815 users online (138 members and 677 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 76 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1134
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    29,161

    UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #14

    Please continue here.


    Thread 13

    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    Instructions for Chat:
    Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

    Hello everyone - Welcome to Currently Awaiting Trial.

    Please read and thank this post, before posting in the thread. Anyone who doesn't read and thank the post, and then posts, will be given 1 warning to read the post and abide by the rules.

    There are special rules that apply to this thread!
    1. All discussion of case players must be by initial ONLY.
    2. Others rules may be added at any time, depending on legalities, so remember to check this post frequently.

    Some things to remember:


    If you see a post that violates the TOS - report it by hitting the little red triangle (Alert button) in the upper right corner of the post. If you respond to the post, you will be held accountable as having broken the TOS.

    WS does not allow bickering, name calling, snarky or rude remarks. Be aware that posts will be judged on AMERICAN standards, which may be different than those in the UK.

    Please Do NOT tell others what to post.

    Please Do NOT discuss moderation. If you have a question, PM a mod (you can find them via 'View Forum Leaders') or use the Alert button.


    PLEASE use restraint in referring to those who have not been named as suspects and use initials only.
    ---

    X Also, PhillB has done an excellent map of the area in question; it can be referred to here:

    Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased UK - Joanna Yeates, Clifton, Bristol, 17 December 2010 - #3


    UPDATED list of persons in discussion list:

    Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Found Deceased UK - Joanna Yeates Clifton, Bristol, 17 December 2010 - #11



    Terrific discussion and sleuthing so far - an incredible amount of work has been done by a good many talented WSers. Welcome to those new to the case! Excellent links to information from media abound within the threads; familiarizing yourself with the case will enhance your understanding of the case discussion.

    LINKS TO PREVIOUS THREADS

    #1

    #2

    #3

    #4

    #5

    #6

    #7

    #8

    #9

    #10

    #11

    #12




    Websleuths TOS - The Rules You will find Threadequitte tips here also. Please refer to them if you are having trouble stating your opinion without attacking others.

    Assigned Mods for this Forum are Salem and fran. Please contact us if you have questions or need help with something.

    Thanks,

    Salem
    Moderator
    Last edited by bessie; 02-02-2015 at 07:03 PM. Reason: repaired link

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    223
    I keep thinking that VT is going to have a hell of a job convincing the court that he's telling the truth considering the massive amount of lies he told after the event.

    He's clearly lied to his girlfriend and her family. Then he lied to his own family. Then he lied to the police. How is a jury supposed to accept anything he says as true?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,428
    Timeline:

    30 December - Chris Jefferies arrested
    01 January - Chris Jefferies released from custody
    20 January - Vincent Tabak arrested
    04 March - Chris Jefferies released from police bail

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-timeline.html
    and
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...-released-bail

    This timeline illustrates the mystery of CJ's "involvement".
    I am not familiar with the legal process in the UK and the issue of "Police Bail". Of course, there is Bail in the US but it is applied only after someone is formally charged (the exact process varies from state to state). This whole issue of having charges filed may be a technicality but there must be some legal standards restricting when a Police Bail may be impose.

    What I'm getting at is wouldn't there have to have been something establishing "probable cause”; something stronger than just, say, having keys to JY's flat (he was her LL) and not having a rock solid alibi? Three weeks after CJ Posted bail, VT was arrested. Obviously there was more to the investigation than simply tidying up the loose ends of the case against CJ. They were clearly pursuing another suspect.

    Then, after the arrest of VT, CJ remained on bail another 6 weeks and it was dropped without apology or vindication as I recall. It appears CJ was very much under the shadow of suspicion during the entire period. But Why?

    Now I might be totally off on the UK legal process. It could be that SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) when a crime has been committed is to round up the "usual Suspects" and have them post police bail, while they sort out the situation. Perhaps someone would inform me if this is the case. Otherwise I will assume Police Bail is for serious suspects only, making CJ a Serious Suspect.

