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

[edgedweller]

Jo’s earrings could have been pulled from her ears as a result of VT pulling her top off over her head maybe roughly after he laid her body on her bed. Who knows that he didn’t pose her body and take pictures just like the depraved *advertiser censored*-site mages and films he was addicted to.

Didn't the defence pathologist get asked how easy or difficult it would be to redress a dead body? "Difficult" I think was his reply. So NL had thought of this, definitely. Let's hope for Jo's sake it didn't happen.

 

[edgedweller]

Anyone see this ? I caught the latter half (mid way through the reconstruction) so missed Jo's parents, but I did think the chap being interviewed at the end was very emotive and damning regarding VT & his conduct during the trial.

I only caught the very end of the Yeateses being interviewed - how much of the reconstruction did they show? I vividly remember the girl who played Jo when they showed photos in the paper at the time. Must catch it on iplayer.

 

[KMP09]

Yes they showed a reconstruction on how VT had knocked on Jo's door before the attack happened i was sickened on how poor Jo was left to defend herself with a man over 6ft, Crime watch also showed the waitrose video i know its been said many times but the clothing on that man pushing that trolley towards Jo looks exactly like what VT had worn in Asda's seems abit more then a coincidence i think.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Yes they showed a reconstruction on how VT had knocked on Jo's door before the attack happened i was sickened on how poor Jo was left to defend herself with a man over 6ft, Crime watch also showed the waitrose video i know its been said many times but the clothing on that man pushing that trolley towards Jo looks exactly like what VT had worn in Asda's seems abit more then a coincidence i think.

All the faces are blurred in the Crimwatch coverage of the CCTV image at Waitrose, you can plainly see he has his camera though. Some people are asking if this is Police negligence for not dealing with it when they would have had clearer footage of him leaving and entering the store, so therefore why was he not a suspect in the first place. We may never know why this was not used in court. I still wonder if it was his camera that splintered the table one that size would have had some impact if it was swung around , during the tussle between him and Jo. I wonder if forensics know what caused the damage. The Crimewatch footage shows him coming from his flat to knock on her door but I think he followed her so he would have come from the other direction imo.

 

[otto]

All the faces are blurred in the Crimwatch coverage of the CCTV image at Waitrose, you can plainly see he has his camera though. Some people are asking if this is Police negligence for not dealing with it when they would have had clearer footage of him leaving and entering the store, so therefore why was he not a suspect in the first place. We may never know why this was not used in court. I still wonder if it was his camera that splintered the table one that size would have had some impact if it was swung around , during the tussle between him and Jo. I wonder if forensics know what caused the damage. The Crimewatch footage shows him coming from his flat to knock on her door but I think he followed her so he would have come from the other direction imo.

How could a guy in the same grocery store prior to the murder be considered a suspect? If it was him, proving that he shopped in the same place prior to the murder would not prove premeditation - only that they lived and shopped in the same area ... apparently not friendly enough to say hello.

It could support the argument that he followed his neighbour home, but he lived in the same building so if it could have been proven that he followed her there ... it wouldn't make much difference in terms of connecting him to the murder.

 

[kINGFISHER]

How could a guy in the same grocery store prior to the murder be considered a suspect? If it was him, proving that he shopped in the same place prior to the murder would not prove premeditation - only that they lived and shopped in the same area ... apparently not friendly enough to say hello.

It could support the argument that he followed his neighbour home, but he lived in the same building so if it could have been proven that he followed her there ... it wouldn't make much difference in terms of connecting him to the murder.

You are right, except he stated in court ,on oath that he was home at that particular time and not in Waitrose shopping.

 

[otto]

You are right, except he stated in court ,on oath that he was home at that particular time and not in Waitrose shopping.

The film appears to be too grainy to make a positive identification. Blowing the same image onto a screen does not make it more clear. We know that a man about the same height as VT, wearing a longer dark coat, was in the grocery store black and white surveillance footage when Joanna was buying her pizza or cider. That person appears to abandon his shopping cart and return to it, or not - depending on what footage you see.

It cannot be conclusively proven that VT was in the grocery store at the same time as VT. What is his timeline? Wasn't he speaking with the landlord at 7:15, then in his flat (?) - coming home from work (7?), then out taking pictures ... if he saw Joanna at some point, it was most likely closer to home, but perhaps not. Fortunately it wasn't needed for a conviction.

What difference does it really make? Is it a point to suggest that police didn't do their jobs? They did ... and prosecutors too. They did their job and VT was convicted for life with 20 years before parole elligibility ... without the snuff flicks or footage of what he may have been doing prior to the murder.

If we had a link to the grocery store footage, took a print screen, put it next to the shot of him standing outside his flat while the media was filming ... we could compare the two. Do you have the two links handy?

 

[MMENJBRIT]

All the faces are blurred in the Crimwatch coverage of the CCTV image at Waitrose, you can plainly see he has his camera though. Some people are asking if this is Police negligence for not dealing with it when they would have had clearer footage of him leaving and entering the store, so therefore why was he not a suspect in the first place. We may never know why this was not used in court. I still wonder if it was his camera that splintered the table one that size would have had some impact if it was swung around , during the tussle between him and Jo. I wonder if forensics know what caused the damage. The Crimewatch footage shows him coming from his flat to knock on her door but I think he followed her so he would have come from the other direction imo.

OR,,,,, he ran ahead of her and 'laid in wait' in whatever plan he had devised.
(just happened to be passing her door as she arrived, was acting the 'good neighbor' returning her cat as she opened the door, or had let himself in ahead of her arrival).

 

[kINGFISHER]

There was a lot in the video to a trained eye or psychologist I would think that might intimate, his body language was a little bit suspect. He eyed her around the store when he saw her he pushed the trolley nearly into her ,she appeared to ignore him He made a quick exit. A lot has been said as to whether he followed her into the store but I can't see that would be the case. I think he looked surprised when he saw her.

