Isn't it just the usual lurid tabloid style, though? Try stripping away the dramatic and emotive language. Of course he would want to tell his family that his next-door neighbour had been murdered, and about all the brouhaha that goes with that, interviews, searches etc. Wouldn't you? And quite understandable that they wouldn't want to discuss it in front of children.
I don't think SilkySifaka was talking about the lurid style.
I think the point was, sure you're going to tell the family about the front page headline story unfolding in and around your home ... but why would you include you were "under suspicion"!
An innocent person would not have drawn that inference. After all, they have nothing to fear ... they are completely innocent.
If I was innocent I would discuss it casually as a matter of passing with my family but to call a family summit, as if he was preparing them for what he knew was to come. It seems he knew he was under suspicion and he knew why.
The fact that he is now charged with murder adds more weight to that.
Edited to add.. VT will know by now who the sobbing woman was and that person might have expressed a need for protection.
Then there is whole formal process of getting VT back to England.
I do find it strange that bail was not even asked for, bail would have been denied anyway JMO.
How many accused murderer's are regularly released on bail?
I think the prosecution in this case mentioned the risk of interfering with witnesses, or words to that effect, when they explained why they would oppose bail for VT if it had been applied for.
how much do we know about what happened in aberdeen road very early in the morning of the arrest...
it was reported that vt was clearing his windscreen of frost at 2am...
presumably, that speeded up his arrest and charge...
it may account for fact that no bail applied for....
Apparently, 1 in 8 people charged with murder are granted bail - I can't remember where I read that figure though so will have to trawl through my internet history.
Suicide watch is a matter of routine when someone first enters prison; it's part of the reception process so I wouldn't read too much into that. That said, VT if released on bail, would probably be more at risk from killing himself which of course would obstruct the course of justice. Given that he was moved from prison in Bristol because of the strength of feeling locally, he could well be in danger if released. Basically, any harm that he came to on release could obstruct the course of justice. He feels safe in prison, why ask for bail if his life would be in danger from himself or others?
Last edited by bos; 02-03-2011 at 05:41 AM. Reason: syntax
In any case, I think we're in danger of drifting off at a tangent here. I only pointed out the Olaf H story in response to a post by Missjones who apparently had a problem in accepting VT as a suspect because he was "not a rapist has a good clean record in Holland as well as in the UK, worked hard to get the PHd and good job .... ". (Although the same poster appears to have been quite happy to accept GR as a suspect, despite the fact that he (presumably) is not a rapist, has a good clean record in the UK, worked hard to qualify as an architect and get a good job etc. The only point I was trying to make was that sometimes apparently respectable people turn out to have done some very bad things indeed.
Like that perfectly respectable doctor Harold Shipman who is believed to be responsible for maybe a hundred or more murders.
One of the reasons why he got 'away with it' for so long was because people in general (and the authorities in particular) found it so hard to accept that such a thing was possible.
And in order to ensure that they do not cause any injury to another person (which naturally includes themselves) it is a "requirement that the defendant undergoes examination by 2 medical practitioners, one of whom has been approved for the purposes of s.12 Mental Health Act 1983".
There are, of course, good reasons why a defendant might not want to jump through that particular hoop.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6035776&postcount=630"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - UK - Joanna Yeates, Clifton, Bristol, 17 December 2010 - #7[/ame]
Sorry to be a pain, could someone post the link to the photo map of the exact spot Jo was found? The one where it was circled I think - I think it was one of philb's posts, I can't remember, also, would it be a good idea to link to it in the first post of threads for easy reference for future?
What's interesting though is that they didn't object on grounds they felt him to be a risk to anyone else if released on bail. They raised concerns they fear he could abscond and/or could possibly try to or interfere with witnesses but no apparent concerns as to him being violent or having murderous tendencies which might come to the fore again (I use "again" here meaning they suspect he's killed one person but don't seem concerned currently that he might kill another one if released)
So, is it true one in eight people charged with murder are released on bail?
Are people generally happy with this?
Will murder eventually be classed as a misdemenour?
Why bother going to all the trouble of hunting down killers if they are let out on bail?
Can someone explain to me why it is a good idea to have murderers out on bail?
Do you think Joanna Yeates family would be happy if VT was out on bail?
We have no clue really if VT is innocent or guilty... but just the fact that he was charged for murder and is about to stand trial means that the police have something against him... Otherwise why charge him for such?