GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #13

[bees]

I'm with the "innocent until proven guilty" side too and I'm fascinated to know what evidence the police have against VT. I suspect (and hope) it's very robust evidence that has put him in custody but if he's innocent, that evidence should crumble during the trial.

 

[bees]

I just really, really (really) think he did it.

What is it that makes you so convinced?

 

[wfgodot]

o/t a wee bit (again)

I just started a Melanie Hall thread; she'd gotten mention here but there was not a separate discussion location for her case:

UK - Melanie Hall, 25, Bath; 09 June 1996

 

[kINGFISHER]

I think I must be the only one here who thinks he could be guilty or at the least involved and that others in that area are involved also, but he will take the rap. Its a case for most of only seeing black or white, VT or LL as the murderer, guilty or not guilty etc. I am sure there is more to this.

QUOTE POLKSALADANNIE
And I think the police have some damning evidence which we'll not be privy to until trial - and that evidence may be shocking. JMHO ... always 3 sides.

I agree but I did read that someone hoped he would not do a FW because if that happens we won't know anything and in that particular case (FW) there was some feeling that there was other involvement.

 

[mrbond]

I can't accept that seeing a light come on indicates that a person who has just arrived home is alone in the place. In the case of this particular flat, only the light from the living room would be seen from the road and it's entirely possible that someone else might have already been in the kitchen, bedroom or bathroom. When I come in after dark I don't go around the house switching the light on in every room, nor do I expect do most people.

If a person enters their home and you see a light come on, I think you can reasonably assume that it is from the flat of the person who just entered and you don't have too put all the lights on, light travels if doors are open and they could have been open. The light going on is a helpful sign for a would be intruder. The next step is to ring the bell. If you can rule things out so easily I'm concerned the police have done the same. I'm talking to closed minds and that's what I'm concerned about with the police.

 

[mrbond]

Which is more or less what I was going to say, except that I was also going to point out that 44 Canynge Road is divided into flats, and thus unless you were already acquainted with the precise details of how the property had been divided, you wouldn't know which lit window belonged to what. Given that (big assumption here, but I think I'm right) that VT was home at the time, and his lights were on, how would some "random stanger" know that the basement was actually two flats and not one?

I'm talking about an unplanned opportunity for a killer. A sequence of unfortunate events for the victim but for the advantage of the killer giving the killer confidence to make his move. A light suddenly coming on when the victim enters is one good sign. The next step would be to to go to the door listen Then ring the bell and find out if the person is alone. There is no risk. If there was someone else besides the victim he justs walks away "sorry wrong number" or whatever.

 

[mrbond]

Selecting a passenger with murder in mind is loaded with risks as we have already seen, hence the early capture of CH. We can get into endless arguments as which is the greatest risk and I don't know which is riskier method of a cabbie finding a victim and maybe the cabbie is stupid enough to do something that'll give him away anyway who knows? So selecting a walker is just as possible.
A cabbie could have caught JY on her last section of her journey and offered her a lift on the pretext he's finished working for the night and on his way home. While in the taxi they chat and he finds out she is alone. Could be something like, "Oh damn! What have I done with my keys my partners gone away" as she fumbles in her bag.
As for gaining entrance practiced criminals have all sorts of ways of checking if someones alone. Example: Rings bell "Did you order a cab" Her "Nope wasn't me. Him "Oh was it your friend?" Her. "No no one else here". He's in.
another scenario
To dismiss the possibility of a taxi driver on this board is a bit worrying and I wonder if the police have done the same.

 

[aneurin]

Selecting a passenger with murder in mind is loaded with risks as we have already seen, hence the early capture of CH. We can get into endless arguments as which is the greatest risk and I don't know which is riskier method of a cabbie finding a victim and maybe the cabbie is stupid enough to do something that'll give him away anyway who knows? So selecting a walker is just as possible.
A cabbie could have caught JY on her last section of her journey and offered her a lift on the pretext he's finished working for the night and on his way home. While in the taxi they chat and he finds out she is alone. Could be something like, "Oh damn! What have I done with my keys my partners gone away" as she fumbles in her bag.
As for gaining entrance practiced criminals have all sorts of ways of checking if someones alone. Example: Rings bell "Did you order a cab" Her "Nope wasn't me. Him "Oh was it your friend?" Her. "No no one else here". He's in.
another scenario
To dismiss the possibility of a taxi driver on this board is a bit worrying and I wonder if the police have done the same.

