GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #8

[happyanne]

What needs to be investigated scrupulously

and explained


is how the brother of a girl who'd been in a relationship with NUA

could tweet that he was 'certain' someone (CJ) would be arrested/charged

in relation to this killing

within a specified number of hours ?

And be correct


The ramifications and implications in that are staggering

I think he used to work in the media, for C4 amongst others, so probably has Press contacts.

 

[aneurin]

The Daily Record! A Scottish paper known locally as 'The Daily Rangers' due to their less-than-unbiased reporting of a Glasgow football team. Unlikely to have a reporter on scene but you never know, freelancers and all that...

The Daily Record is basically the Scottish version of the Daily Mirror.

 

[MrZhivago]

I think you're misunderstanding. At the time Gunter tweeted, CJ was already under arrest. Gunter tweeted that he was going to be charged. He wasn't. Embarrassed Gunter blames unidentified source. If his sister was renting a flat from CJ at the time, one can guess who his source might have been, but that raises the question of who the source's source was : someone in the neighbourhood ? A friendly junior police officer ?

And I think everybody's missing the point that, looking at the other tweets available which are predominantly about M Kercher, he's a web sleuth [yep, one of *those* sick people ] anyhow.
TBH, this tweet is evidence in favour of our 32-year-old *not* being involved, in my opinion.

 

[willf]

I think he used to work in the media, for C4 amongst others, so probably has Press contacts.

GM worked briefly as a TV researcher.

 

[equationgirl]

How does anyones saliva get on someones jeans? :waitasec:

On the outside surface: spit or drool

On the inside surface: by putting the jeans back on over skin with saliva on

Just guesses - I have no forensic science training.

 

[equationgirl]

I'm still curious about NUA's girlfriend.

It is not clear to me if NUA's girlfriend is in Chile with the friend from Aberdeen Road or on her own?

If NUA is guilty, then didn't his girlfriend notice him acting oddly?

So I'm trying to find out more on NUA's girlfriend.

Someone might have a way of finding more about NUA's girlfirend, if for instance, they know more about her friends and family. Is this her brother - working in Cambridge (same location as father lives):

http://www.ceg-uk.com/en/catscambs/about-college/staff/#gunterm

Is this him speculating about other crimes on Twitter?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...738304+Gunter+morson&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

With respect, may I ask why you are going after NUA's girlfriend and her family?

 

[happyanne]

She might never have even gone home. Feeling bored, and the night yet young, she might have decided to go directly to her neighbours, bearing pizza and cider. The rest of the items, keys, shoes etc could have been put there later. He would have had the keys.

 

[equationgirl]

I am not sure but I think it means, there may not be enough to convict someone because some markers may be missing. On the other hand there may be enough to rule someone out as certain markers will prove it is not theirs. ( don't quote me on that).

I'm pretty sure that for a DNA sample and match to be admitted as trial evidence a minimum number of matching loci must be met. Fewer than the minimum and the sample may be of some use but cannot be used at trial.

That might just be too much Law and Order though.

 

[badhorsie]

With respect, may I ask why you are going after NUA's girlfriend and her family?

I agree, we should not be sleuthing people who are not suspects. It is against TOS here. Bad enough that current NUI's GF is on the front page of some of the tabloids

 

[laserdisc10]

She might never have even gone home. Feeling bored, and the night yet young, she might have decided to go directly to her neighbours, bearing pizza and cider. The rest of the items, keys, shoes etc could have been put there later. He would have had the keys.

Anything's possible. But if you were the killer, why would you risk being seen entering JY's apartment in order to put the keys, phone, etc. there ? I know people have formulated reasons as to why, but surely if you'd killed someone and planned to distance yourself from the crime by moving the body to another location (which does make sense) wouldn't you take the personal possessions also and either toss them somewhere to further distance yourself, or, put them with the body ?