    It is safe to assume at this point that CJ did not kill JY and it seems highly improbably that the otherwise well respected 66 year old retired school teacher would deliberately assist someone else with a murder or the cover-up of that murder. It's possible I suppose but very unlikely.

    Had CJ been untruthful during the initial investigation, it could explain the initial arrest. Lying to the police during a murder investigation is a VERY BAD Idea. Once VT was arrested, I would think any of CJ "untruthfulness" would be pretty much irrelevant unless it provided cover for VT.

    I am wondering if CJ told some sort of lie to the police that was only intended to keep a tenant of his, he believed to be totally innocent, from becoming embroiled in a murder investigation. Something involving one of CJ's vehicles comes to mind. It wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by bees View Post
    He's clearly lied to his girlfriend and her family. Then he lied to his own family. Then he lied to the police. How is a jury supposed to accept anything he says as true?
    It would need those family members to testify against him by confirming what he actually told them. Otherwise it is just supposition or hearsay, and won't be admissable in court.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by veggiefan View Post
    It would need those family members to testify against him by confirming what he actually told them. Otherwise it is just supposition or hearsay, and won't be admissable in court.
    If they don't testify in court what he said, the jury will still assume he lied to everyone after the event. The alternative is to think that they knew the truth and were involved in a cover-up. That's unlikely given the statements made by the Tabak family spokesman about how normal he was on the family holiday.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,112
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    I am not familiar with the legal process in the UK and the issue of "Police Bail".
    Police bail just means that the police may wish to ask further questions at a later date, and you are obliged to attend if required to. They may have been concerned that CJ might disappear off to France, since he has a property there.


    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/custody/

    If there's not enough evidence to charge you, you can be released on police bail. You don't have to pay to be released on police bail, but you'll have to return to the station for further questioning when asked.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,110
    I think the police kept CJ on bail until all the media and public hype had died down before sneaking him out the back door, so to speak. Maybe to give the impression they had a real good reason to arrest him, when they really had made a massive gaff, resulting in an innocent man being publicly vilified, for nothing more than a bit of idle gossip.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,428
    According to Wiki: "Police bail where a suspect is released without being charged but must return to the police station at a given time"

    From Cherwell's link the "Homeoffice" publication, it says: "You don't have to pay to be released on police bail"

    All this seems to suggest that "police bail" does not involve the actual posting of funds. It is more the admonishment the cop would give in the old movies: "we're letting you go, but don't you go leaving town".

    The American concept of "bail is a monetary bond you post to assure that you will show up for court after having been charged with a crime. It is serious business.
    What is not clear is the significance of Police Bail. Is it strictly for "suspects" or can it also be used for "witnesses" and how is it usually used? Is it routine to use it in a situation like CJ where there was a "link" to a serious crime but no particular evidence that would warrant criminal charges.

    What I'm getting at is "is the treatment of CJ normal under the circumstances?" From what I have read in the British papers, most people in the UK believed CJ was guilty until VT’s arrest and some suspicion hung over him after that. It seems that the treatment of CJ was a deliberate effort by the police to cause him to appear “involved” in the crime.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,112
    All this seems to suggest that "police bail" does not involve the actual posting of funds.
    That's right, no money is involved.

    The American concept of "bail is a monetary bond you post to assure that you will show up for court after having been charged with a crime. It is serious business.
    Yes, the same in the UK, but the operative word there is 'charged'. CJ wasn't charged.

    What is not clear is the significance of Police Bail. Is it strictly for "suspects" or can it also be used for "witnesses" and how is it usually used? Is it routine to use it in a situation like CJ where there was a "link" to a serious crime but no particular evidence that would warrant criminal charges.
    I'm no expert on the subject, but it would only arise where someone had been arrested, as CJ was. Lots of people will routinely be questioned, some of them will turn out to be witnesses and some may be suspects, but the police bail situation would only apply to someone who was actually arrested.

