GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #12

It's interesting to me that many people think that someone can't possibly be a murderer if their family/friends say that they're a lovely, gentle person, etc. My opinion is that everybody has a dark side. Therefore, I would be more convinced if somebody's family said something like: 'Yes, he's a great guy, intelligent, caring, but can get angry or moody occasionally.' As somebody pointed out on a previous thread, we somehow feel that if a close relative does something bad, it somehow reflects badly on us, as if some genetic defect has been revealed. Rather than contemplate that possibility, people are more likely to go into denial and only talk about the good aspects of the person's character. Especially if they have been accused of murder.

notsure said:

It's interesting to me that many people think that someone can't possibly be a murderer if their family/friends say that they're a lovely, gentle person, etc. My opinion is that everybody has a dark side. Therefore, I would be more convinced if somebody's family said something like: 'Yes, he's a great guy, intelligent, caring, but can get angry or moody occasionally.' As somebody pointed out on a previous thread, we somehow feel that if a close relative does something bad, it somehow reflects badly on us, as if some genetic defect has been revealed. Rather than contemplate that possibility, people are more likely to go into denial and only talk about the good aspects of the person's character. Especially if they have been accused of murder.

Click to expand...

well I think it's the fact that so far no one's come forward to mention any warning signs at all. have you read de becker's "the gift of fear"? there are pretty much always warning signs. no one randomly walks down the street and takes up murdering, raping, pillaging, plundering et al etc with absolutely no warning whatsoever.

aneurin said:

Try reading the following story from yesterday's Daily Mail. In brief, a 45 year old executive at Deutsche Telekom had a bad day at the office, and so relieved his frustrations by abducting, raping, and killing a 10 year old boy before dumping his body in the woods.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tive-murders-boy-10-blames-office-stress.html

You cannot infer guilt or innocence from past conduct.

Click to expand...

But German privacy laws mean that we don't know anything about his past conduct - previous cautions, convictions and so on.

Remember that nothing was known by Suffolk Police about Ian Huntley's past, until members of the public recognised his photo and made the connection with past events.

Cherwell said:

The vast majority of people would have said they assumed X had "run off" with somebody (polite version) or that X had " _____ed off" with someone (insert popular vernacular expression of your choice). :shush:

Click to expand...

:crazy: I was thinking the same. I expect someone who would say "absconded" would perhaps put it as X had _____ orf though instead.

veggiefan said:

But German privacy laws mean that we don't know anything about his past conduct - previous cautions, convictions and so on.

Click to expand...

The folk at Deutsche Telecom have a mega impressive "jungle drums" system. If he'd had any convictions he wouldn't have got the job. If he gained any during employment he wouldn't have kept the job. Culture and the right behaviours are everything at that place. They're obsessed with it.

I haven't a clue about German privacy laws but if it's anything like in the UK upon a conviction all the past convictons (of significance) come out in court and so make it into the press.

naturally suspicious said:

agree, even though a resident implied that all this couldn't possibly be happening in clifton...after all the lord mayor lives up the road....!!!

i suppose you have a certain number of professionals having the salary to live there...rent or buy...but remember that includes at least 300 on the sex register

Click to expand...

There are 301 people on the sex register in the whole of Bristol. Nationwide nearly half a million people are on the register, including many who have never been convicted of any offence but who may have been accused by angry or jealous neighbours, disaffected pupils and so on.

veggiefan said:

There are 301 people on the sex register in the whole of Bristol. Nationwide nearly half a million people are on the register, including many who have never been convicted of any offence but who may have been accused by angry or jealous neighbours, disaffected pupils and so on.

Click to expand...

Even this man's on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7095134.stm



It says it all that, about that register

goldielox said:

Even this man's on it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7095134.stm



It says it all that, about that register

Click to expand...

agreed...but many would be for offences concerning other people/children/animals

also, have just read a daily mail article sighting 500 in whole of bristol.
i know my sister, social worker, told me there are many,many such on register within a small distance.
people are NEVER as they seem/seek to portray themselves...

goldielox said:

I know. At the time CJ was under arrest and didn't get released until 1st January. It would be interesting to know what day he actually called this summit. I'm wondering if it was only after CJ was released. TM's brother was proclaiming on Twitter on 31st December he was 100% sure CJ would be charged which leads me to think perhaps VT didn't call this summit until after CJ was released. I'm guessing of course but why would you announce you were under suspicion while someone else has been arrested? You'd at least wait to see what happened with the one under arrest first wouldn't you...or I would anyway.

Click to expand...

We don't know that he knew CJ had been arrested - He would've needed to actively searched online for developments maybe not a priority while on holiday at his family's house

I would say that if the police were searching my house i would be 'under suspicion'. Perhaps not in those words but the dutch are fairly straight to the point like Germans and would perhaps phrase it that way.

Cherwell said:

I think it's a reasonable assumption, given that he knew next to nothing about her and her relationships. It's very common for someone to leave their partner for another. Murder is rare though.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly! Grrr damn job - I need to play catch up on here all the time!!

Myserty64 said:

Powerful post!

VT isn't making any noise and there was no application for bail.

Is it possible the police have nailed this one? The prosecuting team must think so. They give the green light to go to trial do they not.
VT gets his day in court and twelve of his peers will weigh up the case against him.

Joanna Yeates is the tragic loser not to mention all those who loved her.

The great mystery is where the L/L fits in all this. He isn't making any noise either.

Click to expand...

He is probably way to scared to speak to any of the press about this - hardly surprising!

