GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #5
- Thread starter wfgodot
- Start date
- Status
To be a little less facetious Teabreid, surely the police will have discovered tons of DNA from all sorts of people. For instance, suppose they found DNA from, say, CJ or PS on a door or two, that would be because one or other of them came round to borrow some sugar a day or two before.
Or on the other hand, they may have found all the surfaces bleached - forensically aware criminal. (BTW I am just guessing that bleach destroys the DNA's recognizability. Actually I have little idea.)
Phillb
Member
This laser and chemical testing they have done is 'reputedly' able to detect where a struggle has taken place. Don't ask me how, I have no idea how the wonders of science work. There has to have been some kind of struggle to strangle someone to death. I can't see a carpet, sofa, or bedding being bleach cleaned. The bedding granted could have been changed. So far there has been no arrests, apart from the C.J farce. I don't think even the most forensically aware perp can elimate all DNA in all honesty.
Things aren't adding up. Certainly the case is going colder by the day from what we can see.
Things aren't adding up. Certainly the case is going colder by the day from what we can see.
I don't think the killer is a genius. It's fun to think so, but the dumping says to me that he isn't [and I just don't believe that it was Christmas Eve, but there we go].
On the DNA front, we seem to have this idea that we're spewing DNA wherever we go. This isn't true. We're not dribbling and [I've deleted my own obscenity] and all the rest all the time, or leaving broken fingernails and so on.
A killer can have visited the flat and not left an imprint at all [I don't think it happened that way, regardless] and I think we have to remember that we're not entirely trackable that way. A not-terribly-smart person can still very easily, without genius, not leave a trace. IMHO.
On the DNA front, we seem to have this idea that we're spewing DNA wherever we go. This isn't true. We're not dribbling and [I've deleted my own obscenity] and all the rest all the time, or leaving broken fingernails and so on.
A killer can have visited the flat and not left an imprint at all [I don't think it happened that way, regardless] and I think we have to remember that we're not entirely trackable that way. A not-terribly-smart person can still very easily, without genius, not leave a trace. IMHO.
All fine until he finds himself with a big problem on his hands. Well almost.
*Does he live nearby - two people said they heard screams coming from the direction of Joanna's flat around 9 pm.
*Fibres from where she sat on the sofa or wherever before he started to come on to her really insistently. DNA and fibres on his car seat where he dumps it all. Fibres and DNA - his and from the car seat - on the victim. Unless he wraps her up in tarp, after getting rid of all the possible fibres that she might have picked up in his flat?
*If he spent much time around the quarry when he was a young man, wouldn't he have chosen a better place? A bit less, erm, exposed?
*Her phone would have been traced anyway, I expect, when they tried to establish her route home?
*He's got some nerve going to her place, bringing in the cider, having a drink and wiping the bottle. And not leaving an awful lot of evidence that he'd ever been there. [It does seem, however, that the *advertiser censored* was forensically aware!]
*Wouldn't his mobile have been traced as well when he drove to the quarry and went to her flat? Unless he'd left it behind it turned it off, off course.
*How did she lose the sock, and what was it doing on the drive?
Nice one about Bernard! Made me smile.
Like you, I wouldn't know how to "clean up" DNA, I guess not many others would, either. So if a "professional" clean up has been carried out, then that would, in itself, tell the police a lot. GR should be able to give a pretty complete list of visitors to the flat over the 2 months he lived there, I would think? And doesn't DNA require skin, blood, body fluids, hair (yes, Bernard again) etc? I wouldn't expect to leave a DNA trace if I borrowed some sugar from my neighbour.
I am inclined to believe that Joanna Yeates was murdered not long after returning home.
Unless we entertain the idea that Joanna was dragged onto the street (which would dramatically escalate the probability of an assailant being witnessed/caught), then, bearing in mind the lay-out of no. 44 and no. 42 Canynge Road, I suspect that the murderer very probably had access to a vehicle which would not arouse suspicion when parked in the very limited areas available. In other words, given the limited information at hand, it strikes me as very likely that the culprit resided at either of these two addresses and, thus, the desperate need to move a body from the flat.
In the days before digital technology, GR would have faced some very awkward questions. As matters stand, the police appear to have accepted that credit card transactions and perhaps mobile phone records place him well away from the scene of the crime. Since we are not privy to the relevant details, then there is little more that can be added.
CJ put himself right in the frame with his alleged words to the police about witnessing people near the flat from the vantage point of his car. This information was leaked to the press before his arrest. A&S Police may well have believed that CJs words were an attempt at deflection by a false statement (no-one else appears to have witnessed this) but they also indicated that he was in his car around the time JY was likely to have been murdered. And why did he not hear any screams? Against this, though, is the impression that CJ does not fit the stereotype of a murderer, either physically or mentally.