    What I'm getting at is "is the treatment of CJ normal under the circumstances?"
    Difficult to say really, as we don't know what reasons the police had for arresting him, and we don't know what answers he had to their questions. Some people refuse to say anything at all.

    From what I have read in the British papers, most people in the UK believed CJ was guilty until VT’s arrest and some suspicion hung over him after that.
    I don't think that's the case at all. I never thought him guilty and nor did most people who discussed it with me. The British papers behaved atrociously in this case and some are in serious trouble over it, not only with libel cases but also contempt of court. Don't believe everything you read in the papers!

    It seems that the treatment of CJ was a deliberate effort by the police to cause him to appear “involved” in the crime.
    The police didn't do anything out of the ordinary as far as I'm aware. They arrested a suspect and questioned him for a couple of days before releasing him without charge. Routine stuff. They never identified him - that was the tabloid papers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by bees View Post
    If they don't testify in court what he said, the jury will still assume he lied to everyone after the event.
    The jury will be reminded that their verdict must be based only on evidence heard in court, that they must avoid speculation and that they must disregard anything they have read only in the press, such as reports of what VT may or may not have told his friends and family.

    However, human nature is such that it will be difficult for the jury to set aside points such as the one you make. This is why there is such controversy about how much information and speculation appears in the press in such high-profile cases as this.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by veggiefan View Post
    The jury will be reminded that their verdict must be based only on evidence heard in court, that they must avoid speculation and that they must disregard anything they have read only in the press, such as reports of what VT may or may not have told his friends and family.

    However, human nature is such that it will be difficult for the jury to set aside points such as the one you make. This is why there is such controversy about how much information and speculation appears in the press in such high-profile cases as this.
    I agree.

    I wonder if the prosecution will bring the issue of lying into the court? Is it possible that they could follow a line that given his "innocent act" after the event, his account in court can't be trusted?

    Can they bring his girlfriend and/or family in as witnesses to his movements and then question them on the story he told them?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    Then, after the arrest of VT, CJ remained on bail another 6 weeks and it was dropped without apology or vindication as I recall. It appears CJ was very much under the shadow of suspicion during the entire period. But Why?


    Now I might be totally off on the UK legal process. It could be that SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) when a crime has been committed is to round up the "usual Suspects" and have them post police bail, while they sort out the situation. Perhaps someone would inform me if this is the case. Otherwise I will assume Police Bail is for serious suspects only, making CJ a Serious Suspect.
    CJ was not under suspicion for the entire period, it is pretty much standard practice to continue Police bail even when another suspect has been arrested and charged. Bail will quite often run until the original terms expire (many months).

    It is certainly not standard operating practice to round up "the usual suspects", arrest them and then release them on bail. If the Police did that then they would soon bankrupt the country with the vast amount of compensation that would need to be paid out.

    It is likely that CJ was arrested because of his behaviour in the days prior to his arrest. It may have seemed that he was trying to inject himself into the investigation which many profilers suggest is typical behaviour of a guilty party. With the pressure on the Police to make progress and arrest someone, it seems that they jumped the gun on little more than a hunch. Once he was arrested they pretty much had carte blanche to search his property, something that he may have previously resisted on the grounds of invasion of privacy.

    Unfortunately for both CJ and the Police, profiling is inexact and quite often misleading. I doubt that we will ever get a full explanation of their actions as it is likely that CJ's legal action will be settled well before it reaches a court.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,110
    Regarding CJ, I think it’s a crime in itself for an innocent, elderly man with absolutely nothing criminal in his history, to have suffered all that unfounded accusation and humiliation.

    I blame the police as well as the media, when they revealed the arrested suspect was aged 65, no name was needed it was like a red flag to a bull. Also his cars hoisted in full view of the media, arrested on suspicion of murder because of something he thought he saw, on a dark night. They released him in a few days, because they could find nothing at all against him according to a police source at the time.

