Thanks. Another point that has been raised is that people have said that they often walk in the area where she was found. Those people have said that if she was in that location even a day or two earlier, she would have been seen. That leaves the possibility that she was abducted, held for a few days, and then placed near the quarry. That would explain her abduction from the apartment, yet I have not read that she has been described as having injuries in addition to strangulation. Was there any additional information given about injuries?
GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #3
- Thread starter wfgodot
- Start date
- Status
Thanks. Another point that has been raised is that people have said that they often walk in the area where she was found. Those people have said that if she was in that location even a day or two earlier, she would have been seen. That leaves the possibility that she was abducted, held for a few days, and then placed near the quarry. That would explain her abduction from the apartment, yet I have not read that she has been described as having injuries in addition to strangulation. Was there any additional information given about injuries?
Phillb
Member
Property details for 44 Canynge Road, Bristol BS8 3LQ
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/44-canynge-road/bristol/bs8-3lq/2693071
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property/44-canynge-road/bristol/bs8-3lq/2693071
Just thinking about this and security to the quarry. The town I live in has a large quarry. There would be many ways to get into it and I'm sure there is some security around the site, I think it would be impossible for every inch to be guarded, making it an easy place to dispose of a body.
There was a case of a young woman who was murdered in Croydon a few years ago. In this case they DNA tested all men who lived and worked in the area. I know that someone was convicted eventually - not sure if they were found this way though. I remember the DNA testing as I worked in the area at the time.
Or perhaps she called to say she felt a bit uncomfortable walking home so wanted some company or she thought she was being followed. I have called friends before when walking home for this very reason.
I think this does happen sometimes. The police in London have more experience of dealing with serious crimes as sadly they tend to happen more in London being that it is a big city. With this in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if some officers from London 'offer advice'.
I'm female!
That's in case you didn't guess by the name... I think that this is a real possibility. If I thought someone was following me I would want to be around people I know. I would feel silly calling the police as I would assume that it is my over reactive imagination but calling a friend or an acquaintance to spend time with or at least talk to wouldn't feel so silly and would hopefully put my mind at rest.
The Perp could just be a killer who got his sick pleasure out of abducting her, holding her somewhere and then strangling her. I strongly feel that she was 'placed' there on christmas eve. I am convinced she would have been seen if it had been any earlier. Also the Perp probably thought Christmas Eve would be a safe time to transport her... people busy with the holiday.
wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 747
That might have been the Sally Anne Bowman murder. Police sent letters to 4000 men in South London asking them to volunteer DNA; not sure how many samples they acquired as a result.
The killer turned out to be Mark Dixie, who was found after a saliva sample was taken, then compared, after he was arrested following a pub fight; he was not a part of the DNA register gathered by the police.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1095193.ece
Yes, that's possible. But...I would think the perp might have wanted more gratification than just keeping her someplace. He took a huge risk by abducting her, I believe he would have wanted a bigger "pay off " than just keeping her for a few days ?
I don't think she was placed there on Christmas Eve, because her body was so embedded into the snow and ice that a commercial winch had to be used to free her body.... But, I don't have a logical explanation as to why no one spotted her body sooner...
All JMO
naturally suspicious
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
a theoty put forward by husband....when not mocking the thread.... is that the killer may have had some sas training....easy way to overcome and strangle a person.
jo's brother told of her looking relaxed, as if asleep, in death.
think the same was true of glynis....
wonder if any similar training available at school...
jo's brother told of her looking relaxed, as if asleep, in death.
think the same was true of glynis....
wonder if any similar training available at school...
naturally suspicious
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
also, might not sock have been used for sexual purposes by killer after killing....then kept as trophy....yuck....
I thought she was covered with snow - and that no snow fell on Xmas Eve or Xmas Day. So it must have been before Xmas Eve, unless the perp scattered snow over the body to cover it up - but this would have been easy to spot forensically.
Also, there were no tyre tracks or footprints, due to subsequent snow fall.
wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 747
I just started a WS thread for information, posts, links, etc., relevant to the murder of Glenis Carruthers in Clifton, Bristol 1974.
