GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #7

[enqueteur]

My utmost apologies to GR for my intense imagination which got carried away. Very relieved for the family that it wasn't him.

 

[MrZhivago]

I think I was the first here to mention VT, simply because somebody said they thought the 32-year-old chap arrested was Dutch. And maybe I was wrong in saying that that chap was VT. Just because that was a guy I knew lived there and was Dutch. Since of course maybe the person here (I forget) who said the guy arrested was Dutch could be wrong.
Certainly, if the chap who's arrested is *not* him then mods should delete a whole bunch of posts.
If it *is* him, I can't see that it's a big deal to be naming him. [Although I can guarantee that rather more will be said ]
Either way, I'm happy if my posts go since they don't really add anything worthwhile to the discussion.

 

[Phillb]

What a day~

Let's think positive. I think we are definitely making progress.

Now back to Sleuthing.. where were we?

Agreed.

The National hacks are slow today, but the name will out in the next few hours anyway.

 

[otto]

so what's the difference when everyone was referencing GR as a possible perp!

None. Greg Reardon was identified early on as the boyfriend of Joanna Yeates, and was often referred to on forums by initials, but media outlets identified him with his full name ... same goes for the friend of Joanna's brother.

Maybe the difference is that they were witnesses, not suspects. How did Christopher Jeffries name come into the spotlight?

 

[Myserty64]

I repeat, please tread warily. Be patient.
There might be more water to run under the bridge.
Maybe surprises in store.

 

[otto]

I think I was the first here to mention VT, simply because somebody said they thought the 32-year-old chap arrested was Dutch. And maybe I was wrong in saying that that chap was VT. Just because that was a guy I knew lived there and was Dutch. Since of course maybe the person here (I forget) who said the guy arrested was Dutch could be wrong.
Certainly, if the chap who's arrested is *not* him then mods should delete a whole bunch of posts.
If it *is* him, I can't see that it's a big deal to be naming him. [Although I can guarantee that rather more will be said ]
Either way, I'm happy if my posts go since they don't really add anything worthwhile to the discussion.

Actually, if it turns out to be the guy from the nearby flat that is in the same profession ... and who somehow fits with all the other information ... except for eating the pizza ... then it adds something.

 

[otto]

Big difference! Keep digging away in my post history, and make your excuses.

There are no excuses for this. I don't think some of you realise how serious the consequences are. But please, carry on.

What is your major objection to looking at and discussing another possible suspects in this case? I'm assuming that using the initials of VT, from now on, will conform to expectations and legal requirements?

I guess Vincent Tabak should be added to Destroyer's list of acronyms as VT.

 

[little_miss_smart]

What is your major objection to looking at and discussing another possible suspect in this case?

Because this is the naming of someone who may or may not have anything to do with the case at this stage. If he is charged he will be named and then he can be discussed but until then I don't think names should be mentioned.

The Caylee Anthony case the names were well documented and the suspect in that case was well documented. The speculation was rife in the media and elsewhere.

 

[Marc D.]

They've allegedly arrested [VT]!

Please remove his name from your post. We should also remove photos and links to his website. VT, 32, architect, 44 Canynge Road, it should be enough for us.

From the Guardian:

Police are keen to keep speculation at a minimum, releasing only the barest amount of information.

Officers were alarmed at the amount of detail published about Chris Jefferies when he was arrested and the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, stepped in to warn the media about contempt of court laws.

 

[little_miss_smart]

Yes well said indeed. :goodpost:

The name will be out soon enough anyway.

And if it's not him who has been named here?

Oh well, doesn't matter does it, just someone else dragged into it needlessly!

 

[MrZhivago]

I repeat, please tread warily. Be patient.
There might be more water to run under the bridge.
Maybe surprises in store.

I kind of agree with this [and certainly with the polite tone -- let's not be getting rude with each other, which looks to be creeping in].
Myself, I don't see a big problem with saying who we think has been arrested (although if it turns out to be wrong then I'd suggest the relevant posts be deleted.)
But certainly I don't think we should start stating ideas of why the arrested person might have done whatever, how, and all the rest.
Discussing GR's strange reactions etc is one thing -- most of the UK has been doing so, and half of those having been doing so online. Likewise CJ.
But this is a fresh person and I personally think we shouldn't speculate at the moment. Because so little has been said about this chap that a thread like this genuinely could be damaging.
I doubt it could lead to a case falling through [but our US buddies should be aware that the idea that defendants can't get a fair trial if the case has been prejudiced by discussion of it in public forums is a far bigger deal here] but I think we've a moral duty, at least, to hold our horses.
At least for a little while

 

[TulipaNoir]

Ok, done a little bit of digging. Not pointing any fingers though.

