GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #16

[Cherwell]

Apparently he didn't go via the CSB, so the alleged CCTV footage must have been a red herring. I only recall this as being a tabloid report, as was the 'sobbing girl', so it's quite possible both reports were untrue.

I would like to know about the 'significant item' handed in by a 'member of the public' too. And have we got to the bottom of what it was that made the family think Jo had been 'abducted'? Was it the earrings?

 

[bos]

Apparently he didn't go via the CSB, so the alleged CCTV footage must have been a red herring. I only recall this as being a tabloid report, as was the 'sobbing girl', so it's quite possible both reports were untrue.

I would like to know about the 'significant item' handed in by a 'member of the public' too. And have we got to the bottom of what it was that made the family think Jo had been 'abducted'? Was it the earrings?

I reckon it was the earrings; was the significant item handed in actually in a police statement to the press or was it an "unamed source"? Though it could have been CCTV, I'm assuming that's how they knew VT left no.44 @ 10.13pm

 

[Curious Alice]

I reckon it was the earrings; was the significant item handed in actually in a police statement to the press or was it an "unamed source"? Though it could have been CCTV, I'm assuming that's how they knew VT left no.44 @ 10.13pm

I also suggested that the significant item was a CCTV film. Makes the most sense.

 

[edgedweller]

If VT is lying (perish the thought) and she was dead just before 9:00pm then between 9:00pm and 9:25pm he could have moved her body to his flat and collected the pizza and sock and put her in the cycle bag
He then texts TM to pretend he is at home and is bored without her
He could have moved the car and put the body in the boot either before or after texting TM at 9:25pm

He left for Asda at 10.13pm, apparently. So say he IS lying (!), and she WAS dead before 9pm, that's a whole hour to clean up, move her body etc. And why would he put her in a bedroom in his house? Surely just inside the door would do until he got the car into position, if he found her so heavy? It's these details that are so maddening, when he 'can't remember' more important things!

 

[edgedweller]

My understanding is that after buying beer, crisps and rocksalt he returned to his flat. If he was in the shop at about 10:30, that should have him home again at 11(not sure about exact driving time). I would like to know when he was seen driving to Longwood Lane too, as that would fill out whether he had a long gap there too, or whether he went home, put the salt on the path, and left right away.

I remember we debated early on whether she was put there on the night of the murder or later. We looked at the weather and tried to figure out when it snowed and whether she could have been there from the night of the murder on. My gut feeling was that she was left there later. There may be a good reason why we haven't heard about when he was on Longwood Lane as it may be that it was a day or two later - it would make him appear more heartless if he did that.

She can't have been put there later - he packed leaves around her body and then the snow in the early hours of Saturday morning sealed these leaves around her. A timeline I read said that he left Longwood Lane around 00:15. Then went home and picked up TM from Explore @Bristol (a science museum type place on the river) at around 1.30am.

Moving her a day or two later would be way too much of a risk - if he supposedly didn't know that Greg was away till Jo told him, he also wouldn't know when he was due back (and weather could change GR's plans at any time). So he couldn't leave her body in the flat (and rigor mortis would make getting her in the boot v.difficult) - if he put her in the boot on Friday night and didn't put her somewhere, he then would've run the risk of TM opening the boot. Surely NOT something he could've risked. No, I think JY WAS left there on Friday night. Forensics would've realised if she had been dead longer before being frozen.

I too find it really sad that she was just left like a bag of rubbish on the roadside. But I understand why he did it - it was relatively remote and I think he thought/even maybe hoped she might be found earlier than she was.

 

[notsure]

So that, if in a few years he is free,he is just the poor victim of a frightened flirtatious beckoning vamp, not the scheming post-mortem sexual pervert.

... and God help his future next-door neighbour.

 

[notsure]

Does anybody know how long the jury usually takes in cases like this? Will the jury have been sent home overnight, or will they have to stay there until they have made a decision?

 

[Curious Alice]

He left for Asda at 10.13pm, apparently. So say he IS lying (!), and she WAS dead before 9pm, that's a whole hour to clean up, move her body etc. And why would he put her in a bedroom in his house? Surely just inside the door would do until he got the car into position, if he found her so heavy? It's these details that are so maddening, when he 'can't remember' more important things!

Was there DNA evidence in his property ? Why would he risk putting her in there. What if Tanya had a headache or felt ill at the office party and got a lift home early ? Risky, and to my mind unbelievable unless it was proven otherwise.

 

[Curious Alice]

... and God help his future next-door neighbour.

Too right ! Whether guilty of manslaughter or murder, would you want him next door ? I am a NIMBY in these matters.

 

[ynotdivein]

Just popping in to say that I am so very glad to see folks here who are able to disagree with one another, hold and debate various theories, and really work together respectfully to analyze the evidence as we know it. I've learned a great deal from reading all your posts.

