GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #4

[Robin Hood]

I have to say I think the statement by Jo's parents about the flat is being misinterpreted. Words taken too literally again like the dreaded quarry 'wall'

If i recall it went somewhere along the lines 'within half an hour of seeing the state of the flat we knew she had been abducted, "We knew what the flat was like. We know what it's normally like. We know what she does and doesn't do.

As far as i'm aware Jo's parents hadn't been to the flat again since they helped her move in the month (or possibly 2 if it was Oct) Anyone heard any different? If they had visited again since, then I can't say it's more than twice at the very most. The parents live some considerable distance away. That's hardly enough to form an overall view of 'normal' I.M.O.

I actually think the flat was no different to normal, apart from the cat making a mess on the floor, I'm guessing that's the only thing Greg cleared up really. I would say the parents words were spoken during a moment of great anguish and worry. Why did it take them a whole 30 minutes to look round the flat to see it wasn't normal? I think the statement 'we knew she had been abducted' actually meant it was totally out of character for Jo just to dissapear like that and let no one know. She wouldn't go out and just leave the flat open and leave her things behind. Words being taken too literally again and possibly painting an untrue picture?

As time goes by, i'm begining to feel whoever did this is really quite a cold and calculating person. The longer it goes unsolved i'm tending to think the likelyhood of this being anyone already on the radar is slim. Perhaps this is why the Police are really struggling with this one. I'm begining to feel it might not be anyone known to Jo at all. This doesn't make sense, because how would they be able to get Jo away from the flat without a struggle, or get into her flat so easily? Well that's the million dollar question that i'm begining to feel is leading the Police on a wild goose chase. Perhaps it's time for the Police to ''expect the unexpected''

I can't even rule out that there are two perps involved, and he or they are people who haven't even been in the frame before. They haven't been mentioned here, or anywhere. Just my opinion, but the whole thing is shrouded in too much mystery, it doesn't add up.

Some very good points. It doesn't add up as you say, which ever way you turn it.

 

[Nausicaa]

As time goes by, i'm begining to feel whoever did this is really quite a cold and calculating person. The longer it goes unsolved i'm tending to think the likelyhood of this being anyone already on the radar is slim. Perhaps this is why the Police are really struggling with this one. I'm begining to feel it might not be anyone known to Jo at all. This doesn't make sense, because how would they be able to get Jo away from the flat without a struggle, or get into her flat so easily? Well that's the million dollar question that i'm begining to feel is leading the Police on a wild goose chase. Perhaps it's time for the Police to ''expect the unexpected''

I can't accept this defeatist reasoning Philb. It seems to me that it can easily be a culprit already on the radar but who has not left any clinching evidence against himself and who has strong enough nerves not to crack under interrogation. The police may be almost certain of who it is, but not able to charge him at present - the ultimate disaster being for the guilty man to be found not guilty by a jury for want of solid proof.

In other words, I think the passage of time can be explained in other ways than pure lack of progress. Also I resist the temptation to suppose that if the police are checking DNA against all of Joanna's contacts that means that they have given up on their original line of suspicion. It may simply be that they realise they are not going to get a confession and therefore have to prepare the best case to set before the jury knowing that counsel for the defence are going to challenge every element. The police want to be able to refute the allegation that they made up their minds too early and ceased to pursue alternative leads.

Then there are the other big problems with the idea of the unknown aggressor...the only remotely credible motive is sexual, so why didn't he get what he wanted ? ...and why does he remove the body ?

 

[teabreid]

I posted on this before, but it seems a long time ago, so here goes. What strikes me about the events of 20/12 is not so much the parents' statement, but the immediate police response. A missing 25 year old is going to be pretty low down the list of priorities at midnight on a sunday night, yet the response was immediate. We know the police turned up at the flat that night, and that someone was actively working the case at 4am. Now that is not a normal response to an adult not being home on a sunday night. I am convinced that Greg, or one of the parents, gave information to the police in that midnight call which was so serious that it provoked an immediate police resonse. And this was never at any stage handled as a missing person enquiry, right from the start there was a clear assumption of a worst case scenario. Something in the flat (missed by Greg?) alerted the parents, and was so serious that the police went into serious enquiry mode straight away. Well, that's my take on it anyway. And I think the parents said they had been told by the police not to say what had given them such concern? Can't find a link right now, sorry.