 

[Pisces Cloud]

To state the obvious; the 32 year-old suspect could not possibly have also committed a murder that took place 37 years ago. Which illustrates the problem; 37 years is half a lifetime and therefore there must be a very high probability that whoever committed the 1974 murder is now either dead or physically incapable of committing the 2010 murder. Hence the passage of time makes any connection somewhat unlikely.

I wasn't suggesting that Tabak was the culprit. As far as I'm aware he hasn't been charged with any murder as of yet. I also don't know why some people think that anyone in their late 50s or early 60s would be incapable of doing this crime.

 

[laserdisc10]

I agree, we should not be sleuthing people who are not suspects. It is against TOS here. Bad enough that current NUI's GF is on the front page of some of the tabloids

It's only quite recently been reported by the media that NUA and his girlfriend separated several weeks ago. It's not confirmed, but that's what the media is claiming sources have suggested

Prior to that, much was made (and is still being made) by the media of the very close relationship enjoyed by NUA and his girlfriend

So, that being the case, it's reasonable for the public and online sleuths to suppose that the individual most likely to provide NUA with an alibi for the period in question would be his girlfriend

Then add to that CJ's reported claims that he suspected he'd seen JY departing her flat in the company of two others, speaking in hushed tones

Taken together, with more I haven't bothered to include, it seems reasonable for the public and online sleuths alike to regard NUA and his girlfriend as a 'unit' and to speculate and theorise as to whether the girlfriend played a role

Now, as said, the media's claiming NUA and his girlfriend separated several weeks ago, which would tend, no doubt, to lessen interest in her. But, a lot of posters might not be totally up to date on developments (including reports of a break up between NUA and his girlfriend)

 

[Marc D.]

What needs to be investigated scrupulously

and explained


is how the brother of a girl who'd been in a relationship with NUA

could tweet that he was 'certain' someone (CJ) would be arrested/charged

in relation to this killing

within a specified number of hours ?

And be correct


The ramifications and implications in that are staggering

He was not correct (and admitted it).

[Nausicaa has already answered, but I will also post my answer, that I typed earlier and forgot to post, because I was reading other tabs.]

His first tweet on this topic was posted on 31 December at 10:09 am. CJ had been arrested 28 hours earlier. GM said:

'I am 100% certain that Chris Jefferies, under suspicion for the murder of Jo Yeates, will be charged with murder within the next 12 hours.'

Within 12 hours because he (or his source) probably thought that CJ was not a man who could resist the police's methods any longer. And I think so. It is only an impression, but I think that CJ is a very honest man. So honest that he does not even hide when he is spying his tenants, LOL. So if he had been guilty, he would have not resisted for 36 hours, in my opinion.

'Within the next 12 hours' probably meant before the end of the first 36 hours, so only 8 hours later. At the end of these 36 hours, they can go to a magistrate and ask for more time, or the suspect can be charged, or they can release him, on bail or without bail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail#Forms

GM's next tweet was posted on 1 January at 3:04 pm:

My source is an idiot and wrong!!!

The police had been granted more time to question CJ, and it had been 45 hours since they had arrested him. It was still possible to charge him, though, but at least for the time it would take, GM's source was wrong.

About 9 hours later, CJ was released on bail, and without charges. This time, the source was completely wrong.

 

[equationgirl]

How on earth do you get three DNA samples that are all partial?

The odds of that must be millions to one.

In every aspect of this case 2 + 2 = 5

Lots of things can degrade a DNA sample, including the body's own decomposition processes (which wouldn't apply here I suspect as her body was frozen when found) and bleach to name but two. Wouldn't take a genius to wipe the body down - might not remove all the DNA especially if done in a hurry but it would probably mess up the remainder.

 

[equationgirl]

Exactly. And what seems possible right now is that NUA's ex-girlfriend's brother tweeted he was 'certain' CJ would be arrested/charged within a specific time frame

Who provided him that information ?

Was it the same people who set LE on CJ ?