TABAK went out to take pix of Clifton in the snow. Went a short distance but it wasn't very pristine - didn't take any
He want out for a walk to take photos of the snow but was back home by 7.25pm.
He didn't take any pictures "it was not as photogenic as I was hoping... It was a bit dirty" returned back by 7.25 he said was then home eating his tea and didn't go out until he went to Asda after nine o'clock. So who was that in Waitrose ( Jo Yeates was spotted on closed-circuit television (CCTV) at 8.10 pm)
MAYBE THE PROSECUTION THOUGHT IT IRRELEVANT TO USE THIS.

 

[kINGFISHER]

The film appears to be too grainy to make a positive identification. Blowing the same image onto a screen does not make it more clear. We know that a man about the same height as VT, wearing a longer dark coat, was in the grocery store black and white surveillance footage when Joanna was buying her pizza or cider. That person appears to abandon his shopping cart and return to it, or not - depending on what footage you see.

It cannot be conclusively proven that VT was in the grocery store at the same time as VT. What is his timeline? Wasn't he speaking with the landlord at 7:15, then in his flat (?) - coming home from work (7?), then out taking pictures ... if he saw Joanna at some point, it was most likely closer to home, but perhaps not. Fortunately it wasn't needed for a conviction.

What difference does it really make? Is it a point to suggest that police didn't do their jobs? They did ... and prosecutors too. They did their job and VT was convicted for life with 20 years before parole elligibility ... without the snuff flicks or footage of what he may have been doing prior to the murder.

If we had a link to the grocery store footage, took a print screen, put it next to the shot of him standing outside his flat while the media was filming ... we could compare the two. Do you have the two links handy?

I would like to think Police have ways of producing better images , if not what is the point of these big brother CCTV cameras. Look at exit and entry.

 

[KMP09]

I still wonder if it was his camera that splintered the table one that size would have had some impact if it was swung around , during the tussle between him and Jo. I wonder if forensics know what caused the damage. The Crimewatch footage shows him coming from his flat to knock on her door but I think he followed her so he would have come from the other direction imo.

I also think that VT had followed her around that night, on the waitrose video it shows that man leaving the exit first so its possible he might of been waiting outside for Jo, then he could of just followed her home.

What Crime watch shows is VT coming from his flat walking around her side of the flat, we will never know exactly what did really happen on that night.

 

[edgedweller]

All the faces are blurred in the Crimwatch coverage of the CCTV image at Waitrose, you can plainly see he has his camera though. Some people are asking if this is Police negligence for not dealing with it when they would have had clearer footage of him leaving and entering the store, so therefore why was he not a suspect in the first place. We may never know why this was not used in court. I still wonder if it was his camera that splintered the table one that size would have had some impact if it was swung around , during the tussle between him and Jo. I wonder if forensics know what caused the damage. The Crimewatch footage shows him coming from his flat to knock on her door but I think he followed her so he would have come from the other direction imo.

Which table was splintered? I don't remember reading about that.

 

[weeeva]

In the Waitrose Video the man who appears to be heading back to the trolley left by VT look alike, is a different man. This second man seems to have a light coloured jumper hanging down below his jacket, the man who left the trolley did not.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Which table was splintered? I don't remember reading about that.

To be precise... The
green pedestal /table itself had been damaged — with broken plastic ...

 

[Cherwell]

I also think that VT had followed her around that night, on the waitrose video it shows that man leaving the exit first so its possible he might of been waiting outside for Jo, then he could of just followed her home.

Why would he need to follow her? He knew who she was, he knew where she lived, and he would be able to see her arrive home if he looked out of his window. Or just watch for the lights to go on - Greg may have left a light on but probably not in every room.

 

[otto]

I would like to think Police have ways of producing better images , if not what is the point of these big brother CCTV cameras. Look at exit and entry.

The police don't have access to anything different than what has been released to the public. If the shop or street didn't have high resolution cameras then the police and public don't have access to high resolution footage.

 

[kINGFISHER]

The police don't have access to anything different than what has been released to the public. If the shop or street didn't have high resolution cameras then the police and public don't have access to high resolution footage.

Don't you think if its him he had to go in that store and had to leave the same way as Jo , so I will say how can you be sure that was Jo Yeates in that store also was it her entering or leaving it. If you want to use the excuse you can't see the image then as I said why are they used to identify some people and not others. Why bother with them at all.

 

[otto]

Don't you think if its him he had to go in that store and had to leave the same way as Jo , so I will say how can you be sure that was Jo Yeates in that store also was it her entering or leaving it. If you want to use the excuse you can't see the image then as I said why are they used to identify some people and not others. Why bother with them at all.

Joanna was identifiable on the store camera footage because it was definitely her in the store. VT was not identifiable on he footage because there was no distinguishing characteristics to say that he was in the store. I think that pretty much means that Joanna was in the store and VT was not.

 

[KMP09]

Why would he need to follow her?

I think your misunderstanding my point, yes of course he knew who she was all we are trying to establish is if that was VT in waitrose, it looks too me and others on here that both those people are very similar.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Joanna was identifiable on the store camera footage because it was definitely her in the store. VT was not identifiable on he footage because there was no distinguishing characteristics to say that he was in the store. I think that pretty much means that Joanna was in the store and VT was not.

Except for the size of him, same hairstyle, glasses, same walk, camera over his back, he seemed interested in her . But true, unless we see the footage of him leaving or entering the store then there will be those who will not believe it is him, but there are also many who can clearly see it is. So this does not mean he was not in there, only that we are not privy to seeing him entering or leaving the store and we know he left as we saw him leave.