There are many crucial aspects to the case that remain unknown. We dont know the identities of all the occupants of no. 44. It might also be useful to know if there was a gate leading from the back-yard of no. 44 to no. 42.
Some other thoughts are that the outside door was removed to check the lock mechanism (a photograph of men taking it away suggested that a forensic examination had already taken place) and the pizza carton may have been damaged in an assault (or had incriminating fingerprints) hence the need to dispose of it. That the pizza was not put in a fridge or on a work-top perhaps indicates that JY was murdered very shortly after 9.00 pm. The half-drunk 330 ml bottle of cider would appear to bolster this view.
The nagging doubt remains, though, that the police were slow off the mark. While some CCTV evidence was obtained the day (Monday) after Joanna was reported to have disappeared, bins in the vicinity of no. 44 were cleared on the Tuesday, thus possibly eliminating crucial evidence. Were CJs vehicles the only ones to undergo a stringent forensic analysis, even although this was well over a week after Joannas last sighting?
Unless we entertain the idea that Joanna was dragged onto the street (which would dramatically escalate the probability of an assailant being witnessed/caught), then, bearing in mind the lay-out of no. 44 and no. 42 Canynge Road, I suspect that the murderer very probably had access to a vehicle which would not arouse suspicion when parked in the very limited areas available. In other words, given the limited information at hand, it strikes me as very likely that the culprit resided at either of these two addresses and, thus, the desperate need to move a body from the flat.
In the days before digital technology, GR would have faced some very awkward questions. As matters stand, the police appear to have accepted that credit card transactions and perhaps mobile phone records place him well away from the scene of the crime. Since we are not privy to the relevant details, then there is little more that can be added.
CJ put himself right in the frame with his alleged words to the police about witnessing people near the flat from the vantage point of his car. This information was leaked to the press before his arrest. A&S Police may well have believed that CJs words were an attempt at deflection by a false statement (no-one else appears to have witnessed this) but they also indicated that he was in his car around the time JY was likely to have been murdered. And why did he not hear any screams? Against this, though, is the impression that CJ does not fit the stereotype of a murderer, either physically or mentally.
There are many crucial aspects to the case that remain unknown. We dont know the identities of all the occupants of no. 44. It might also be useful to know if there was a gate leading from the back-yard of no. 44 to no. 42.
Some other thoughts are that the outside door was removed to check the lock mechanism (a photograph of men taking it away suggested that a forensic examination had already taken place) and the pizza carton may have been damaged in an assault (or had incriminating fingerprints) hence the need to dispose of it. That the pizza was not put in a fridge or on a work-top perhaps indicates that JY was murdered very shortly after 9.00 pm. The half-drunk 330 ml bottle of cider would appear to bolster this view.
The nagging doubt remains, though, that the police were slow off the mark. While some CCTV evidence was obtained the day (Monday) after Joanna was reported to have disappeared, bins in the vicinity of no. 44 were cleared on the Tuesday, thus possibly eliminating crucial evidence. Were CJs vehicles the only ones to undergo a stringent forensic analysis, even although this was well over a week after Joannas last sighting?
Agree, but I'm worried that he might be intelligent (in a criminal way) and capable of keeping his nerves about him to a degree.
As for DNA, you're right we don't just shed it all over everywhere all the time. Apparently not even every single hair that you shed can provide reliable DNA, or so it seems after reading in Sara Payne's book how they identified Roy Whitting as her daughter Sarah's abductor.
But if the killer was in the flat, he must have left some trace of himself, fibres from clothes/boots, whatever - or is he so forensically aware he removed everything?
I don't quite get the reasoning that it was someone who lived either in Jo's building or next door,and that's why they removed the body from the flat and left it by the roadside... Anyone who lived in her building or the neighbors in the next building would automatically be looked at.Questioned, interviewed, and re interviewed.They would all be regarded as possible suspects anyway. Why on earth up the ante on being caught by removing a body ?
Something very telling is the lack of sexual assault. And I really wonder about LE's statement that the motive "may" have been sexual. How on earth could they deduce that ? Are they guessing ? So perplexing is this...
All JMO
Something very telling is the lack of sexual assault. And I really wonder about LE's statement that the motive "may" have been sexual. How on earth could they deduce that ? Are they guessing ? So perplexing is this...
All JMO
whitedove
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 1
Screams, well I live in the centre of town, but in a quiet road, I often hear some awful screams coming from the main road 250 yards away most week ends, people coming home after a night out, I wonder if I will find there is a murder the next day, but there never is, so the screams could have been people in high spirits, or full of them lol.
No, I dont think he lived too near.
Fibres from the sofa and left on the body, Yes, there would be.
Fibres in his car and left on the body. Yes, there could be. (but they would have to find the murderer to match them.
Place. He might have done a better job, but he had to move on as the car was coming.
Phone. I dont think they can trace a phone unless a call is made.