I'm also interested in learning the answer to notsure's question above--how are jury deliberations usually handled in the UK? Is Joanna's jury completely sequestered, or no?

Thanks all for your diligence on behalf of Joanna! :grouphug:

 

[enzeder]

Nothing seemed to come out in the trial about any bridge CCTV footage did it ? I seem to remember if was considered important at the time the police were searching for leads.

Here is an earlier post I made about the bridge CCTV footage.

A source close to the investigation told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The investigation changed dramatically three weeks ago after this new CCTV footage came to light.

‘The discovery of this car driving over the bridge shifted the case’s dynamics.

More at this link
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased UK - Joanna Yeates Clifton, Bristol, 17 December 2010 - #12

 

[Curious Alice]

Just popping in to say that I am so very glad to see folks here who are able to disagree with one another, hold and debate various theories, and really work together respectfully to analyze the evidence as we know it. I've learned a great deal from reading all your posts.

I'm also interested in learning the answer to notsure's question above--how are jury deliberations usually handled in the UK? Is Joanna's jury completely sequestered, or no?

Thanks all for your diligence on behalf of Joanna! :grouphug:

Not sequestered although in can happen in some cases (rare), but for this trial, as with most, they have been sent home. This article highlights the warning given to Jurors at the start of the case. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/04/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-warning

 

[Luna15]

Was there DNA evidence in his property ? Why would he risk putting her in there. What if Tanya had a headache or felt ill at the office party and got a lift home early ? Risky, and to my mind unbelievable unless it was proven otherwise.

I think the fact that he said he placed her in his spare room and hall, indicate to me that there were forensics..... he doesn't 'cover himself' unless totally necessary.

 

[KMP09]

What are everyone's supposed Time lines that VT had done with Jo.

My theory as not changed since I posted earlier on this thread, i'm still not convinced about VT's sexual motive and has someone had pointed out it could of been when he was trying to lift Jo over the wall, i imagine it took some doing with the stain of a heavy body.

Time line

8.45pm Jo arrives home she then takes her shoe's and coat off, then walks into kitchen puts oven on to pre-heat before cooking her pizza and then takes a few sips of her cider.

8.47pm Jo hears a knock at her door - Or VT supposedly see's her at the kitchen window, she then goes to open the door something happens and Jo scream's at the front door, VT tries to muffle her screams then pushes her inside the hallway closing the door.

8.50pm - 9pm VT has now supposedly attacked and killed Jo, and then he is left with what to do with the dead body and everything in her flat.

9pm - 9.30pm VT is trying to think of a scenario that makes the investigation look that Jo as been abducted from her flat, he then switches off the TV and Oven and decides to leave her bag with her keys on the table he also takes her pizza and sock.

9-30pm -10pm VT has now supposedly hidden the dead body either in his flat or has struggled lifting the dead body to the car, but astonishingly no one see's him lifting a large object into the boot of his car.

10pm VT drives to Asda's supposedly with Jo in the boot of the car. he his seen walking into Asda and then out side texting TM.

10.30pm VT then drives around to find a secluded area before dumping the dead body.

This is just my theory

 

[Luna15]

Not sequestered although in can happen in some cases, but for this trial, as with most, they have been sent home. This article highlights the warning given to Jurors at the start of the case. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/04/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-warning

I'm sure I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to have a bit of a poke about online :blushing:

 

[notsure]

I'm sure I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to have a bit of a poke about online :blushing:

I wonder if self-confessed web sleuths are allowed to do jury service.:blushing:

 

[Luna15]

I wonder if self-confessed web sleuths are allowed to do jury service.:blushing:

I hope none of the 11 guests currently viewing this forum aren't doing something they shouldn't be.

 

[ynotdivein]

I'm sure I wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to have a bit of a poke about online :blushing:

I wonder if self-confessed web sleuths are allowed to do jury service.:blushing:

I wouldn't doubt that defense attorneys worldwide are laying awake nights wondering about these very same issues.

 

[enzeder]

I wonder if the very important item was some CCTV footage of Jo or VT ?

I am almost sure sobbing girl was TM, but we may never know this.

Did I not read somewhere, here or in the press, way back at the start of the investigation, that the bridge footage was unlit, too dark to make a clear id of vehicles ?

BBM

"Speaking about the sub-standard CCTV shots, one toll-keeper said yesterday: “I don’t think you’d be able to see the driver of a car at night because of the glare – and it would be difficult to see the registration plate of all the cars crossing the bridge. But when they switch off the illuminations at midnight you can see everything.”"

Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...costs-a-small-fortune-to-run-115875-22838073/

 

[Curious Alice]

Not sure if this was mentioned in the tweets we have on here: from the Judges summing up...

He told jurors to "make due allowance" for the stress Tabak was under during the trial and the fact he was not giving evidence in his first language.