It's perhaps only fair to the inventers of the numerous hypotheses we have seen which clearly belong to the realm of fantasy to remark that very little factual evidence has been made public which any theory could conflict with.
GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #7
- Thread starter Cubby
- Start date
- Status
It's perhaps only fair to the inventers of the numerous hypotheses we have seen which clearly belong to the realm of fantasy to remark that very little factual evidence has been made public which any theory could conflict with.
I think it was never said even unofficially to the press that she bought anything from Waitrose, so we can only say that she may have bought small items and put them into her bag... or maybe it was a chocolate or cereal bar that she ate immediately because she was getting hungry... or nothing at all.
If GR did not move the body until Sunday night it would be interesting to know if cctv picked up where he parked his car on his return.
Jo had still not been reported missing at this stage and he would know she was still in the flat. He may even have parked the Ford ka initially towards the rear of the building to extricate the body away from the roadside and glaring eyes.
Jo had still not been reported missing at this stage and he would know she was still in the flat. He may even have parked the Ford ka initially towards the rear of the building to extricate the body away from the roadside and glaring eyes.
So it seems it was even said to the press that she did not buy anything from Waitrose. That should put an end to any conjecture about that part, except maybe regarding how the police learned about this Waitrose stop so soon.
I find both the appeal and the looming Crimewatch recon bizarre.
Why reconstruct images we have already seen 'for real' through CCTV? I dont understand the benefit of that, how 'made up' images and angles are meant to help recollection better than actual film footage which has already been widely distributed. If anything, they will blur actual recollections anyone might have.
To learn now that the pizza wasnt eaten by the victim is quite a revelation, given that the police allowed a public scenario to develop - quite reasonably arrived at - which involved Ms Yeates arriving home (uncertain), eating the pizza (did not happen) with or without someone else (uncertain), drinking cider (no comment on this) then being murdered (fact).
Now we have half a bottle of cider drunk but no pizza eaten. Is that not strange? Is that in keeping with the girl's habits, having arrived home with a pizza?
The parents say the murderer was 'acquainted with' their daughter or vice versa. Surely then the murderer would be acquainted with her boyfriend also. Lets start there. What about the facebook interviews - her contacts and friends? Not a peep.
Why issue a nationwide appeal, quite aggressively challenging people who saw someone behaving oddly in response to the news or justifying the killing, and then say that the killer was known to the victim? Meaning, the killer isnt just anybody but someone known to the victim, which narrows it down quite a bit. The aggressive part is where anyone who suspects something, or has noticed something odd, is described as 'consciously' protecting a murderer and therefore responsible for the outrage.
Thats very strong stuff for a killer who, it states, is known to the victim and her circle of friends, and isnt just 'anybody', in Birmingham or Leeds or Glasgow or wherever, who happened to come home late on December 17 flushed and dishevelled to the consternation of his missus.
If you live in Liverpool, therefore, or anywhere not in the vicinity of Jo Yeates, ignore this nationwide appeal.
Also, the cider. I take it there is an actual cider bottle in existence, or two, one half-empty?? Because while we have seen a replica pizza box, we havent seen anything of the cider bottles, or heard anything about whether a glass or glasses were used for the drinking and then washed up in the sink or whether it was drunk from the neck.
Let alone if there was any forensics off the bottles or if the girl had actually drunk cider before being killed. Again, another set of oddities we might hear about by accident or design or police gossip a few weeks from now.
The police seem to think that the public, once appealed to, only think about things the police want them to think about; and dont notice things the police arent interested in them noticing. And dont ask questions the police dont want asked just yet. But it doesnt happen like that.
Like, for instance, how accurate is the clothing in which the WPC will appear as Ms Yeates? And is that the clothing her body was found wearing?
This is becoming more and more depressing by the day.
Why reconstruct images we have already seen 'for real' through CCTV? I dont understand the benefit of that, how 'made up' images and angles are meant to help recollection better than actual film footage which has already been widely distributed. If anything, they will blur actual recollections anyone might have.
