An interesting continuation to the discussion since I was here last.
I'm not sure if I'm able to quote from the previous thread, but here are some thoughts that are going through my head.
-- Casual Acquaintance Guy --
He can almost certainly be ruled out swiftly. For one, we understand at the moment that he didn't even reply to Jo's invitation to hook up for a drink.
The idea that he just turned up at her house instead is simply weird. If somebody invites you to meet up for a drink and you're interested in them -- well, you just say "yes, let's meet up."
I also think he can be ruled out because, even if Jo is perhaps interested in the prospect of something romantic happening, she would almost certainly meet him in a pub or bar. The night is still young, for one thing. But anyway, after 18 months of not seeing somebody, *even if you have possibly amorous inclinations towards them*, you'd arrange for initial contact to be in a pub or some such place. If this were the case, we'd have witnesses and CCTV.
But anyhow, the fact that we're told he didn't answer is anyway enough.
-- Press release from parents --
As noted (by Sgt Jones?) the frequent mention of Greg in this is significant and as such it's very different from the New Year's Day release which made mention of Jo's friends' support, but not mention of Greg.
I think we see a very clear journey in the relationship between the parents and Greg in the time since Jo's disappearance.
First, they are united. We hear that Greg spent a number of nights staying with Jo's parents after the first appeal.
But then a rift appears between them. At the laying of flowers, Jo's family gets into a car but is not joined by Greg. In a Daily Mail article shortly after the landlord has been arrested, Jo's parents say that they have not spoken to Greg for a couple of days -- which is quite remarkable.
But then we get this hagiographic talk about Greg in the latest release.
The reason for this vacillation is, I believe, because shortly after the initial appeal Jo's parents discover that all was not as it seemed in the relationship. This makes them feel pretty frosty towards him, hence his not being mentioned at all. However, more recently they accept that if they are going to serve the interests of the inquiry best then they should present a united front with Greg. The parents remain angry at Greg but, believing him innocent, don't want the help in the campaign to be diverted by the public's belief that Greg is the perpetrator.
----
There are various other things I'd mention if I weren't quite so shattered right now, but the only remaining one that I think is really important and I think is overlooked is
-- Peter Stanley --
There has been discussion in this thread of the 1974 Carruthers case, and I think this may be really important. Very important. Some of the similarities are breathtaking.
Some people here have speculated whether the landlord might fit the description of the killer in that case.
Those people might do well also to check out this chap, who was 19 when the earlier murder took place.
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/EqOF...+Yeates+Murder+Case/vq10jcbNUf9/Peter+Stanley
People may also like to check out the handful of quotes by him in the press, two of which conflict seriously and others of which are also, I believe, very telling.
I believe there is a curious nexus between Peter Stanley, the landlord and some of the other nearby residents, in particular Geoffrey Hardyman. If the case is ever solved, I think we'll learn some pretty gobsmacking things about some of the residents of sleepy Clifton.
On which note, I'm exhausted so bye for now.