It is, of course, an old rhetorical trick to put forward some theory or other and then accuse others of possessing 'closed minds' when they refuse to accept it. And one might well ask what is it you've got against cab drivers, since anyone could have followed Jo Yeates home that night.

Having duly considered your 'passing cab driver' theory I simply find it extremely unconvincing. It simply does not seem at all plausible. And I would suggest to you that the police did indeed consider the possibility that Jo Yeates was followed home that night, but rejected that theory when presented with evidence that suggested that the perpetrator was not some passing cab driver.

 

[mrbond]

It is, of course, an old rhetorical trick to put forward some theory or other and then accuse others of possessing 'closed minds' when they refuse to accept it. And one might well ask what is it you've got against cab drivers, since anyone could have followed Jo Yeates home that night.

Having duly considered your 'passing cab driver' theory I simply find it extremely unconvincing. It simply does not seem at all plausible. And I would suggest to you that the police did indeed consider the possibility that Jo Yeates was followed home that night, but rejected that theory when presented with evidence that suggested that the perpetrator was not some passing cab driver.

Nothing seems plausible in this case, it doesn't seem plausible that VT is the culprit either. Therefore I am looking at other possibilities, you have to start looking at other scenarios. Whatever the truth, it's going to be stranger than fiction.
I think you are working on probabilities or statistics or something like that, which I believe is too confining in this case, plus trust in the police
You have your bias in favour of the police work so far, fair enough, I certainly don't trust them. I'm concerned they have taken a simplistic approach, evident by arresting someone who looked unconventional CJ, (echoes of Barry George there, picking on the oddball).
That sort of tactic doesn't engender confidence.
I understand it is difficult to see how cab driver could have done it and it is a very hard line of inquiry along with looking for any other random stranger and because it is dismissed out of hand by someone like yourself who appears to have a handle on police procedures makes me wonder if the police have done exactly that and missed the net all together.

 

[Cherwell]

Nothing seems plausible in this case, it doesn't seem plausible that VT is the culprit either. Therefore I am looking at other possibilities, you have to start looking at other scenarios. Whatever the truth, it's going to be stranger than fiction.

Why does it not seem plausible?

Unlike the police, we do not know the evidence which was deemed sufficient to charge him, and until we do it's impossible to hold an informed opinion.

I rather doubt that it will be 'stranger than fiction', I think it'll turn out to be something rather ordinary that tragically went out of control, but that's just a feeling.

 

[notsure]

I understand it is difficult to see how cab driver could have done it and it is a very hard line of inquiry along with looking for any other random stranger

It just doesn't make sense that some random stranger somehow gets into her flat, kills her and then, instead of running away, puts her body into his vehicle, drives a few miles and dumps her by the side of the road. To me, those are not the actions of a stranger, but somebody who wants to distance the body from the place he's associated with.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

What is it that makes you so convinced?

Hello bees.

Sadly the latest CH investigation (which I'll get to shortly) backs up many a comment I'd posted "way back" on another forum. Also, I certainly do not believe the cops just picked up VT through convenience or lack of detective work - and flung him inside just because he was Jo's neighbour!

Police, as we know, had CH under surveillance for a few days, via cctv footage of his car. They watched him from that Wednesday (after he'd returned to S Forest to burn stuff). Police immediately stated "A significant lead has come through; we no longer require public search parties.". They now apparently have footage of SO getting in his cab. 34 minutes later she was probably dead. They *knew* by then who their man was. He was held, granted more time and with their very valid and secure evidence, CH was charged.

Now, with VT, we know police were watching him "for a week" before the arrest; there are media reports to this effect. They further stated "a significant item has come in...". In Jo's case, none of us "plebs" know what that significant item is. The authorities know. CCTV footage has VT crossing the bridge. We've never been told of any more footage or what that "significant item" is. But VT was held, more time granted - and when the evidence was irrefutable, VT was charged.

FWIW, I don't think the distraught and apparently sobbing woman was the final nail in his coffin, so to speak as the police would surely not charge anyone with murder due to an upset woman phoning in. I actually think the press dramatized the "sobbing" bit ... as an (unofficial) police spokesperson may have simply said "the caller was deeply upset; you could hear it..." and this translated via the press to tearful, then crying and finally we heard "sobbing". I'm surprised we didn't eventually read about "an hysterical woman".

