play for isn't it ?[...]

I know he shows no sign of thinking of others, but he might just be thinking of his mother's feelings also. Indeed if I read his character aright he might even be unusually anxious about the effect of all this on his mother and his relations with her.

After all, unless judge and jury are very dim, his testimony won't in fact have helped his personal plight at all and may have aggravated it. But his mother will be able to go on thinking there was no sexual aggression and that the death was accidental.

Just a thought...

 

[Nausicaa]

And while we're on the subject of knickers, when the prosecution asked VT if he had put a pair of JY's knickers on a console in the flat, he said he couldn't remember.

Indeed - it's so easy to forget what you did with other people's underwear, isn't it ?

But to be serious, why ? Joanna was wearing her underwear when she was found. So these would be a different pair. If, like me, you are satisfied that he could not have been in the flat before her (no keys), he must have got them out of her drawer and put them there after killing her. I can't find a credible explanation for this. Can anyone ? I don't find the kinky thrill explanation very helpful ... he has her body right there if he wants it and the underwear on her, but instead he goes hunting elsewhere.

 

[kINGFISHER]

I know you feel strongly that it's him in Waitrose, I agree it certainly looks like him, but trying to be logical - IF it was him and the police couldn't prove it by the CCTV in Waitrose - surely they would have tried to tie that in with other CCTV around town? I wonder if the police can place him somewhere else at @8.10? I know internet activity had him in the flat until 7.37 (IIRC) and then he says he was eating pizza, drinking beer and watching tv.

I don't think it takes a genius to prove that is him. Especially if they have him entering Waitrose as the picture of Jo entering and anyone entering the store is crystal clear, as they are so close to the camera.(unless he has his hand over his mouth that is). Bear in mind that at no time did he say he was in Waitrose and his statement from court via Rupert Evelyn puts him home at home at 8.10. As soon as he spots her his eyes follow her around the store , I wonder if she was aware of this. Real mystery to me why this has not come up although the jury have seen it. Wonder what cctv version they saw, or if it was cut.

 

[Firefly75]

I don't believe he went there to rape her - surely if he 'only' raped her, and went back to his flat, she would just call the police and with DNA evidence he would be caught and lose everything. Can't see what the point is of raping someone who knows exactly who you are unless you are certain they will never tell anyone (or you kill them afterwards to silence them). He didn't know her well enough to know that. I think the pass gone wrong could be half the truth, but he was more aggressive than he admits to, and the screams heard would be from his aggression. I don't believe someone of JY's generation would scream at an attempted kiss. One of the phrases he used a lot in his testimony was "I can't believe I did that" - he says it of leaving her body by the side of the road. But maybe there are echoes of him meaning it about something else he did that night - grabbing her roughly, forcing himself on her, pulling up her top? "I can't believe I did that"....

I don't think he went to JY's door initially to rape her, but I think he wanted 'something'. Don't ask me what, I don't know what was going through his head or what he may have had to drink/sniff/whatever that made him think he was going to get it. But it may have escalated towards desire to rape her or paw her or whatever ("kiss"). He obviously did grab her wrists etc. The reason I think he went to her door with intention is that I don't believe the story about wanting to photograph the snow (which turned out to be dirty, according to him, and which may not have fallen yet), nor the one about her beckoning him in.

 

[kINGFISHER]

I don't think there is the slightest chance of proving that the man in that poor quality CCTV was VT. If there was, the prosecution would have introduced the very persuasive element of stalking into their case - but they haven't.

So it does seem strange why they have not.

 

[Curious Alice]

Real mystery to me why this has not come up although the jury have seen it. Wonder what cctv version they saw, or if it was cut.

Is that right ? I didn't know that. I wasn't aware that Waitrose figured in his (admitted or alleged) movements on that night. I've missed the occasional day during the trial, it's so easy to have some important information slip past.

Is there a summary anywhere of what we know, what has been said in court so far ?

 

[Cherwell]

Hmmm, it has a look of him I suppose and the behaviour seems odd.

Waitrose man? It just looks to me like a man who is out shopping with a companion, suddenly notices they're no longer beside him and looks around for him/her. Then he has an idea and heads off to where he thinks he/she might be, leaving the trolley where it is. He may return with her following, but I can't really tell if its the same guy.

If there had been a few items of clothes, maybe yes, I'd think they were drying on the hall radiator but just the one item of underwear made it seem odd.

Delicate matters alert: a situation in which one pair of knickers might need laundering is when a woman starts a period unexpectedly. She would want to wash any bloodstain out pdq, not just toss the garment in the wash for later. Not saying this is what happened though.

 

[Sammyme]

Waitrose man? It just looks to me like a man who is out shopping with a companion, suddenly notices they're no longer beside him and looks around for him/her. Then he has an idea and heads off to where he thinks he/she might be, leaving the trolley where it is. He may return with her following, but I can't really tell if its the same guy.



Delicate matters alert: a situation in which one pair of knickers might need laundering is when a woman starts a period unexpectedly. She would want to wash any bloodstain out pdq, not just toss the garment in the wash for later. Not saying this is what happened though.

The point wasn't that washing a single item is odd; rather it's the fact of such a single item being on a hall radiator rather than on a bathroom or bedroom radiator. Curious Alice I think it was who said that's where she would dry it and I agreed with that.