To learn now that the pizza wasnt eaten by the victim is quite a revelation, given that the police allowed a public scenario to develop - quite reasonably arrived at - which involved Ms Yeates arriving home (uncertain), eating the pizza (did not happen) with or without someone else (uncertain), drinking cider (no comment on this) then being murdered (fact).
Now we have half a bottle of cider drunk but no pizza eaten. Is that not strange? Is that in keeping with the girl's habits, having arrived home with a pizza?
The parents say the murderer was 'acquainted with' their daughter or vice versa. Surely then the murderer would be acquainted with her boyfriend also. Lets start there. What about the facebook interviews - her contacts and friends? Not a peep.
Why issue a nationwide appeal, quite aggressively challenging people who saw someone behaving oddly in response to the news or justifying the killing, and then say that the killer was known to the victim? Meaning, the killer isnt just anybody but someone known to the victim, which narrows it down quite a bit. The aggressive part is where anyone who suspects something, or has noticed something odd, is described as 'consciously' protecting a murderer and therefore responsible for the outrage.
Thats very strong stuff for a killer who, it states, is known to the victim and her circle of friends, and isnt just 'anybody', in Birmingham or Leeds or Glasgow or wherever, who happened to come home late on December 17 flushed and dishevelled to the consternation of his missus.
If you live in Liverpool, therefore, or anywhere not in the vicinity of Jo Yeates, ignore this nationwide appeal.
Also, the cider. I take it there is an actual cider bottle in existence, or two, one half-empty?? Because while we have seen a replica pizza box, we havent seen anything of the cider bottles, or heard anything about whether a glass or glasses were used for the drinking and then washed up in the sink or whether it was drunk from the neck.
Let alone if there was any forensics off the bottles or if the girl had actually drunk cider before being killed. Again, another set of oddities we might hear about by accident or design or police gossip a few weeks from now.
The police seem to think that the public, once appealed to, only think about things the police want them to think about; and dont notice things the police arent interested in them noticing. And dont ask questions the police dont want asked just yet. But it doesnt happen like that.
Like, for instance, how accurate is the clothing in which the WPC will appear as Ms Yeates? And is that the clothing her body was found wearing?
This is becoming more and more depressing by the day.
It was always said in the press that she went to Waitrose and bought nothing, but if that was the case, how did the police know to obtain cctv from Waitrose immediately she was declared missing? They couldn't possibly have checked every shop on every possible route home within that timescale, in fact they asked shopkeepers to check their own cctv about a couple of weeks in to the enquiry, I believe. Something led them to Waitrose straight away. So I think she must have bought something, and the police found the receipt in the flat, but why don't they just say so? Like all of this case, just so confusing!
Just a thought.
While Mrs Yeates may not have intended precisely to encourage armchair detectives, she surely made it clear that she is one herself. I bet her bookshelf is well-stocked with whodunits. She spends a lot of time, she says, trying to think of scenarios which may correspond with the reality of what happened to her daughter. And she rightly mentioned that she has the advantage of knowing intimately well her daughters character, which may be highly relevant to evaluating the likelihood of some ideas.
What she did not say, but could have said, is that she also knows direct relevant facts which the other armchair detectives dont know. She saw the flat as the police saw it. She saw things, some of which the police have requested her not to reveal. She also had very ample opportunity to talk through every detail of what happened with Greg, whose character she also knows.
Now against that background, what does Teresa Yeates herself think ? What is her preferred scenario ?
Apparently, from what she said, she thinks the killer knew Joanna and may strike again. If the manual amendments to her typescript have been correctly deciphered, she also thinks he lived locally and has not gone away. She also suspects that he either drove his own car at an improbable hour or else borrowed someone elses car (perhaps both). And she suspects he may have an alibi backed by someone close to him which has involved some massaging of events or timing.
So far as I can see, all of that might apply to one of several candidates or am I wrong ?