Whomsoever made that call connected existing dots and I believe the police validated the call .... as whatever was told by the caller matched what police already knew. Thus, that call was deemed genuine and may have only solidified detectives findings.

It is indeed quite fascinating me that Jo's story appears to be completely unsolved by many here. As if the police didn't bother to check men from Mars, taxi-drivers, relevant cctv footage, eye-witness testimony and reconfirm alibis. CJ, by his own ramblings, got himself into his *own* mess by changing his story and yapping among his neighbours - then denying stuff on national TV. The police *never* named him. The *media* did.

Thus, any wrong-doing and lynch-mob approach is the media's fault, not the police. Ditto naming VT. The *media* named him. The police did not. It was after the diabolical media frenzy over the life and times of CJ - that I truly believe probably one of the tightest media-gag-orders has been in place regarding VT.

VT's first alibi changed - he said he wasn't there and didn't know Jo. This turned out to be untrue ... there are many things that I firmly believe indicate this man murdered Jo. Jo arrives home and within 15 or so minutes - she's also dead. VT is a people-flow monitor. He *knows* how to watch people; has all the equipment - who's to say he didn't set up a spy-camera in her bathroom/bedroom and she discovered this shortly after getting home? What if VT assumed Jo left with GR to Sheffield, or was picked up? What if VT was INSIDE fiddling with cameras, spy-holes - or even going through her stuff? All speculation, indeed ... but thinking aloud and just saying. WHAT was so dramatic that Jo was killed for it? VT would have had a lot to lose if Jo's testimony went "out there". By silencing her permanently, he gambled that he may have gotten away with it (my opinion and views).

If I'm wrong - I'll be the first to say as much. However, it is only in a court of law that a person charged with murder is innocent until proven guilty. The public are not "wrong" to believe he did it. I truly believe he did this. 100% and unless and until evidence comes to hand proving otherwise - this is my opinion.

Yes, he's exceptionally intelligent and very well liked. But sometimes clever, rich or talented people do some really dumb things; it's not only the village idiot, gangsters or street thugs committing crimes. Take a look at Brad Cooper, for instance - that trial is happening as we type. Brilliant man. Ditto Anne-Marie Fahey's (top-notch) lawyer-lover; Dr. Grenieder, Scott Peterson, Michael Peterson, Neil Entwhistle; Menedez Brothers; Ray Caruth; OJ Simpson ... bees, the list is endless.

Outside of CH's feuding family - look at all the "wonderful" comments people have said about him. But look what he did! Guilty? YES, in my opinion. Inside a court of law, that judgment is yet to be proven

Being fit, nice, wealthy, influential and intelligent does not excuse people from the possibility of committing a heinous murder. He was remanded without bail - which wasn't even applied for. Barring bail requires serious charges ... and this case went through the highest in the land - outside of police detective work. He was put on suicide watch... why? The shame this must bring to his exceptionally influential and wealthy family has to be horrendous. They believe (I'm sure) he's innocent. They're entitled to that belief, of course.

It's just that I most certainly don't believe the police have the wrong man ... IMHO, always. Not once, not *once* did VT protest. If it was me, I'd be screaming out at my hearing :you're Wrong!!! Instead, VT sat impassively, like a deer caught in the headlights, fumbling with glasses and repeatedly wearing the same red jumper and slacks. Dishevelled was one description... I think they have their man.

ETA: I'd surely like to hear plausible, reasonable comments as to why it *can't* be VT? Why not? WHy could he not have committed this murder? Just interested ...

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Bingo!

It just doesn't make sense that some random stranger somehow gets into her flat, kills her and then, instead of running away, puts her body into his vehicle, drives a few miles and dumps her by the side of the road. To me, those are not the actions of a stranger, but somebody who wants to distance the body from the place he's associated with.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I agree with you, Cherwell. I don't think VT set out that day to murder Jo; I feel Jo innocently stumbled into or onto something, VT panicked and realised his game was up. With much to lose (career, family shame, g/friend, job, reputation etc) he felt he had to silence her. Perhaps he felt he was clever enough to make this the "perfect murder". From the moment he was questioned, he distanced himself from Jo. That first alibi proved to be a lie.