Interesting article here about the Tabak defense team's pathologist Dr. Nathaniel Cary - an appeal on which he's working in the case of Rosie May Storrie, involving a (perhaps accidental) strangulation:

But after reviewing the evidence, Dr Cary has said there is a possibility Rosie May could have been accidentally strangled.

His views were aired on the BBC's Inside Out programmes for the East Midlands, and for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, both broadcast last night.

Smith's solicitor, David Watts, said: "He believes she may have been strangled. That has always been at least part of our case, that rather than being a deliberate killing this was a tragic kids' game gone wrong."

Click to expand...

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co....ppeal-bid/article-3164757-detail/article.html

and, from The Times,

Profile: Nat Cary Britain's top pathologist

Lynn R said:

We don't know that he knew CJ had been arrested - He would've needed to actively searched online for developments maybe not a priority while on holiday at his family's house

I would say that if the police were searching my house i would be 'under suspicion'. Perhaps not in those words but the dutch are fairly straight to the point like Germans and would perhaps phrase it that way.

Click to expand...

That's a good point and one I hadn't thought of. On saying that I doubt he'd have even had to search on line for it. Considering a girl had gone missing from the flat next door to him, found dead on Christmas Day, the police announce it was murder the day after that, VT's house and the rest in the block were all searched too, I'd imagine both VT's and TM's mobile phones were almost on fire with texts (and calls too) as soon as it was announced that their landlord had been arrested. If nothing else I'd have expected TM's father/parents to immediately try to alert her.

naturally suspicious said:

also, have just read a daily mail article sighting 500 in whole of bristol.

Click to expand...

Yes, although you will see that the DM quotes 310 for Bristol, and then bigs it up to 500 for headline purposes by including towns (such as Bath) within a 15-mile radius.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345174/Joanna-Yeates-Murder-500-registered-sex-offenders-lived-miles-Jo.html

The DM loves its "shocking statistics", but consider the facts: approximately 0.1% of the population of England and Wales are on the sex offenders register. The population of the entire unitary authority area of Bristol is 433,000, and 0.1% of that is 433.

So, if Bristol only has 310 people on the list, it is actually well below the national average. Of course, the DM parades the figures about Bristol in tones of horror ("Revealed" .... figures that "emerged last night") and relies on its readers to not bother working out the sums. A more truthful headline might have been "Fewer sex offenders live within a few miles of Jo than would be found in most other parts of the country". But that wouldn't sell newspapers, would it?

Lynn R said:

He is probably way to scared to speak to any of the press about this - hardly surprising!

Click to expand...

that reticence would go with his personality, surely...

careful,considered,intelligent,cerebral,introvert...in parts...shock would make you withdraw, particularly if no glasses,clothes etc.

he's an intelligent man...could look forward...and visualise the horror of his future, whatever the verdict at the end of his trial...

probably has withdrawn into himself as a means of protection.....if he is not guilty...and probably also if he is...

veggiefan said:

But German privacy laws mean that we don't know anything about his past conduct - previous cautions, convictions and so on.

Click to expand...

I think that would be the point I was making; i.e. that our state of knowledge regarding the prior conduct of both Olaf H and Vincent T is identical.

Patticake said:

I suspect it could be a "crime of opportunity" and not premeditated.

Click to expand...

That would be my guess.

Patticake said:

If VT was truly under suspicion, why would the police allow him to leave the country?

Click to expand...

The only way to stop a suspect from leaving the country would be to arrest them. Besides, the timing suggests that VT came under suspicion sometime after his return from the Netherlands, or at least whilst he was still there.

Patticake said:

And, under the gag rules in place in the UK, can VT's family make public appeals and proclaim his innocence? Or are their hands tied?

Click to expand...

As Dutch nationals I presume they can do what they like. The British media will however be constrained by the Contempt of Court Act. The Dutch media may well face similar restrictions. On the internet anything is possible

Whatever information and evidence the police gathered initially and throughout the investigation seems strongly to have pointed from the very start towards someone Jo knew, and towards someone in that block of flats. Even press statements by the police point towards this - when they said they saw no increased threat to women and advised women to take no more than the "usual" precautions.

There must have been something which first pointed them in CJ's direction, specifically something to do with what police found in that block of flats, or to do with residents in that block of flats.

Whatever it was wasn't sufficient to nail CJ but later (probably with further evidence later coming to light) has been sufficient to charge VT.

The police have always appeared to be convinced someone close to Jo or someone who she knew was responsible. This would also explain why they saw no increased risk to women in general.

However, if VT was away for six weeks and really didn't know Jo then he almost falls into the category of "stranger" crime doesn't he - he lived in the same block, was maybe only home for a couple of weeks or so in the time Jo lived there, and theoretically speaking may not even have met her. If this really was the case with VT then if the police were suspicious of him for weeks prior to his arrest why did they publically still say there was no raised threat to women in general? If a man (any man) has or is suspected of killing a virtually random stranger then surely there's a risk he may well be inclined to kill another random stranger too and therefore the threat to women in general is higher as a result?

My feeling on it is that, if VT did this then he and Jo must have known each other. How well they did is another matter but acquainted they were.

Found this http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=128719860525280&topic=389

It may be rubbish, who knows.

Robin Hood said:

Found this http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=128719860525280&topic=389

It may be rubbish, who knows.

Click to expand...

Nice find. As the saying goes 'where there's smoke there's fire.'

There has to be more to this murder than what we see on the surface.
There usually is.
If murders happened on a whim there would be bodies everywhere.