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

[kINGFISHER]

Would C H now held by police fit the description of the person who tried to abduct the other woman in the same area and on the same night of MHs abduction, sandy hair thick set, wasn't it.

 

[aneurin]

Anyone heard of Tina Pryer who disappeared in Trowbridge 2001 ? The police are said to be looking into that case again.

Yes, but not a lot of info about.

A 39 year-old cleaner and mother of three who was last seen getting in a taxi in Trowbridge in April 2001.

 

[aneurin]

Would C H now held by police fit the description of the person who tried to abduct the other woman in the same area and on the same night of MHs abduction, sandy hair thick set, wasn't it.

'Sandy blond' was I think the way Linda Hamblin described her assailant. As far as I can see from the photo of CH in the Daily Mail -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-focus-efforts-missing-woman-Wiltshire.html

- he seems to have very short dark hair. But 15 years ago who knows?

Of course, it is perfectly possible that two different perps were involved in the MH and LH cases. LH's attacker could well have been the Batman rapist aka the Riddler who was active at that time.

 

[aneurin]

Why on earth did he confess so readily?

Because they had CCTV footage of SO getting into his car outside the Swindon nightclub, had GPS data on his car's movements, fed him the usual line about how the SOCO mob were going through his car and home and were bound to find something, and how things would go much better for him if he admitted everything.

I hope they checked out taxi drivers in Jo's case. When it comes to women missing from bars and clubs that should always a first line of inquiry.

Except that Jo went missing from her home.

It's a wonder there are not more attacks on young women leaving clubs, they make themselves so vulnerable and easy prey.

It happens quite often. I recall that Melanie Hall was one of three very similar cases that occured within a few years of each other in the Bristol-Bath area.

 

[bees]

I would say it was another car we don't know about.
VT was arrested three weeks after CJ and his cars were taken away.
Anyone under arrest who lent their car to VT would say so unless they wanted to be accused of being an accomplice and I doubt that very much. CJ clearly isn't.
Therefore if CJ lent a car he would have said so straight away and the police would have moved into VT's flat before there was anymore lost forensics and not wait three weeks.

Unless in VT's police interview (before he was arrested) he told them he borrowed a neighbour's car to do something that night / following morning. Until they got the forensics back (or another lead) they wouldn't necessarily have any evidence to support searching VT's flat. However, it does seem an unlikely scenario as you say.

The police must have good evidence about the car they think was used and it must be in their possession. Whose vehicle do people here think it was and why?

 

[kINGFISHER]

Unless in VT's police interview (before he was arrested) he told them he borrowed a neighbour's car to do something that night / following morning. Until they got the forensics back (or another lead) they wouldn't necessarily have any evidence to support searching VT's flat. However, it does seem an unlikely scenario as you say.

The police must have good evidence about the car they think was used and it must be in their possession. Whose vehicle do people here think it was and why?

Still think it was one of the cars the police had an interest in, either LL or next door. We haven't heard of any other vehicles apart from these taken for forensic testing . Why would they need to take PSs car. As in the case of MH, police say the killer knew how not to leave any traces, and was an expert at hiding forensic evidence, or words to that effect. In some cases it must be difficult for the police when perhaps they know but don't have that extra bit they need or the evidence they have gets tampered with or the killers are just too clever for the police. Clever, educated, has been talked about a lot in this case.

 

[Cherwell]

We haven't heard of any other vehicles apart from these taken for forensic testing.

Doesn't mean there haven't been any.

In some cases it must be difficult for the police when perhaps they know but don't have that extra bit they need or the evidence they have gets tampered with or the killers are just too clever for the police. Clever, educated, has been talked about a lot in this case.

I agree with this, except that I don't think an offender necessarily has to be 'educated'. Streetwise, perhaps, but familiarity with contemporary crime TV series and novels would be more useful than academic qualifications.