    Yet the real culprit was interviewed early in the inquiry and was ruled out. Wasn’t his alibi checked thoroughly, he claimed later he was away at the time but neighbours saw him come home sometime after Gregg left. So it would have been known from the start that he was in the building the night of the murder, only a few yards away from Jo.

    So CJ should sue them all, police, media, etc for they have destroyed what years he has left, causing him to uproot and put his very home up for sale.

    It’s enough to give the man an early heart attack, the prolonged ordeal will have probably taken years of his life.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by bees View Post
    I wonder if the prosecution will bring the issue of lying into the court? Is it possible that they could follow a line that given his "innocent act" after the event, his account in court can't be trusted?

    Can they bring his girlfriend and/or family in as witnesses to his movements and then question them on the story he told them?
    They could, but if you read the reports of what his family said, it's mainly opinion rather than fact - he acted normally, he couldn't possibly have done it, and so on. All we know about the family meeting is that he told them that his neighbour had been found dead and that everything (including his own flat) was being searched.

    The girlfriend (TM) has never made any statement on what VT told her - indeed she hasn't made any statement at all as far as I know.

    Even VT's claim that he was away when she went missing was (no doubt deliberately) phrased in an ambiguous way. After all, she was not officially reported as missing until after the weekend.

    Unless someone can actually testify to some succession of lies that he told, it probably won't be a very productive line for the prosecution to follow.
    Last edited by veggiefan; 05-17-2011 at 08:07 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,112
    Quote Originally Posted by veggiefan View Post
    The girlfriend (TM) has never made any statement on what VT told her - indeed she hasn't made any statement at all as far as I know.
    No, she hasn't. There were some pseudo-quotes purporting to be from 'friends' or 'colleagues' eg that 'she would be devastated' etc. Plus various somewhat contradictory statements from her father. (As I understand him to be a lawyer, I am surprised that he handled it so poorly. Surely better to give no comment.) Anyway, we have absolutely nothing on which to base an impression of TM.

    Even VT's claim that he was away when she went missing was (no doubt deliberately) phrased in an ambiguous way. After all, she was not officially reported as missing until after the weekend. Unless someone can actually testify to some succession of lies that he told, it probably won't be a very productive line for the prosecution to follow.
    That's right. He also said that he didn't know JY. I don't think he knew her well - he had apparently been away for most of the time since they moved in - but I do think they probably knew each other at a superficial level, ie that they were on speaking terms. Reason being that JY is widely reported to have been a friendly outgoing type, and (stereotyping alert!) Dutch people do normally greet people cheerfully on sight, even passing strangers. Still - if you only know someone to exchange the odd pleasantry, I think it's reasonable to say you "don't know them" if you're not going to go into it in detail.

    All we know about the family meeting is that he told them that his neighbour had been found dead and that everything (including his own flat) was being searched.
    I have been amused by some of the reactions to this. Some people have described this rather over-dramatically, in my opinion. It coincided with a Christmas family gathering, so it was hardly "Calling a Family Meeting"!

    I'm sure that anyone who had been caught up, innocently, in the investigation of the murder of a close neighbour, would do the same thing: tell their family what had happened, but not in the presence of small children who might get frightened. So this in itself never struck me as odd behaviour.

Page 1 of 76 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #17
    By Salem in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 200
    Last Post: 10-27-2016, 09:46 PM
  2. GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #12
    By Salem in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 845
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 06:29 PM
  3. GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #10
    By Texas Mist in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 637
    Last Post: 01-24-2011, 05:54 PM
  4. GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #5
    By wfgodot in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 720
    Last Post: 01-15-2011, 07:01 PM
  5. GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #2
    By wfgodot in forum Recently Sentenced and Beyond
    Replies: 508
    Last Post: 01-08-2011, 03:26 PM

Tags for this Thread