Pre-meditation can happen in the blinking of an eye. I feel there may be a few charges on his wrap sheet, possibly including one or more of the following outside of murder:

Trespassing
Stalking
Kidnapping
Perverting the ends of justice
Interfering with witness testimony
Tampering with a crime scene
Tampering with a corpse

JMHO, of course ...

Why does it not seem plausible?

Unlike the police, we do not know the evidence which was deemed sufficient to charge him, and until we do it's impossible to hold an informed opinion.

I rather doubt that it will be 'stranger than fiction', I think it'll turn out to be something rather ordinary that tragically went out of control, but that's just a feeling.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

mrbond ... I feel it's rather naive to suggest CJ was arrested because he "looked unconventional". I sense - maybe wrong - that you may have a beef with the police? Irrelevant - just a wayward comment I'm making here; no offense intended.

However, CJ's alibi and later testimony proved to be a lie. To lie under such serious conditions is a stupid, stupid thing to do. Is he a busy-body? We don't know and going down that road is detrimental to the gentleman; the press had their field day.

If alibis are found to be untrue and - he has keys to flats, his car or a similar car was spotted crossing the bridge ... then the police have every right to arrest him. That he is "unconventional" came from the media. NOT the police.

He was eventually not charged with anything and he was probably kept on bail including conditions that he's not to talk about the case. Note well: talking about the case the way he did initially got him into this mess in the first place.

Ironically, CJ's a master of the English language! Dear, oh deary me!

I'm concerned they have taken a simplistic approach, evident by arresting someone who looked unconventional CJ, (echoes of Barry George there, picking on the oddball).
That sort of tactic doesn't engender confidence.

 

[Cherwell]

However, CJ's alibi and later testimony proved to be a lie.

Did it? What was his alibi? And what testimony? Do you mean his possible sighting of some people outside the flats? I'm not aware that that has been disproved. (I think it's quite likely that he did see someone, residents or visitors, and that they came forward and were eliminated from the enquiry.)

Note well: talking about the case the way he did initially got him into this mess in the first place.

We don't know that either.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Did it? What was his alibi? And what testimony? Do you mean his possible sighting of some people outside the flats? I'm not aware that that has been disproved. (I think it's quite likely that he did see someone, residents or visitors, and that they came forward and were eliminated from the enquiry.)



We don't know that either.

Hello, Cherwell. CJ claimed, among neighbours and media reporters, who confirmed as much, that he saw Jo and 2 others (later 3 people) coming out of Jo's flat that evening. This got back to police who'd obviously questioned everyone in the flats - and his story didn't add up with their first line of questioning.

I was actually glued to Sky news at the time and the reporter approached CJ, who was walking out of the property and shutting a gate. CJ was quite irritated with the press and more miffed when asked "did you tell police you saw Jo that evening ..." (it's in all the media links) ...

He responded "no ... what I said to police was very, very, very, very much vaguer than that...". Essentially his story changed. After this little episode, he was picked up. He did tell neighbours about GR's car not starting. He also told VT when VT returned (other neighbours confirmed as much) about the car issues. So, we gather the gentleman talks alot and knows alot about the comings and goings in the flats.

Does that make charges for murder? NO. But, the world over, differing alibi or witness testimony DOES raise eyebrows and people are brought in or arrested (pending further evidence and/or questioning, of course). CJ was released, on bail; not charged. The media then went ballistic on the gentleman - which was outrageous.

VT, too, told police he wasn't there, didn't know Jo, knew, saw, heard nothing. VT's company and Jo's company department worked together on *a few* large projects. With both being high up in their pecking order it was a foolish thing for VT to also state he didn't know her - when he lived right next door and their colleagues later confirmed the opposite. VT had been under surveillance for at least a week prior to his arrest.

I believe there's quite compelling evidence in hand.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Yep, I agree with such logic, aneurin.

It is, of course, an old rhetorical trick to put forward some theory or other and then accuse others of possessing 'closed minds' when they refuse to accept it. And one might well ask what is it you've got against cab drivers, since anyone could have followed Jo Yeates home that night.