It is here: UK - Glenis Carruthers, found strangled ouside Bristol Zoo 1974
It is here: UK - Glenis Carruthers, found strangled ouside Bristol Zoo 1974
scottybail
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
- Messages
- 46
- Reaction score
- 0
Returning for a moment to the actual murder, it seems to me that there is one easy theory and any number of complicated ones. After looking at the photos of the 44 Canynge Rd area, and being now satisfied that there is no longer an inside access between Joanna's flat and the communal parts of the same building, I am left with the following ingredients for the simple theory:
1. The perp was very local - hence motive to remove the body.
2. Even with a motive to remove the body, the perp would have been flirting with the greatest danger if he had carried the body from Joanna's flat to a vehicle parked in the road, or round to the communal entrance to the other flats, no matter what the time of day when he did so.
3. There is one and only one nearby residence an occupant of which would have been easily able to do all that was necessary in the way of manipulating bodies without being significantly visible to any chance passer-by.
4. An occupant of that nearby residence knew that Greg was going away for the week-end and saw him go.
5. That occupant would have been known to Joanna and could easily have found a pretext for calling on her.
6. For those who are keen on the Glenis connection, it is possible.
The neat and simple hypothesis is therefore for that person to have done the wicked deed not long after J's return on the Friday and to have disposed of the body at his leisure, choosing for ultimate dumping place an area he would be familiar with.
And if he did so, probably nothing but chance DNA or a confession is going to prove it. He certainly isn't daft enough to keep the sock in his china cabinet.
Of course, it goes without saying that the neat and simple hypothesis may be entirely wrong. Nothing is commoner than improbable events except probable ones But so far as I can see, and for what it is worth, every other hypothesis is either more complicated, builds on more presumptions, requires a good deal more luck, or conflicts with known or probable counter-evidence.
1. The perp was very local - hence motive to remove the body.
2. Even with a motive to remove the body, the perp would have been flirting with the greatest danger if he had carried the body from Joanna's flat to a vehicle parked in the road, or round to the communal entrance to the other flats, no matter what the time of day when he did so.
3. There is one and only one nearby residence an occupant of which would have been easily able to do all that was necessary in the way of manipulating bodies without being significantly visible to any chance passer-by.
4. An occupant of that nearby residence knew that Greg was going away for the week-end and saw him go.
5. That occupant would have been known to Joanna and could easily have found a pretext for calling on her.
6. For those who are keen on the Glenis connection, it is possible.
The neat and simple hypothesis is therefore for that person to have done the wicked deed not long after J's return on the Friday and to have disposed of the body at his leisure, choosing for ultimate dumping place an area he would be familiar with.
And if he did so, probably nothing but chance DNA or a confession is going to prove it. He certainly isn't daft enough to keep the sock in his china cabinet.
Of course, it goes without saying that the neat and simple hypothesis may be entirely wrong. Nothing is commoner than improbable events except probable ones
But so far as I can see, and for what it is worth, every other hypothesis is either more complicated, builds on more presumptions, requires a good deal more luck, or conflicts with known or probable counter-evidence.
wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 747
Of course, it goes without saying that the neat and simple hypothesis may be entirely wrong. Nothing is commoner than improbable events except probable ones
Along those lines, Mark Twain said something like, "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."
whodathoughtit
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
As previously mentioned, it seems evident and logical that the only perp to move the body would be family, friend or resident. However, it appears that family and friends have water tight alibis because the police have not arrested anyone else for questioning.
With the exception of Jefferies - do we know if other residents/flats of that block/mansion have been seriously questioned, tested for alibis, DNA tested, forensically examined etc?
In fact, do we KNOW all the residents in that set of flats? I'm assuming there were six flats and Jefferies, Penny and Jo/Greg inhabited three of them. Did Peter Stanley live in that block or was it the house next door?
I think that whole block and the people that live in need to be fine tooth combed, as it is the only logical investigation route left.
I'm convinced it had to be somebody that:-
1) lived in very close proximity to Jo
2) did not know her well, but knew of her
3) that knew the area
4) that had a vehicle
5) did not premeditate the murder
6) was strong and confident enough to move a body
Perhaps she caught somebody or a couple of people in the act of doing something they needed covering up?
Perhaps she locked herself out when she went to get her post or let out her cat and called on a neighbour for help and witnessed something she shouldn't have?
I dunno, I just get the sense this was a bout silencing and disposal rather than a crime of passion or a sexual/psychopathic murder.
Gah!! This is so perplexing.
