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 ...