 

[MrZhivago]

I posted on this before, but it seems a long time ago, so here goes. What strikes me about the events of 20/12 is not so much the parents' statement, but the immediate police response. A missing 25 year old is going to be pretty low down the list of priorities at midnight on a sunday night, yet the response was immediate. We know the police turned up at the flat that night, and that someone was actively working the case at 4am. Now that is not a normal response to an adult not being home on a sunday night. I am convinced that Greg, or one of the parents, gave information to the police in that midnight call which was so serious that it provoked an immediate police resonse. And this was never at any stage handled as a missing person enquiry, right from the start there was a clear assumption of a worst case scenario. Something in the flat (missed by Greg?) alerted the parents, and was so serious that the police went into serious enquiry mode straight away. Well, that's my take on it anyway. And I think the parents said they had been told by the police not to say what had given them such concern? Can't find a link right now, sorry.

I don't necessarily agree with the claim that the parents saw anything remarkable (as I've said before, their quote was "within 30 minutes", and it could have been something small that alerted them to Jo not having been around for a while). But I do think it relevant that it was very clearly a murder inquiry (in all but name) from the beginning.

 

[Phillb]

I can't accept this defeatist reasoning Philb. It seems to me that it can easily be a culprit already on the radar but who has not left any clinching evidence against himself and who has strong enough nerves not to crack under interrogation. The police may be almost certain of who it is, but not able to charge him at present - the ultimate disaster being for the guilty man to be found not guilty by a jury for want of solid proof.

In other words, I think the passage of time can be explained in other ways than pure lack of progress. Also I resist the temptation to suppose that if the police are checking DNA against all of Joanna's contacts that means that they have given up on their original line of suspicion. It may simply be that they realise they are not going to get a confession and therefore have to prepare the best case to set before the jury knowing that counself for the defence are going to challenge every element. The police want to be able to refute the allegation that they made up their minds too early and ceased to pursue alternative leads.

Then there are the other big problems with the idea of the unknown aggressor...the only remotely credible motive is sexual, so why didn't he get what he wanted ? ...and why does he remove the body ?

I absolutely agree with you. The whole thing about it being a stranger, and the way it's been done is very slim compared to someone known to Jo. It doesn't add up. But i've got to say the whole thing about 4X4's cruising up Longwood Lane, people seen acting suspicious. They might not be involved, but there is a nasty undercurrent building up I.M.O. A cold and calculating person is somewhere behind this. I'm just wondering if such types of people are in Jo's circles?

It's not looking like a crime acted in the spur of the moment, with great panic afterwards like a close assosciate would have. I'm all too aware that just because there hasn't been an arrest (albeit the C.J fiasco) that the Police don't already have their man which is more than likely to be a perp known to Jo agreed. It's just getting that conclusive proof, or D.N.A to nail them.

I was 100% sure it was a perp known to Jo at first, but as time goes by, I am having serious doubts to be honest. Whatever, the motif was sexual I.M.O.

 

[Phillb]

I don't necessarily agree with the claim that the parents saw anything remarkable (as I've said before, their quote was "within 30 minutes", and it could have been something small that alerted them to Jo not having been around for a while). But I do think it relevant that it was very clearly a murder inquiry (in all but name) from the beginning.

Yes agreed. A pretty 25 year old girl missing for 2 days is a murder enquiry in all but name. I think the Police were on the ball with that assumption too.

 

[teabreid]

I don't necessarily agree with the claim that the parents saw anything remarkable (as I've said before, their quote was "within 30 minutes", and it could have been something small that alerted them to Jo not having been around for a while). But I do think it relevant that it was very clearly a murder inquiry (in all but name) from the beginning.

If what was reported to the police wasn't remarkable, the caller would have been told to wait until monday morning, then call back if the person still hadn't turned up. The police get thousands of these calls every year. Their standard assumption where an adult goes missing is to assume "relationship problems", unless there is real evidence of a crime.

Are you outside the UK, MrZ? Maybe it works differently where you are? If I phoned the police here at midnight tonight and reported the facts as we know them regarding Jo, but referring them to my wife, I would really be astonished to have the police turn up tonight.

 

[MrZhivago]

Yes agreed. A pretty 25 year old girl missing for 2 days is a murder enquiry in all but name. I think the Police were on the ball with that assumption too.

To me it's more to do with the fact that they put 70 officers on the case and that they didn't give a description of what Jo had last been wearing.
If anybody can find me an instance of a missing person inquiry where they don't tell you what the person had last been wearing, I'll eat my shoe.

