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

[veggiefan]

Realistically, LE in California wouldn't put anywhere near the effort to investigate the death a hooker that LE in England would apply to solve the killing of a pretty young architect in affluent Clifton.

While I'm sure A&S police put in lots of effort, they have hardly come out of this covered in glory. Quite apart from the fact that they arrested the wrong person (and are likely to have to pay in the courts for this mistake), the right person virtually gave himself away and then confessed to be the killer long before the trial started.

 

[aneurin]

While I'm sure A&S police put in lots of effort, they have hardly come out of this covered in glory. Quite apart from the fact that they arrested the wrong person (and are likely to have to pay in the courts for this mistake), the right person virtually gave himself away and then confessed to be the killer long before the trial started.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again, arresting the 'wrong person' is perfectly normal for a murder enquiry. It's only because some newspapers chose to make such a fuss over CJ's arrest that anyone thinks of it as being unusual in any way. Personally I'm with Nausicaa on this one; the case of Jeffries v. Avon and Somerset Constabulary will never get anywhere near a courtroom, and the only thing A&SC will ever pay for is the cost of the letter referring CJ's lawyers to the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971).

As to the right person virtually giving themselves away, well yes, it's the forensics that usually nails 'em, and most killers who are arrested and charged 'confess' long before the trial. It's only a minority of even serious criminal cases that come before a jury.

 

[Clio]

If it's true that no trace of VT was found in JY's flat (as per Bristol Evening Post quoting DCI Phil Jones) I am really quite stunned.

I was assuming that the police found his DNA in her flat. He wasn't denying he'd been in her flat and therefore there was no need to present DNA evidence from the flat to prove it.

Now it seems that they didn't find any proof he'd been in the flat. How could that be? There was supposedly a struggle in the hallway (knocked over coat stand, broken pedestal) and something happened in the bedroom (earrings under duvet & on floor) How could all that happen and leave no traces of him having been there?

It's almost as if she opened the door and was dragged outside and it all happened elsewhere......

 

[Nausicaa]

I'd be more inclined to believe DCI Phil Jones' speculation about the sock if he'd actually found evidence that it had been kept as a trophy.

Quite. But is that in fact his opinion ? He as quoted as follows :

"I felt it could have been significant in that it was a trophy," he said. "I think he took the sock, and the pizza she had bought on her way home, because he was linked to those items evidentially.

That seems to be two successive mutually contradictory ideas. Either VT kept the sock for its trophy value or he kept it because he couldn't leave something which created an evidential link between him and the crime - i.e. because it was contaminated with his DNA. One or the other, not both.

That said, I have to admit that the trophy idea sounds much more credible to me now that we know he was kinky. Until the revelations about his taste in *advertiser censored* I was assuming that this started as a genuine move towards consensual sex that went wrong when the consent wasn't forthcoming. It now seems to me by far the most probable thing that he left home with the intention of committing murder by strangulation for sexual pleasure. All of which is so incomprehensible to me that I have to admit that he may have had a trophy kink or a sock kink as well.

 

[otto]

I think he took the sock and disposed of it because it was used during the attack; that he knew that it contained evidence. If it had been kept as a trophy, it would have been found amongst his things.

 

[Cherwell]

I think he took the sock and disposed of it because it was used following the attack; that he knew that it contained evidence. hoh:

:yuck:

 

[equationgirl]

With there being no proof he was in the flat, I don't find that entirely surprising:

a) It was a bitterly cold night - even if he removed an outer jacket & scarf he would have still been wrapped up very warm, e.g. socks, shoes, trousers, shirt & jumper, possibly a blazer-type jacket as well, so the chances of DNA being left would be slim, unless he touched something or drank from something, in my opinion.

b) He apparently wasn't in the flat very long, which would in my opinion minimise the chances of him touching anything (not enough time to do so)

c) The police probably knew with a fair degree of certainty that he had been in the flat but couldn't prove it - no fingerprints for example.

d) Did he clean up, at least partially? Cleaning could remove DNA traces, or degrade it to an unusable state (again, just my opinion).

We'll never know for sure what happened in that flat.

 

[FiestyFairy]

If it's true that no trace of VT was found in JY's flat (as per Bristol Evening Post quoting DCI Phil Jones) I am really quite stunned.

I was assuming that the police found his DNA in her flat. He wasn't denying he'd been in her flat and therefore there was no need to present DNA evidence from the flat to prove it.

Now it seems that they didn't find any proof he'd been in the flat. How could that be? There was supposedly a struggle in the hallway (knocked over coat stand, broken pedestal) and something happened in the bedroom (earrings under duvet & on floor) How could all that happen and leave no traces of him having been there?

It's almost as if she opened the door and was dragged outside and it all happened elsewhere......