BTW, Id like to know Jos blood alcohol level. But I suppose thats another thing were not going to be told.
While Mrs Yeates may not have intended precisely to encourage armchair detectives, she surely made it clear that she is one herself. I bet her bookshelf is well-stocked with whodunits. She spends a lot of time, she says, trying to think of scenarios which may correspond with the reality of what happened to her daughter. And she rightly mentioned that she has the advantage of knowing intimately well her daughters character, which may be highly relevant to evaluating the likelihood of some ideas.
What she did not say, but could have said, is that she also knows direct relevant facts which the other armchair detectives dont know. She saw the flat as the police saw it. She saw things, some of which the police have requested her not to reveal. She also had very ample opportunity to talk through every detail of what happened with Greg, whose character she also knows.
Now against that background, what does Teresa Yeates herself think ? What is her preferred scenario ?
Apparently, from what she said, she thinks the killer knew Joanna and may strike again. If the manual amendments to her typescript have been correctly deciphered, she also thinks he lived locally and has not gone away. She also suspects that he either drove his own car at an improbable hour or else borrowed someone elses car (perhaps both). And she suspects he may have an alibi backed by someone close to him which has involved some massaging of events or timing.
So far as I can see, all of that might apply to one of several candidates or am I wrong ?
BTW, Id like to know Jos blood alcohol level. But I suppose thats another thing were not going to be told.
Alisia Dragoon
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
Just wondering, are there any known cctv footage of GR's car travelling to Sheffield on the 17th December?
I was just reading about the CCTV/Waitrose....
CCTV images show missing Bristol woman Joanna Yeates leaving Waitrose
Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010
Excerpt: "Detective Supt Mark Saunders, who is leading Operation Braid into Jos disappearance, urged the public to come forward with any information.
He said: We have uncovered CCTV of her road from Friday night and the early hours of Saturday morning and there was a lot of movement on the street.
There were people in cars and pedestrians and we are asking anyone who may have seen anything to contact us.
We have further CCTV of Jo in Waitrose in Clifton at around 8.10pm after she left The Ram pub which shows what she was wearing."
http://swns.com/cctv-images-show-missing-bristol-woman-joanne-yeates-leaving-waitrose-221655.html
Nothing has been released by the police regarding Greg's Sheffield trip- no timings, cctv, petrol receipts, or anything else for that matter.
Which just proves what I said. "We can only speculate" about the motive and "we don't know for sure" about opportunity. So answering a simple 'yes' to either question would be inaccurate.
None of which should be construed as indicating that I have any strong opinions one way or another regarding GR.
If Jo made it back to the flat circa 9pm she would have time to remove her coat and boots and preheat the oven to 200 c. That particular pizza cooks in 6 to 8 minutes. Then the text from MW comes in at 9:20pm which starts the chain of events.
I wouldn't find it unusual for her to take a few drinks of the cider whilst the pizza was cooking, which we now know she didn't get around to eating.
I wouldn't find it unusual for her to take a few drinks of the cider whilst the pizza was cooking, which we now know she didn't get around to eating.
Other than GR we are looking at a friend/associate or neighbour.
A neighbour would need means. CJ had a key. One other neighbour in the same block of flats works in architecture and could have known or had common ground with Joanna. But this same person does have a gf, so he would have required her to be out of the way. And any other neighbour would have had to have known GR was away (perhaps CJ and PS - but they would both need motive)
A friend/associate would most likely require an invite or be allowed in on a cold-call basis.
But they would - more than likely - have had to have known GR would not be there. This could include a colleague, but most colleagues would be unlikely to know her specific address, unless they stalked her all the way home. But that could explain the strangulation and - if MW's account is to be believed - why it happened so soon after she got home.
But, also, because of MW's involvement an invite is highly likely based on what we know...ie that she was willing to meet another man in GR's absence.
Either way the motive - more than likely - would be rejection. And that is quite some reaction to a rejection.