With the exception of Jefferies - do we know if other residents/flats of that block/mansion have been seriously questioned, tested for alibis, DNA tested, forensically examined etc?
In fact, do we KNOW all the residents in that set of flats? I'm assuming there were six flats and Jefferies, Penny and Jo/Greg inhabited three of them. Did Peter Stanley live in that block or was it the house next door?
I think that whole block and the people that live in need to be fine tooth combed, as it is the only logical investigation route left.
I'm convinced it had to be somebody that:-
1) lived in very close proximity to Jo
2) did not know her well, but knew of her
3) that knew the area
4) that had a vehicle
5) did not premeditate the murder
6) was strong and confident enough to move a body
Perhaps she caught somebody or a couple of people in the act of doing something they needed covering up?
Perhaps she locked herself out when she went to get her post or let out her cat and called on a neighbour for help and witnessed something she shouldn't have?
I dunno, I just get the sense this was a bout silencing and disposal rather than a crime of passion or a sexual/psychopathic murder.
Gah!! This is so perplexing.
mikeymot
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 281
- Reaction score
- 0
"Perhaps she caught somebody or a couple of people in the act of doing something they needed covering up? "
Next to the 'someone she knew well' theory....this has to be the best. If so, agree that her murder was more about silencing her than anything else.
I just started a WS thread for information, posts, links, etc., relevant to the murder of Glenis Carruthers in Clifton, Bristol 1974.
It is here: UK - Glenis Carruthers, found strangled ouside Bristol Zoo 1974
Thank you wfgodot. Great idea!
It is here: UK - Glenis Carruthers, found strangled ouside Bristol Zoo 1974
Thank you wfgodot. Great idea!
Returning for a moment to the actual murder, it seems to me that there is one easy theory and any number of complicated ones. After looking at the photos of the 44 Canynge Rd area, and being now satisfied that there is no longer an inside access between Joanna's flat and the communal parts of the same building, I am left with the following ingredients for the simple theory:
1. The perp was very local - hence motive to remove the body.
2. Even with a motive to remove the body, the perp would have been flirting with the greatest danger if he had carried the body from Joanna's flat to a vehicle parked in the road, or round to the communal entrance to the other flats, no matter what the time of day when he did so.
3. There is one and only one nearby residence an occupant of which would have been easily able to do all that was necessary in the way of manipulating bodies without being significantly visible to any chance passer-by.
4. An occupant of that nearby residence knew that Greg was going away for the week-end and saw him go.
5. That occupant would have been known to Joanna and could easily have found a pretext for calling on her.
6. For those who are keen on the Glenis connection, it is possible.
The neat and simple hypothesis is therefore for that person to have done the wicked deed not long after J's return on the Friday and to have disposed of the body at his leisure, choosing for ultimate dumping place an area he would be familiar with.
And if he did so, probably nothing but chance DNA or a confession is going to prove it. He certainly isn't daft enough to keep the sock in his china cabinet.
Of course, it goes without saying that the neat and simple hypothesis may be entirely wrong. Nothing is commoner than improbable events except probable ones
Interesting hypothesis about PS. I remember PS saying, in defence of CJ, that GR had not mentioned going to Sheffield while they were starting his car. But did he say that really to protect himself - as if to say if CJ didn't know about Sheffield, he also wouldn't have known - whereas actually he could have known by, for example, overhearing GR on the phone to Sheffield: "Hi, just leaving, see you in 3 hours....".
He may also have "innocently" spent some time on the scaffolding overlooking their flat in the weeks before the murder, during which time an unhealthy interest in its new, attractive female occupant was kindled.
But I'm not sure about the ease of removing of the body. I think he'd have had to take it up the path, through the gate, and round through his own gate, ie about the same amount of effort as carrying it to a car parked in the road. I don't think he threw it over the fence!
jigzy
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2010
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 98
I believe that CJ is the landlord of no.44 and JY is a tenant, so is Mr Hardyman amongst others, no doubt.
Next door at no.42 Peter Stanley is the landlord and Laurence Penney is one of his tenants.
Check out Googlemaps and look at the junction of Canynge Road and Percival Road - you can see the house numbers clearly and Peter Stanley's vehicles (BMW and Landrover type of truck) and Laurence Penney's vintage racing car under tarpaulin are visible in PS's driveway.
I would post pics but they are protected by Google's copyright.
jmo
- Status