This was exactly my point avfew days ago. How exactly did he do this without leaving trace evidence?

 

[Clio]

This gets even worse!

Child *advertiser censored* found on Vincent Tabak's laptop

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/CHIL...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[veggiefan]

the case of Jeffries v. Avon and Somerset Constabulary will never get anywhere near a courtroom

I totally agree. The chief constable will, as is standard practice, attempt to settle out of court. It tends to be much cheaper and avoids the negative publicity of a court case. If it goes to court, the police will have to reveal the grounds for CJ's arrest. The judge is unlikely to be impressed that they arrested CJ not because of any fingerprints, DNA, CCTV or witnesses, but because the actual murderer rang them up and implied that the landlord did it!

Don't think it doesn't happen. Even a relatively small force such as A&S paid out £114,500 of taxpayers' for 30 wrongful arrests in the financial year ending 2009, according to their own answer to a Freedom of Information Request.

 

[Clio]

The judge is unlikely to be impressed that they arrested CJ not because of any fingerprints, DNA, CCTV or witnesses, but because the actual murderer rang them up and implied that the landlord did it!

That's not why CJ was arrested though. CJ was arrested on 30th Dec. I believe it was on 31st Dec VT rang the police.

 

[bos]

Small item on the BBC's Inside Out West Programme last night available here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00807r6

 

[aneurin]

I totally agree. The chief constable will, as is standard practice, attempt to settle out of court. It tends to be much cheaper and avoids the negative publicity of a court case. If it goes to court, the police will have to reveal the grounds for CJ's arrest. The judge is unlikely to be impressed that they arrested CJ not because of any fingerprints, DNA, CCTV or witnesses, but because the actual murderer rang them up and implied that the landlord did it!

Don't think it doesn't happen. Even a relatively small force such as A&S paid out £114,500 of taxpayers' for 30 wrongful arrests in the financial year ending 2009, according to their own answer to a Freedom of Information Request.

That's not why CJ was arrested though. CJ was arrested on 30th Dec. I believe it was on 31st Dec VT rang the police.

Correct. Detective Constable Karen Thomas told Bristol Crown Court that TM said that "they had seen the coverage in the Netherlands and that Christopher Jefferies had been arrested, they were shocked and that Vincent had some information they felt it would be useful to know." After which VT volunteered the information regarding the car being moved.

So CJ was arrested for a quite different reason. And you're quite right, if it goes to court the police "will have to reveal the grounds for CJ's arrest". Which is the reason why I don't think it will get to court, because I don't think CJ wants those reasons to become public knowledge. It is not uncommon for people who find themselves in similar situations to say that they're going to take legal action, but it's often no more than a way of avoiding answering inconvenient questions. .

 

[aneurin]

It is now being reported that "Images of children being sexually abused were found on murderer Vincent Tabak’s laptop computer". Apparently this is what A&SC meant by 'other matters'.

See http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/Mur...er censored*/story-13721756-detail/story.html

 

[kINGFISHER]

VT confessed on 8th of Feb. Why wasn't CJ released until 4th of March, nearly a month later.

 

[aneurin]

... Why wasn't CJ released until 4th of March, nearly a month later.

Good question. My best guess would be that A&SC had submitted a file to the CPS, and that it took the CPS a month or two to decide not to bring charges.

 

[Sarahlou]

This gets even worse!

Child *advertiser censored* found on Vincent Tabak's laptop

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/CHIL...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I had a feeling he had child *advertiser censored* on there when they said they were going to question him about some of the things they found on his computer. Ugh. Vile, vile man.

 

[veggiefan]

It is not uncommon for people who find themselves in similar situations to say that they're going to take legal action, but it's often no more than a way of avoiding answering inconvenient questions. .

According to the recent interview with CJ in the Financial Times, action against A&S for counts of false imprisonment, breach of human rights and trespass has already begun.

Given the success of CJ's legal team in the High Court in July, and the fact that the country's Attorney General went so far as to publically declare CJ "entirely innocent", I have no doubt whatsoever that A&S police will be delving deep into the public purse to ensure that the reasons for their arrest and detention of CJ are not made public - if, indeed they have any at all other than the criticisms at the time that they were making poor progress in the case.

I think it is entirely wrong to suggest that CJ wants to avoid "answering inconvenient questions". Do you have any grounds for making that suggestion?

 

[kINGFISHER]

good question. My best guess would be that a&sc had submitted a file to the cps, and that it took the cps a month or two to decide not to bring charges.

Other charges do you mean ,if not why take all that time to release him they had proof of his inocence on the 8th of Feb.

 

[FiestyFairy]

VT confessed on 8th of Feb. Why wasn't CJ released until 4th of March, nearly a month later.

We have no idea why CJ was being considered a suspect and possibly the month is how long it took for LE to clear him. No mystery really