If so --- who are these people and are they controlling what transpires ?

Must be very sure of themselves

Um, respectfully, what about people who posted on here that they absolutely, just KNEW, that an arrest would be made last weekend? Surely just the same thing? :waitasec:

 

[laserdisc10]

I responded to Nausicaa's excellent post at the top of the page

Surprising so many are at pains to explain GM's involvement. It's almost Shakespearian, as in 'protesteth too much'

Anyway, please see my above post to Nausicaa and be assured I understood his very kind explanation

 

[happyanne]

Anything's possible. But if you were the killer, why would you risk being seen entering JY's apartment in order to put the keys, phone, etc. there ? I know people have formulated reasons as to why, but surely if you'd killed someone and planned to distance yourself from the crime by moving the body to another location (which does make sense) wouldn't you take the personal possessions also and either toss them somewhere to further distance yourself, or, put them with the body ?

The neighbour is a highly intelligent person and would realise that there would be witnesses to her buying the pizza and maybe even to her arriving at the house. He only had to go from the back to the side of the house so, late at night, he is unlikely to be seen.

Carefully placing these items in the flat, he knew he had a few days to do it, would mean a lot of bought time as police fruitlessly did a forensic search in the wrong place.

 

[laserdisc10]

The neighbour is a highly intelligent person and would realise that there would be witnesses to her buying the pizza and maybe even to her arriving at the house. He only had to go from the back to the side of the house so, late at night, he is unlikely to be seen.

Carefully placing these items in the flat, he knew he had a few days to do it, would mean a lot of bought time as police fruitlessly did a forensic search in the wrong place.

With the greatest of respect, I can't subscribe to your reasoning

It would only take someone in the adjacent building to look down as the neighbour entered JY's place and that's something that couldn't be undone and would place neighbour squarely in the frame. It's too risky and even those with average or less intelligence would appreciate that the risks would far outweigh whatever gains. There are flats to the rear, to the front, to the side. He would really be pushing the odds recklessly to expect that not one of those many residents - or a passer-by, or a visitor -- would see him

Had the killer dumped the belongings in a bin, or skip, or tossed them from the car anywhere along the route, it would have confounded investigators to at least the same degree as would placing them in JY's flat

If the belongings had been left with the body, the public, media and investigators would still have been confronted with a girl who'd been killed. If her belongings were nearby the body, it would have been speculated she'd been pulled from the street by persons unknown. This would have lessened suspicion upon residents of the flats and nearby residences. If the killer had for whatever reason chosen not to place the pizza and sock near the body, the task of investigators would have been as difficult as we've witnessed. And again, would not have thrown suspicion upon residents of the flats

The fact JY's keys, phone, coat and boots etc. were discovered within the flat, along with the half-consumed cider is what focused attention upon residents of the flats. If the killer had had the wit to dispose of those items along with the body, the search would have been away from the flats. By leaving those items within the flat, the killer virtually guaranteed he'd become a suspect, imo

 

[laurauk1]

Hi all,

I don't think the brother's tweet is odd. If something big had happened next door to my brother or sister's house and it was all over the news, I'd be on the phone to them for updates.

It could just be a case of 'rumour has it so and so did xyz...'. I expect it's the rumour mill running! People get talking, things get changed and people make assumptions. Pretty soon fiction is apparently fact! He was just someone who heard a snippett of information and wanted to post it online.

 

[Marc D.]

I responded to Nausicaa's excellent post at the top of the page

Surprising so many are at pains to explain GM's involvement. It's almost Shakespearian, as in 'protesteth too much'

Anyway, please see my above post to Nausicaa and be assured I understood his very kind explanation

Do you mean that my explanation was not kind?

No, seriously, I posted it because I said other things in it. And when I answer a post, it is not only directed at the author of this post. I simply state things that could be of interest, or not. I bring my 2 cents. There is no reason to take it personally. I do not expect personal answers to my posts or questions either. The debate is open to all.