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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

It makes every bit of sense if the killer is on the DNA database.
Hasn't that been said before? This thread has been going on for so long that we are going round in circles.
 
No one is thinking stranger, everyone's thinking VT, but struggling to see how and why.
In light of the recent two random murders I'm sticking with stranger or an acquaintance not on the radar.
The main reason that most think VT did it is because they believe the police must have something really incriminating on him. Sorry I'm not holding my breath.
 
I agree with everything you have said, Chester. Assumptions have been made and that is all.
 
No one is thinking stranger, everyone's thinking VT, but struggling to see how and why.
In light of the recent two random murders I'm sticking with stranger or an acquaintance not on the radar.
The main reason that most think VT did it is because they believe the police must have something really incriminating on him. Sorry I'm not holding my breath.

IMO it was a serial killer whose sexual motivation is strangulation. VT does not fit that profile.
 
No one is thinking stranger, everyone's thinking VT, but struggling to see how and why.
In light of the recent two random murders I'm sticking with stranger or an acquaintance not on the radar.
The main reason that most think VT did it is because they believe the police must have something really incriminating on him. Sorry I'm not holding my breath.

IMO it was a serial killer whose sexual motivation is strangulation. VT does not fit that profile. IMO the only reason that the police started to look at VT is probably what CJ made up about him to get himself off the hook.

One of VT's colleagues ASSUMED that VT and JY would have known each other. That is all. One cannot believe the Beast's story about the ball either.

Also how could the police be so sure that it was VT crossing the bridge as he does not own a car? If it was CJ's car, why not believe it was CJ? Is CCTV so good that they can recognise the driver and see a suitcase in the boot? If it was VT borrowing that car, he could have been driving to pick up his girlfriend.

Also, the sobbing woman was anonymous. I would not believe a witness who chose to be anonymous.

About the alibis, if VT and CJ were home alone, neither would have alibis for the Friday night.

I have read that VT said he was not there when Jo went missing but IMO he was referring to the Sunday. VT was not to know that the police believed that she was murdered on the Friday night.
 
Also how could the police be so sure that it was VT crossing the bridge as he does not own a car?

Isn't that another assumption?

If it was CJ's car, why not believe it was CJ? Is CCTV so good that they can recognise the driver and see a suitcase in the boot? If it was VT borrowing that car, he could have been driving to pick up his girlfriend.

Agree, I doubt that a driver would be recognisable, whether or not the bridge lights were on. The whole scenario about evidence of a certain car crossing the bridge is conjecture, anyway.

Also, the sobbing woman was anonymous. I would not believe a witness who chose to be anonymous.

Was she anonymous, or did the press just not manage to find out who it was? We only have press stories that this even happened.

I have read that VT said he was not there when Jo went missing but IMO he was referring to the Sunday. VT was not to know that the police believed that she was murdered on the Friday night.

Yes, I think that's the explanation there.

From the point of view of opportunity, I would say that an occupant of the flat next door would be a prime suspect. But I shall wait and see what emerges.
 
IMO it was a serial killer whose sexual motivation is strangulation. VT does not fit that profile. IMO the only reason that the police started to look at VT is probably what CJ made up about him to get himself off the hook..


I agree that would very much seem a way of being let off the hook. Without sounding like I keep repeating myself why can no one see that both may be a part of this has no one seen VTs shadow photo and drawn some conclusion about it.
 
Well I, for one , cannot draw any conclusions from that photo, it just looks like a pseudo arty profile pic of which I have seen many
:seeya:
 
I don't necessarily read anything into that photo, but was mildly interested to read this on Wiki:

"In Jungian psychology, the shadow or "shadow aspect" is a part of the unconscious mind consisting of repressed weaknesses, shortcomings, and instincts. It is one of the three most recognizable archetypes, the others being the anima and animus and the persona. "Everyone carries a shadow," Jung wrote, "and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is." It may be (in part) one's link to more primitive animal instincts, which are superseded during early childhood by the conscious mind.

"According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to projection: turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. Jung writes that if these projections are unrecognized "The projection-making factor (the Shadow archetype) then has a free hand and can realize its object--if it has one--or bring about some other situation characteristic of its power." These projections insulate and cripple individuals by forming an ever thicker fog of illusion between the ego and the real world."
 
I am inclined to agree with Badhorsie. I wouldn't want to judge someone on the basis of a [stupid] photo they put on some online account, especially not when it comes to murder charges. There are countless people out there sporting similar shadow photos, so I don't see anything particularly sinister in that one.

I think LE must have other, more serious things on the man if they charged him with murder.
 
All it suggests to me is someone with an eye for a droll or unusual photo shot.
 
Suggesting evil and guilt from a silly photo is just as bad as all the recriminations CJ had to suffer because he had long comb over hair. It's not far removed from 'trial by ordeal' of the middle ages.
 
Suggesting evil and guilt from a silly photo is just as bad as all the recriminations CJ had to suffer because he had long comb over hair. It's not far removed from 'trial by ordeal' of the middle ages.


Who suggested the picture meant evil or guilt , where did you get that from, I would be interested to know. I know the police had commented on the photo though. Perhaps it gives a clue to his psyche.
 
@Kingfisher This is an old suggestion of guilt and evil, The Shadow. First started when VT's facebook picture was released. Laughable and it just goes to show how easily some people can be influenced. Scary really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
61
Guests online
1,766
Total visitors
1,827

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,955
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top