 

[MrZhivago]

If what was reported to the police wasn't remarkable, the caller would have been told to wait until monday morning, then call back if the person still hadn't turned up. The police get thousands of these calls every year. Their standard assumption where an adult goes missing is to assume "relationship problems", unless there is real evidence of a crime.

Are you outside the UK, MrZ? Maybe it works differently where you are? If I phoned the police here at midnight tonight and reported the facts as we know them regarding Jo, but referring them to my wife, I would really be astonished to have the police turn up tonight.

That's an interesting point. Do we know, BTW, whether the police turned up later on the Friday night? If so, like you say, it's curious.
[I'm in lovely London, but have never reported people missing (although I did once have somebody vanish for a bit and spent a rather unpleasant while phoning hospitals and all the rest, although everything ended up OK [God, how irrelevant!)].

 

[mikeymot]

It seems that Greg had Jo's phone from whenever he found it (in her bag?) on the night of the 20th, probably until the body was found, since when Jo's friend called Jo's phone on the 21st, Greg answered the call.

So I would imagine that Greg read all her texts, in and out- that's just human nature. I believe that the police can establish from the phone company when texts were read, even without possession of the phone.

If we are to believe that the police attended immediately Jo was reported missing...and took it seriously enough to ring RS at 4.a.m. on Monday....WHY DID THEY NOT TAKE J/Ys' PHONE? Why would they leave it with Greg (who, according to interview with RS) answered her call to Jo on Monday morning?

 

[mikeymot]

I have to say I think the statement by Jo's parents about the flat is being misinterpreted. Words taken too literally again like the dreaded quarry 'wall'

If i recall it went somewhere along the lines 'within half an hour of seeing the state of the flat we knew she had been abducted, "We knew what the flat was like. We know what it's normally like. We know what she does and doesn't do.

As far as i'm aware Jo's parents hadn't been to the flat again since they helped her move in the month (or possibly 2 if it was Oct) Anyone heard any different? If they had visited again since, then I can't say it's more than twice at the very most. The parents live some considerable distance away. That's hardly enough to form an overall view of 'normal' I.M.O.

I actually think the flat was no different to normal, apart from the cat making a mess on the floor, I'm guessing that's the only thing Greg cleared up really. I would say the parents words were spoken during a moment of great anguish and worry. Why did it take them a whole 30 minutes to look round the flat to see it wasn't normal? I think the statement 'we knew she had been abducted' actually meant it was totally out of character for Jo just to dissapear like that and let no one know. She wouldn't go out and just leave the flat open and leave her things behind. Words being taken too literally again and possibly painting an untrue picture?

As time goes by, i'm begining to feel whoever did this is really quite a cold and calculating person. The longer it goes unsolved i'm tending to think the likelyhood of this being anyone already on the radar is slim. Perhaps this is why the Police are really struggling with this one. I'm begining to feel it might not be anyone known to Jo at all. This doesn't make sense, because how would they be able to get Jo away from the flat without a struggle, or get into her flat so easily? Well that's the million dollar question that i'm begining to feel is leading the Police on a wild goose chase. Perhaps it's time for the Police to ''expect the unexpected''

I can't even rule out that there are two perps involved, and he or they are people who haven't even been in the frame before. They haven't been mentioned here, or anywhere. Just my opinion, but the whole thing is shrouded in too much mystery, it doesn't add up.

Then the question has to be....'Why would a stranger....not only kill poor Jo...but feel the need to remove her body? and if they were so 'organised'..why leave all her possessions behind?

 

[Phillb]

Then the question has to be....'Why would a stranger....not only kill poor Jo...but feel the need to remove her body? and if they were so 'organised'..why leave all her possessions behind?

Why did Peter Sutcliffe smash 13 women over the head with a hammer, and stab them repeatedly with a screwdriver? Because it was his hobby.

There are some very sick people out there i'm afraid, they don't act normal.
Murder doesn't make sense, but it still happens.