Having duly considered your 'passing cab driver' theory I simply find it extremely unconvincing. It simply does not seem at all plausible. And I would suggest to you that the police did indeed consider the possibility that Jo Yeates was followed home that night, but rejected that theory when presented with evidence that suggested that the perpetrator was not some passing cab driver.

 

[Cherwell]

Hello, Cherwell. CJ claimed, among neighbours and media reporters, who confirmed as much, that he saw Jo and 2 others (later 3 people) coming out of Jo's flat that evening. This got back to police who'd obviously questioned everyone in the flats - and his story didn't add up with their first line of questioning.

I was actually glued to Sky news at the time and the reporter approached CJ, who was walking out of the property and shutting a gate. CJ was quite irritated with the press and more miffed when asked "did you tell police you saw Jo that evening ..." (it's in all the media links) ...

He responded "no ... what I said to police was very, very, very, very much vaguer than that...". Essentially his story changed. After this little episode, he was picked up.

Yes, I saw all that. But all we have is hearsay. You ask three different people what someone said, and you will get three different versions. People paraphrase: few people will recall word-for-word what someone has said to them. Then it will change again in the telling, it's called chinese whispers. That is exactly what CJ was complaining about when approached by the press. Yes, his story may have "changed" but only as filtered through other people.

I very much doubt that CJ said he saw JY, but merely allowed the possibility that she was one of the people vaguely seen (he was on the opposite side of the road at the time, wasn't he? and probably concentrating on parking the car.)

There was IIRC a report that CJ had asked the neighbours not to say anything about his sighting. If this is true, it may be that he'd subsequently learnt that the people coming out were, say for example, the niece & nephew of Mrs X from Flat Y who had been visiting her, or someone else whose presence was legitimate.

What was the alibi that you said proved to be a lie?

 

[Chester]

CCTV footage has VT crossing the bridge. We've never been told of any more footage or what that "significant item" is. But VT was held, more time granted - and when the evidence was irrefutable, VT was charged.

Has it ever been disclosed that they have CCTV of VT crossing the bridge ?

Irrefutable evidence ? Much of the evidence will be forensic, virtually none of which will have been fully analysed at that time. Part of the reason that the CPS have not yet presented their case yet is that at the time VT was charged they had nothing like irrefutable evidence.

VT's first alibi changed - he said he wasn't there and didn't know Jo.

You state this as a fact, how do you know this ? Source ?


Jo arrives home and within 15 or so minutes - she's also dead.

Nobody knows when she died. When this finally gets to court I doubt they will be able to conclusively prove when she died, it will be sometime between ~8:50 pm on Friday and X. X is quite likely to be a gap of days.

VT is a people-flow monitor. He *knows* how to watch people; has all the equipment.

What equipment did he have ? Er ? Um ?

VT modeled people movements in complex software programs, the tools of his trade were a computer, 3D software, mathematical formulas and programming languages.

He was remanded without bail - which wasn't even applied for. Barring bail requires serious charges ... and this case went through the highest in the land - outside of police detective work.

Nope, it's very common to remand people, especially so when the person concerned is from another country and has no ties to the community. Added to this he has the means to go on the run and cites travelling in South America as one of his pastimes.


He was put on suicide watch... why? The shame this must bring to his exceptionally influential and wealthy family has to be horrendous. They believe (I'm sure) he's innocent. They're entitled to that belief, of course.

Why ? Could it be that he was frightened, depressed, stressed, tired and confused.


It's just that I most certainly don't believe the police have the wrong man ... IMHO, always. Not once, not *once* did VT protest. If it was me, I'd be screaming out at my hearing :you're Wrong!!! Instead, VT sat impassively, like a deer caught in the headlights, fumbling with glasses and repeatedly wearing the same red jumper and slacks. Dishevelled was one description... I think they have their man.

They took his clothes, they took his glasses, he was told by his lawyer not to speak. He wore the same clothes because they were the only ones that the Police gave him. Screaming "You're Wrong" etc is only going to brand you as unstable and perhaps mad, it isn't going to help and will probably hinder.

ETA: I'd surely like to hear plausible, reasonable comments as to why it *can't* be VT? Why not? WHy could he not have committed this murder? Just interested ...

I am interested in your point of view, you have blind faith that he is guilty yet there isn't a single piece of direct evidence in the public domain to back up that theory.

Of course he could have done it and perhaps he did but I will wait to see some real evidence before making up my mind.