Many, many posters in many fora have questioned this incident and explanations for it. But there have been those within many fora who've been determined to steer people away from this sort of speculation and to do so, they've either refuted any suggestion of MW/JY involvement that night, or they've simply tried to steer people's attention to other issues
As we've seen though, it's something that will not go away. People continue to return to it, because it's one of the very few certainties surrounding that night
No matter how much downplaying is attempted, it is a peculiar situation. On one hand, people bend over backwards to claim JY and GR were 'besotted'. Yet right there under the public's nose is the fact that JY did not choose for whatever reason to attend the Christening with him, despite they could both have driven there together after she'd finished work. So why didn't she go with GR ? It's never been explained, has it ?
Next, the moment GR has left, JY is phoning some guy who's supposedly a casual acquaintance of her brother to ask, ' Where are you ? Fancy a drink ? '
So was she bored with GR ? Was she looking around to replace him ? Was she looking for a fling ? Did she phone other guys that night and ask if they'd like a drink ?
MW doesn't conform with most women's idea of attractive, as far as I'm aware
So was it a meeting of minds ? Well, LE would have a lot of the online communication between them and would be in a position to know the answer to that ?
What was it about MW that prompted JY to phone him, asking if he'd like a drink ? Looks ? Charm ? Wealth ? Sex appeal ? Shoulder to lean on ?
And why after 18 months during which they hadn't seen each other ... allegedly ... did she seek a face to face encounter ? First opportunity without GR ? Or was GR aware JY was going to try to meet up with MW ? And was GR fine with that ?
And have LE forensically examined MW's vehicle/s ? And examined cctv footage of the venue it's claimed MW was at, and for how long ? If not, why not ?
All just my opinion
You've been raising very good points, laserdisc, if I may say so and thanks to everyone again.
There is a lot of control being exercised over this case in the public arena, after an initial burst of appeals and encouragement of press attention.
Now, the consensus about the couple has hardened - besotted, devoted, faithful etc - even though there are unusual elements to the whole thing.
But elements which we are supposed to regard as completely 'usual' - and if one points out that they are 'unusual', one is regarded as a freak or a ghoul.
The apparent habit of not replying to texts or phone calls. This was 'not unusual'. Yet there we have the victim on the phone, sending and replying to texts or at least open to doing so.
Not going to the family event. No reason given.
The cider and the pizza - things which immediately gave rise to the idea (not unreasonably) that there may have been another person involved that evening. Again, this was rubbished as some kind of moral slur. Though the inference was obvious and easily made.
That held sway in a puzzling way for some time, until ... it emerged later that ...
... there was an attempt to meet up with a male friend.
Again, 'not unusual'?
Well maybe or maybe not.
That's just a few anomalies which we as the public have been encouraged by the police to notice.
Encouraged, yes, because had the police not alerted the media in the way they chose to do on this case, the city of Bristol and its annoyingly 'affluent suburb' and the whole drama of this murder would have passed us all by as just another blip in our end of year experiences.
We would now be posting on Tunisia or Brazil or Sri Lanka or some dreadful murder which we don't know about because there is no publicity surrounding it.
But here we are. We have brains. We think. We have opinions and the fora to express them. It is not possible for public interest and alarm to be stood down as easily as it can be 'stood up'.
Certainly, saying that 'sadly, so many murders go unsolved' isn't going to wash with this one.