A few weeks ago I saw something mentioned on facebook, but I could never find more information on it, so I never mentioned it.

Someone on facebook said that they found the following odd:

a. Lorp had said in the press that he didn't know Joanna and Greg.

b. This person on facebook said that she was confused because she saw it mentioned that lorp had said that he sometimes chatted to Joanna in the garden about her cat.

Now I am wondering if the two messages (a & b) were mixed up and both attributed as having been said by Lorp.

Perhaps b. was said by another person.

I found that the person being mentioned here lately has/had a girlfriend who has a picture on the internet of a cat that looks like Joanna's cat (same colours, but not the same cat).

 

[laurauk1]

Hi all, haven't been on for a while as my laptop cable broke. Apologies if this has already been mentioned - I just googled this and don't have much time to read back right now through the post.

the person who has been mentioned on here today as being 32 years of age (not sure if I'm allowed initials/name so not going to) works for a company mentioned on his Linked in profile. When you google that company with Jo Yeates company name, it appears that there have been some projects where the companies have worked together. Not sure if this is a link that helps at all but thought i would throw it out there.

 

[mangy9]

I have deleted my post that named someone!

 

[KAE]

I kind of agree with this [and certainly with the polite tone -- let's not be getting rude with each other, which looks to be creeping in].
Myself, I don't see a big problem with saying who we think has been arrested (although if it turns out to be wrong then I'd suggest the relevant posts be deleted.)
But certainly I don't think we should start stating ideas of why the arrested person might have done whatever, how, and all the rest.
Discussing GR's strange reactions etc is one thing -- most of the UK has been doing so, and half of those having been doing so online. Likewise CJ.
But this is a fresh person and I personally think we shouldn't speculate at the moment. Because so little has been said about this chap that a thread like this genuinely could be damaging.
I doubt it could lead to a case falling through [but our US buddies should be aware that the idea that defendants can't get a fair trial if the case has been prejudiced by discussion of it in public forums is a far bigger deal here] but I think we've a moral duty, at least, to hold our horses.
At least for a little while

BBM
You can't post a person's name unless they have been named by the media. Its against the Terms of Service (TOS) here.

 

[little_miss_smart]

BBM
You can't post a person's name unless they have been named by the media. Its against the Terms of Service (TOS) here.

I wish I had read that earlier. So much easier and probably more effective.

Thank you!

 

[KAE]

I wish I had read that earlier. So much easier and probably more effective.

Thank you!

After all the hard work you guys have put in, I'd hate to see this tread shut down - especially at this time!

 

[Phillb]

Just seen the aerial shots from the B.B.C news helicopter. The scaffold appears to be like a big ramp. It starts at the back of C.J's and rises up. It appears to be a screen to hide whatever is going on behind there from view.

 

[Luna15]

Perhaps we could refer to this unknown person as ‘A32YO’ (Arrested 32 Year Old) .... would that work?

 

[MrZhivago]

Thank you. I don't know if you saw my edited post but I apologised to you. I should never have called you an idiot. I was getting quite upset with some of the carefree attitude that was going on with naming this guy.

It may be this guy they have arrested but I really think until he is charged and named we should not name him.

I disagree with someone else who has said if it is not him we can delete it later. So much damage could be done to this person in naming him if it is not him. Speculating as to what happened is different and in my opinion part of sleuthing, no damage can come from that.

Thing is, let's say we agree to say that we'll call the person "Mr X".
Going on to say, "I think Mr X killed Jo with a shoelace because I think he's a drug-using paedophile who votes Republican* and tortures dogs" and so on and so forth *is* damaging.
I think we have to accept that the sleuthing activity is by its nature potentially damaging, but that we do our best to be at the lesser end of the range of harms and that our comments are on balance acceptable because we have the best intentions of trying to work out who has done some of these terrible things.
Just my tuppence worth...

* Sorry, couldn't help it...