Nobody can trace a phone if they dont know who it is, the man was an old friend.
Sock, the sock came off when he dragged the body to the car, it was left in his drive, he found it on the way back to his house.
[FONT="]Phew, that was hard answering all your questions, just shows how hard it is if its for real, there has to be a lot of clues the police are working on.[/FONT]
whitedove
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 1
I agree with this, and it could be that they have a witness who saw her returning home. You cannot say they have "absolutely no evidence", we do not know what they have.
Indeed we have only been told the names of occupants of (I think) three of the seven flats at no. 44 , nor of the people who live in the houses on the other side of the road. Any of these neighbours might have seen her, or perhaps another of the party guests.
Phillb
Member
It's all about psychology and percentages isn't it?
If you had just killed your neighbour/friend/lover, how would you think? It would be something along the lines of
O.M.G !!!***!!! what am i gonna do now?
anic:The body of a person you know is far too close for comfort. The Police are sure to come knocking at my door. But if the body is found 3 miles away, their psychologically placing a distance barrier between them and the body. Their way of thinking is, a body found three miles away could be the work of a wider area of people. It Lowers the percentages of it being someone close to home.
It's all panic reaction, they have to do something to try cover thier tracks. The truth is their pretty much stuck, damned if they do, and damned if they don't. But they don't have much time to think straight.
And the sexual thing.
The Police 'think' there may have been a sexual motif. Once again their assuming that's why pretty young girls are killed, but they have no proof to back it up.
Just my thoughts on it.
Robin Hood
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,340
- Reaction score
- 198
Something else struck me just now. The things that were forensically tested, if they had been cleaned too thoroughly would show as being cleaned. It could be the cars, door etc contained no DNA, now while that isn't proof of anything it's a big clue that they need to push on in a certain direction.
Luna15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 5
This mentions a neighbour of his brothers saying she thinks she saw Greg with Ski's, whether he set out with them or turned back for them is anyone's guess.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...n-nieces-when-she-was-killed-115875-22842871/
There are two angles - the reasoning of the murderer and the practicality of removing the body.
I think the latter points to someone who lived very close to the basement flat at no.44.
The former is open to question. If a total stranger was involved there would seem to be no point in moving the body. If it was someone known to Joanna then cold logic might also suggest that there was little to be gained by moving the body.
Yet, would the murderer be thinking rationally? Perhaps he (assuming a male was responsible) feared incriminating forensic evidence and was panic-driven. The location where Joanna's body was found points to it being dumped with little forethought and it would surely have been discovered much sooner were it not for the amount of snow that fell in the week before Christmas.
I completely agree. Plus it takes a longer time to discover the body if it isn't waiting at home. The longer it takes for the body to be found, the easier it is to pretend, at least for a while, that you had nothing to do with it.
mikeymot
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 281
- Reaction score
- 0
But if the perp really wanted to throw the scent 3 miles away....then why not take the coat, bag, keys, mobile etc., and make it look as though Jo was attacked at, or near, that spot. This sure is perplexing.It's all about psychology and percentages isn't it?
If you had just killed your neighbour/friend/lover, how would you think? It would be something along the lines of
O.M.G !!!***!!! what am i gonna do now?
The body of a person you know is far too close for comfort. The Police are sure to come knocking at my door. But if the body is found 3 miles away, their psychologically placing a distance barrier between them and the body. Their way of thinking is, a body found three miles away could be the work of a wider area of people. It Lowers the percentages of it being someone close to home.
It's all panic reaction, they have to do something to try cover thier tracks. The truth is their pretty much stuck, damned if they do, and damned if they don't. But they don't have much time to think straight.
And the sexual thing.
The Police 'think' there may have been a sexual motif. Once again their assuming that's why pretty young girls are killed, but they have no proof to back it up.
Just my thoughts on it.
whitedove
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Messages
- 143
- Reaction score
- 1
It's all about psychology and percentages isn't it?
If you had just killed your neighbour/friend/lover, how would you think? It would be something along the lines of
O.M.G !!!***!!! what am i gonna do now?
The body of a person you know is far too close for comfort. The Police are sure to come knocking at my door. But if the body is found 3 miles away, there psychologically placing a distance barrier between them and the body. Their way of thinking is, a body found three miles away could be the work of a wider area of people. It Lowers the percentages of it being someone close to home.
It's all panic reaction, they have to do something to try cover thier tracks. The truth is their pretty much stuck, damned if they do, and damned if they don't. But they don't have much time to think straight.
And the sexual thing.
The Police 'think' there may have been a sexual motif. Once again their assuming that's why pretty young girls are killed, but they have no proof to back it up.
Just my thoughts on it.
Love your little panic man lol, but I think your right, people would panic if they have just killed someone, they would not want to be anywhere near it.:couch:
- Status