 

[kINGFISHER]

I agree with this, except that I don't think an offender necessarily has to be 'educated'. Streetwise, perhaps, but familiarity with contemporary crime TV series and novels would be more useful than academic qualifications.

Streetwise or reading crime novels would be useless to some offenders and no match against educated part of the establishment and in some cases state corruption. It all depends on who your alliances are.


They may well have another vehicle in mind perhaps EMs but we have no knowledge of this and no explanation why LL and PSs vehicles were taken so imo it could well be either of those.

 

[mrbond]

Why would Sian's killer confess so readily to the location and probably the murder of the other person?

I wonder how well the A+S checked out taxi drivers in the Jo Yeates case. So easy for her to have been noticed by a passing cab driver during that long walk home who later abducts her. He notices when Jo walks into her flat that all the lights come on. He rings her bell and asks if she ordered cab. and then he's in.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Why would Sian's killer confess so readily to the location and probably the murder of the other person?

Not a well person or just a pawn in the order of things.

 

[aneurin]

I agree with this, except that I don't think an offender necessarily has to be 'educated'. Streetwise, perhaps, but familiarity with contemporary crime TV series and novels would be more useful than academic qualifications.

Otherwise known as the 'CSI Effect'. Knowledge of the possibilities of forensic DNA techniques is now fairly widespread (for example) and thus criminals take steps to avoid leaving such evidence behind, just as previous generations frustrated the new science of fingerprinting by the simple expedient of wearing gloves.

Streetwise or reading crime novels would be useless to some offenders and no match against educated part of the establishment and in some cases state corruption. It all depends on who your alliances are.

Oh no. Not the masons again!

Why would Sian's killer confess so readily to the location and probably the murder of the other person?

Sometimes they just do. As in the case of Stephen Griffiths, who happily gave his name as the "crossbow cannibal" when put in front of the magistrates court.

I wonder how well the A+S checked out taxi drivers in the Jo Yeates case. So easy for her to have been noticed by a passing cab driver during that long walk home who later abducts her. He notices when Jo walks into her flat that all the lights come on. He rings her bell and asks if she ordered cab. and then he's in.

Yes, but how could the "passing cab driver" have known that Jo would be alone when she arrived at home? Why would a homicidally inclined cab driver take that risk when it could be virtually guaranteed that they would have had a woman sitting alone in their back of their cab later that evening?

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Hi all ...

Just stumbled upon this story. Quite an epic cycling journey Jo's former local and international BDP colleagues are taking on for a magnificent cause. Plan to cycle across EU by sounds of things. Good to read something positive - here's wishing the teams luck, strength and success!


http://www.cliftonpeople.co.uk/grou...an-Jo-Yeates/story-10804450-detail/story.html

FWIW, I remain unequivocally and totally convinced they have the right man behind bars and he'll be held accountable for his actions. Many here suggest some possible alternatives...

Somewhere ... and at some stage, I suppose I'd also like to read at least one rational, realistic and reasonable post as to why the perp *can't* be VT. (Excluding all the "he's a good, nice, terrific guy" comments. We've read the same about Sian's cabbie-killer by most of his neighbours and colleagues...). Why is it not possible (to some) that he actually murdered Jo? TIA.

Polk

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Duplicate post - sorry!

 

[mrbond]

Yes, but how could the "passing cab driver" have known that Jo would be alone when she arrived at home? Why would a homicidally inclined cab driver take that risk when it could be virtually guaranteed that they would have had a woman sitting alone in their back of their cab later that evening?

Anyone lurking or stalking, be it on foot or in a vehicle could have seen the light in the flat come on when Jo went indoors, I said that already.
Selecting a passenger with murder in mind is loaded with risks as we have already seen, hence the early capture of CH.
Besides 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.
I'm a bit concerned the police have this fixed idea that a stranger killer would have no way of knowing she was alone as you seem to.

 

[mrbond]

Hi all ...

