GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, the "may have been strangled with own sock" construct is really ruling the roost, appearing right now in one form or another in main online Yeates case headlines of

* the Independent
* the Telegraph
* the Mirror
* the Daily Mail
* the Times

The focus on the missing sock itself, though not as proposed murder weapon, is topping headlines in Sky News, the Guardian, and The Sun also.
 
Can this be for real? that the property had not been searched thoroughly and that a member of the public found it?
 
Police say it's not the sock.

Depends if Jo wore a matching pair or not.

I don't - I wear trousers all the time and trainers or boots. I often wear odd socks - I have socks that are same make and material but different colours so if I cant find a matching pair, I just wear odd socks.

Interesting, a retired plod has suggested the sock may have been the murder weapon. That's quite an interesting theory - would explain why it was missing.

Or, it could have come off as the perp dragged Jo's body across the floor.

Seeing as Jo had no shoes / boots on, or coat, the odds are she was killed at home. An abductor would want to make her leave her house looking as normal as possible to avoid attracting attention.

Plus, with the half drunk cider, you got to think Jo got home, kicked off her shoes / boots, took off her coat, poured a glass of cider and prepared to relax for the evening.

She decided to pop the pizza in the oven, when the door bell rings or the intruder has been hiding reveals themselves and the pizza ends up over the perp.
 
Police say it's not the sock.

Depends if Jo wore a matching pair or not.

I don't - I wear trousers all the time and trainers or boots. I often wear odd socks - I have socks that are same make and material but different colours so if I cant find a matching pair, I just wear odd socks.

Interesting, a retired plod has suggested the sock may have been the murder weapon.

If the police have ruled out the sock so quickly, it suggests that they have fiber evidence. This could be construed to mean that the evidence was taken from Jo's neck and that she was in fact strangled with the sock. (Or of course it could relate to fibers found on her bare foot.)
 
Police say it's not the sock.

Depends if Jo wore a matching pair or not.

I don't - I wear trousers all the time and trainers or boots. I often wear odd socks - I have socks that are same make and material but different colours so if I cant find a matching pair, I just wear odd socks.

Interesting, a retired plod has suggested the sock may have been the murder weapon. That's quite an interesting theory - would explain why it was missing.

Or, it could have come off as the perp dragged Jo's body across the floor.

Seeing as Jo had no shoes / boots on, or coat, the odds are she was killed at home. An abductor would want to make her leave her house looking as normal as possible to avoid attracting attention.

Plus, with the half drunk cider, you got to think Jo got home, kicked off her shoes / boots, took off her coat, poured a glass of cider and prepared to relax for the evening.

She decided to pop the pizza in the oven, when the door bell rings or the intruder has been hiding reveals themselves and the pizza ends up over the perp.

and the police not ruling out that she could have been strangled with the sock; SURELY they would know if this was the case, there would be trace fibres around her throat? and even possible abrasive marks?

I cant make up my mind if the police are trying to be too clever, and smoke out the perp, or if they are plain stupid and running around like headless chickens..... it is turning into a bit of a fiasco though - the police and television network having such a public spat..... how damned unprofessional!!!!
 
If the police have ruled out the sock so quickly, it suggests that they have fiber evidence. This could be construed to mean that the evidence was taken from Jo's neck and that she was in fact strangled with the sock. (Or of course it could relate to fibers found on her bare foot.)

Sorry, I should have said poilce don't think it's the sock - they haven't ruled it out.

I don't think they have had time to process it for forensics so I assume they are going on the fact it's not a matching sock.

Seems strange to find a sock in the street, though.

Gloves I can understand as well as hats but not socks as they tend to be encased in shoes and boots whereas the gloves and hats are worn externally.

I've seen shoes dropped in the street before, and baby socks but never an adult sock.
 
Sorry, I should have said poilce don't think it's the sock - they haven't ruled it out.

I don't think they have had time to process it for forensics so I assume they are going on the fact it's not a matching sock.

Seems strange to find a sock in the street, though.

Gloves I can understand as well as hats but not socks as they tend to be encased in shoes and boots whereas the gloves and hats are worn externally.

I've seen shoes dropped in the street before, and baby socks but never an adult sock.

I may be being unkind, but IF you suspected this could be the sock associated with a VERY high profile murder enquiry - why not leave it in situ and call the police? (so as to be sure not to contaminate it!) or take it the the local cop shop...... strikes me, this old boy may have been after his 15 minutes of fame and the matching one is in his laundry basket.
 
I may be being unkind, but IF you suspected this could be the sock associated with a VERY high profile murder enquiry - why not leave it in situ and call the police? (so as to be sure not to contaminate it!) or take it the the local cop shop...... strikes me, this old boy may have been after his 15 minutes of fame and the matching one is in his laundry basket.