That's why, for me, GR is highest up my list of suspects.
JMO
A neighbour would need means. CJ had a key. One other neighbour in the same block of flats works in architecture and could have known or had common ground with Joanna. But this same person does have a gf, so he would have required her to be out of the way. And any other neighbour would have had to have known GR was away (perhaps CJ and PS - but they would both need motive)
A friend/associate would most likely require an invite or be allowed in on a cold-call basis.
But they would - more than likely - have had to have known GR would not be there. This could include a colleague, but most colleagues would be unlikely to know her specific address, unless they stalked her all the way home. But that could explain the strangulation and - if MW's account is to be believed - why it happened so soon after she got home.
But, also, because of MW's involvement an invite is highly likely based on what we know...ie that she was willing to meet another man in GR's absence.
Either way the motive - more than likely - would be rejection. And that is quite some reaction to a rejection.
That's why, for me, GR is highest up my list of suspects.
JMO
Why would GR drive to Sheffield after 9:20pm Friday night ? To put distance between himself and the deceased. He also knows that a young male would show up on her mobile as having been the last to contact her while she was still alive.
Why would GR relocate the body after his return home on Sunday night ? To put distance between himself and the deceased. The more time he has before the body is discovered the better.
Why would GR relocate the body after his return home on Sunday night ? To put distance between himself and the deceased. The more time he has before the body is discovered the better.
Maybe perp came back unexpected. She removes pizza from oven at 9:15 to share with the perp. Divides pizza on table and goes to get cutlery. The perp takes a few bites, when the phone message comes in at 9.20pm. The perp being already suspicious at large pizza and two ciders and as you say Deckard, starts a chain of events that gets out of control.
Here in the States, reporters do quite often get the facts wrong. And perhaps it's also true in the UK ? Anyway, it was reported, IIRC, that LE does indeed know what Jo bought in Waitrose, but they considered it "not important " It's interesting to me that they will not say what she did buy. Regarding speculation about this or any case, that's usually what occurs in most crime messge boards. LE never gives away certain facts, and it is often useful to examine what they choose not to reveal....
All JMO
There is a lot of speculation about the pizza which, now we know for a fact she didnt eat it, has to be put aside. There is nothing to say the pizza made it back to the flat. There is nothing to say the girl cooked it, started cooking it or was interrupted cooking it. Or to assume someone else ate it there and then disposed of the packaging for some reason. Or took it with them afterwards to eat it at home.
The pizza - which the police allowed the public to think had possibly been eaten by the victim, so locating the victim back at her flat - was not eaten by Ms Yeates. It has nothing to say about her being in the flat.
If anything, the fact she didnt eat it would suggest more that neither she nor it made it back to the flat.
Phillb
Member
I love gut instinct. It always tells you something's not quite right, even though there's no clear reason, or obvious signs to say why. But you always know something is wrong. The head is hard and calculating, the heart is soft and full of emotions. I believe the saying is 'never let your heart rule your head'
It takes a special kind of person to be able to lie consistently, calmly and be able to pass any lie detector test. These people don't feel any of the pain that normal people feel, but they are very good at pretending they do. They usually get on very well in life and reach the top. Nothing gets in their way, because they have no conscience, or guilt to hold them back.
They are brilliant people observors, they watch and learn how other people behave, they can certainly play pretend the same emotions, and shed tears. But they fake emotions and shed crocodile tears. They only use these when necessary to move on up, get there own way, or get out of things.
They are also easy to enrage quick with jealousy, they can be very possesive and domineering.
If you think a sociopathathic personality belongs to a serial killer, then think again. The chances are you know more of these people than you realise. They are often very charming, friendly, good looking and successful. Manipulative and conning are their key traits. Check out a bit about a sociopath here
http://www.youmeworks.com/sociopaths.html
If your gut instincts tell you something's not quite right, the chances are your probably right!!
A bit of food for thought there.
- Status