Just stumbled upon this story. Quite an epic cycling journey Jo's former local and international BDP colleagues are taking on for a magnificent cause. Plan to cycle across EU by sounds of things. Good to read something positive - here's wishing the teams luck, strength and success!


http://www.cliftonpeople.co.uk/grou...an-Jo-Yeates/story-10804450-detail/story.html

FWIW, I remain unequivocally and totally convinced they have the right man behind bars and he'll be held accountable for his actions. Many here suggest some possible alternatives...

Somewhere ... and at some stage, I suppose I'd also like to read at least one rational, realistic and reasonable post as to why the perp *can't* be VT. (Excluding all the "he's a good, nice, terrific guy" comments. We've read the same about Sian's cabbie-killer by most of his neighbours and colleagues...). Why is it not possible (to some) that he actually murdered Jo? TIA.

Polk

I hope you don't end up on the jury. "unequivocally and totally" That's actually quite unnerving and demonstrates a unequivocally and total belief in the CPS etc.
I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[Cherwell]

Anyone lurking or stalking, be it on foot or in a vehicle could have seen the light in the flat come on when Jo went indoors, I said that already.

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.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Hi there mrbond. Indeed, I respect and appreciate your views 100% as much as I respect those believing he's not guilty ... to other fence-sitters. Actually, I'd be as truthful if approached for jury selection and say outright I remain personally convicted VT is guilty of this crime. I'd therefore be biased before the trial even starts - not fair on the defendant, I know - but it would be "my" truth - not necessarily the truth of the courts. If I'm wrong, guaranteed I'll be the first to say "wowzers, just look at how wrong I was!"

In fact, the more I've lurked and read in the background, the stronger my belief has grown. I'd like to hear (from posters that believe VT is the wrong man) why he is the wrong man? Why - under what circumstances do people feel he did not, or could not, have murdered Jo?

Forget the "police frame-ups" and "he's Mr. nice guy" statements. Why, as a direct next-door neighbour of Jo, is he the wrong-guy? Why could he not have committed this heinous crime? Is it because he's apparently never murdered before? Well, there's always a first time.

Just saying - just waiting for a plausible logical reason why VT could not or did not do this. I just really, really (really) think he did it. 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.

Been great reading, tho. Lots of thoughts and comments to mull over.

I hope you don't end up on the jury. "unequivocally and totally" That's actually quite unnerving and demonstrates a unequivocally and total belief in the CPS etc.
I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[wfgodot]

I think I've convinced myself VT is probably guilty of the crime. Then again, not so long ago, I'd convinced myself that CJ was probably guilty of the crime. There's a lesson here, for myself at least.

 

[aneurin]

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.

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?

Selecting a passenger with murder in mind is loaded with risks as we have already seen, hence the early capture of CH. Besides practiced criminals have all sorts of ways of checking if someones alone.

Only because he was caught on CCTV. And that was number 2. He got away with number 1 for a number of years. John Worboys got away with sexual assaulting dozens of women over a period of ten years or more in his taxi cab before he was finally aprehended. All criminal acts are associated with some degree of detection risk, but an MO that's based on calling at a randomly selected property seems riskier than most.

I'm a bit concerned the police have this fixed idea that a stranger killer would have no way of knowing she was alone as you seem to.

I see no evidence that the police have any such fixed idea, and neither do I as it happens. I'm just not remotely persuaded by your "passing cab driver" theory. But you have (perhaps inadvertently) stumbled on one of the key questions in the Jo Yeates; who knew that she was alone that night?

 

[aneurin]

FWIW, I remain unequivocally and totally convinced they have the right man behind bars and he'll be held accountable for his actions.

I think I've convinced myself VT is probably guilty of the crime. Then again, not so long ago, I'd convinced myself that CJ was probably guilty of the crime. There's a lesson here, for myself at least.

I shall remain (at least publicly) a very decided 'fence sitter'. Since, whilst I don't believe for one moment that what is posted here will ever have any effect on any potential jury, I feel morally obliged to take the position that the accused is always innocent until pronounced guilty by a jury of their peers.