 

[mikeymot]

I posted on this before, but it seems a long time ago, so here goes. What strikes me about the events of 20/12 is not so much the parents' statement, but the immediate police response. A missing 25 year old is going to be pretty low down the list of priorities at midnight on a sunday night, yet the response was immediate. We know the police turned up at the flat that night, and that someone was actively working the case at 4am. Now that is not a normal response to an adult not being home on a sunday night. I am convinced that Greg, or one of the parents, gave information to the police in that midnight call which was so serious that it provoked an immediate police resonse. And this was never at any stage handled as a missing person enquiry, right from the start there was a clear assumption of a worst case scenario. Something in the flat (missed by Greg?) alerted the parents, and was so serious that the police went into serious enquiry mode straight away. Well, that's my take on it anyway. And I think the parents said they had been told by the police not to say what had given them such concern? Can't find a link right now, sorry.

Could also explain...what seemed an 'over the top' reaction from Greg...and crying by her mother..at the first police appeal. They could indeed have found something which indicated...byond doubt...that Jo was dead and not a missing person......but what?

 

[mikeymot]

Why did Peter Sutcliffe smash 13 women over the head with a hammer, and stab them repeatedly with a screwdriver? Because it was his hobby.

There are some very sick people out there i'm afraid, they don't act normal.
Murder doesn't make sense, but it still happens.

But surely most....even the most deranged...would hardly 'risk' carting a body about in the middle of the night?

 

[Patticake]

An article in This is Bristol about Longwood Lane. I noted that it mentioned that the area is frequently used for mountain biking and mountain biking with lamps to light the way a night:

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news...discovery/article-3081225-detail/article.html


.

 

[whodathoughtit]

Just seen this, so here's my attempt!!!

from Slewth, last thread:

What might be useful, or at least keep things fresh at this stage, would be a snapshot of members' views (one line answers only) on such questions as:

1. Who did it?

A resident in the building/other flat dweller (as yet not on the radar)

2. What was the motive?

Silencing, I think Jo saw/witnessed something she shouldn't have

3. What was the time of death?

Before 10pm on 17th December

4. What happened to the pizza?

Pass!

5. When was the body was dumped?

During snowfall on the 18th.


Alternative scenario - Jo nipped out to the external bin to dispose of said pizza, leaving door on latch and was abducted. However, 100s of girls walk home alone after dark all over Bristol and would have been easier, less risky targets for stranger abduction.

 

[mikeymot]

That's an interesting point. Do we know, BTW, whether the police turned up later on the Friday night? If so, like you say, it's curious.
[I'm in lovely London, but have never reported people missing (although I did once have somebody vanish for a bit and spent a rather unpleasant while phoning hospitals and all the rest, although everything ended up OK [God, how irrelevant!)].

Yet another theory (sorry all!) what if, whatever happened to Jo on the Friday night...she was able to dial 999...but before she could speak...was cut off by her murderer? They would know that the police would trace the call and probably visit...could this be the reason for removing her body?

 

[Phillb]

But surely most....even the most deranged...would hardly 'risk' carting a body about in the middle of the night?

It doesn't make sense knowing a close lady friend/assosciate (already in a happy relationship) is on her own, then going to her flat with the sole intention of having sex with her. Which I have to say was the reason she was killed I.M.O.

That's a very risky move to make too.

 

[mikeymot]

Neither does knowing a close lady friend/assosciate (already in a happy relationship) is on her own, then going to her flat with the sole intention of having sex with her. Which I have to say was the reason she was killed I.M.O.

That's a very risky move to make too.

The most difficult thing (IMO) in trying to solve ALL these cases...is that we, by nature, try to put ourselves into the perps' shoes...to work out what, where and why...but, as you rightly state, what these people do is not within our domain to understand. There is obviously something mentally/sexually different with them and that is what makes deciphering who and why so difficult.

I don't know whether to put all my faith in the police..in the hope that they know much more than they are saying and are gradually gathering evidence against the perp ..that will stand up to scrutiny at the trial...or believe that they are no further forward now than they were on that Sunday evening? Hope it's the former.

 

[Firefly75]

I'm wondering how the perp overpowered Jo, who was 25, into sports (and armwrestling friends, of all things), without her putting up a struggle, and without leaving any marks on her body. By surprising her from behind - but is it possible to throttle someone from behind?
Two people said they heard screams coming from the direction of Jo's flat. It can't have been a lengthy struggle, judging by that.
Martial arts? Carotid artery?
http://www.budoshin.com/tech10.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fainting_game - scroll down to strangulation (I am not saying any kind of game was involved; it just describes how it happens)
Did the perp want to shut her up when she screamed out, and took it too far?
What happened to make her scream in the first place?

A lot of things don't seem to add up.