Well-said! I'm still chuckling. Yes, I was thinking along the lines of, "Surely someone then, if it's an actual sock found of late, must have first taken the sock home, then realized the importance of it later." But who finds a sock on the street and takes it home in the first place??
 
So C/J is getting a High Profile Barrister.... to either file big damages as reported or .... to defend him?
 
Well-said! I'm still chuckling. Yes, I was thinking along the lines of, "Surely someone then, if it's an actual sock found of late, must have first taken the sock home, then realized the importance of it later." But who finds a sock on the street and takes it home in the first place??

Ewwwwwww! yuk! It's bad enough going near my own b/f's socks!

Did the old boy take it home? If he did, that's weird.

I thought maybe he's seen it in the street a few days or so ago and then when he saw the news he realised it's significance. But yes I'd call the cops and let them pick it up.

I hope the police realise that not everyone wears matching socks.
 
So C/J is getting a High Profile Barrister.... to either file big damages as reported or .... to defend him?

I can't see how he can sue the police for damages. If they allowed that it would set a dangerous precedent for anyone who is arrested and then not charged or convicted.

Colin Stagg was different as the police set a honeytrap and deliberately set out to let him incriminate himself.

Unless the police didn't follow protocol, CJ can't sue.

He may be able to sue the press though.
 
Ewwwwwww! yuk! It's bad enough going near my own b/f's socks!

Did the old boy take it home? If he did, that's weird.

I thought maybe he's seen it in the street a few days or so ago and then when he saw the news he realised it's significance. But yes I'd call the cops and let them pick it up.

I hope the police realise that not everyone wears matching socks.

You make an excellent point about the matching socks thing.

The provenance of the sock could be, well, anything and from anywhere. Even I, a notorious squirreller-away of odd bits and pieces, have never picked up a sock on the street (though one could come in handy for, say, checking the oil in the car, come to think of it).

I do believe, from their refusal to rule out the possibility, that police have fiber evidence from the matching, missing sock and that that evidence proves it was the weapon with which she was strangled.

Maybe.
 
I have to agree with the comments about not wearing match socks, i find myself doing it quite a lot myself these days, not because is fashionable, but sometimes you get a hole in a decent pair of socks & find you always throw away a good one - so i keep the good ones now & match them back up again - not trying to sound like a skinflint btw ;)
 
Its been quite an interesting day. The police have revealed two things that they have known for a while.

Why? I am presuming this is to weed out false admissions.

The lack of boots tends to corroberate the theory in my previous post about opening the door and leaving it on the latch.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased UK - Architect: Jo Yeates, 27, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 - #1.

It seems to me she has answered the door to let someone in she knew or was faintly acquainted with.

I know this sounds gruesome, but if you are dragging a body and its feet are dragging the ground, the sock is bound to come off.

I thought that the police had rulled out the use of a ligature. However, if this is wrong and she was killed with her climbing socks, its starting to sound like a contract killing. You don't kill somone by accident with a sock round the neck. That would rule out a fumbled sexual assault. The sock could have then fallen out of the killer's pocket.

A contract killer doesn't have a motive other than payment.

Place of death would have been the car.

I have great confidence in the police. The murder clear up rate is very high. They would have used the cadaver dogs and would have had access to all phone records, GPS, motorway CCTV etc etc.

They're getting close.

I know this is controversial, but the paymaster have been Greg? or Greg's lover? (male or female)
 
That Express article has an absolutely odd comment posted below it in the "Have Your Say" section.

WFgodot

Yes that is odd. He says he is a medium. i don't know if you from the UK but the Daily Express is a funny paper that carries immigration hate stories and stories saying Princess Diana was killed by MI6!. Every other day, there is a cure for cancer etc etc..... It attracts odd-balls.

I think he is saying he has contacted the police to say he wants some sort of 'psychic medium' role and they have ignored him. Probably a good thing - its attention seeking.

The reference to Luz is to MAddie - the little girl who was taken from a portuguese holiday resort.
 
WFgodot

YEs that is odd. He says he is a medium. i don't know if you from the UK but the Daily Express is a funny paper that carries immigration hate stories and stories daying princess dianna was killed. Every other day, there is a cure for cancer etc etc.....

It attracts odd-balls. I think he is saying he has contacted the police to say soemthing and they have ignored him.

The reference to Luz is to MAddie - the little girl who was taken from a portuguese holiday resort.

Though I'm a Yank, yes, I do know the Daily Express's reputation. Thanks for the Luz = Maddie explanation, I'd forgotten that when I read the comment and wondered what he was getting at there.
 
That Express article has an absolutely odd comment posted below it in the "Have Your Say" section.

Yes it is very strange - so is the name Dahlia - there was a famous murder in America called The Black Dahlia.

Wind up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
1,911
Total visitors
2,105

Forum statistics

Threads
589,949
Messages
17,928,071
Members
228,012
Latest member
cbisme
Back
Top