GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #14

[veggiefan]

I had always suspected his car had been used but since CJ was absolutely baffled concerning his arrest and is suing the police, I'm not so sure.

I wonder if a more likely scenario is that VT took the car without CJ's knowledge? As I recall, all the residents had access to the main hallway from where they'd collect their post. If CJ had, perhaps absent-mindedly, left a car key there VT might have "borrowed" it during the night when CJ was tucked-up in bed.

As CJ lived alone, he would probably have had no alibi, had his car been seen on CCTV, hence his arrest on suspicion of murder. The police may have released him when they were sure he was not the driver, but kept him on bail until they had enough evidence to indicate that he was not an accomplice by knowingly lending the key.

Quite a few "ifs" there, but it does seem to me to be a possible scenario.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Baby P scandal boss Sharon Shoesmith set for £400k payout after court rules she was unlawfully dismissed.

Another unfair decision in my view and most people are outraged by it. What a state the justice system is in. There is never a fait outcome to these cases for any of the victims, I dread to think what the outcome of Js case will be.


Its not what you do but who you know

 

[whiterum]

If these reports are true, then CJ’s car was not the car seen on CCTV

Police have been holding dramatic CCTV evidence that they believe shows the car in which they believe Miss Yeates’s body was being taken to be disposed of just hours after she was murdered.
‘The discovery of this car driving over the bridge shifted the case’s dynamics’.
Before this breakthrough the investigation was close to hitting a brick wall. They had interviewed Miss Yeates landlord but nothing materialized from it and there was no concrete evidence linking him in any way to the murder. ‘It appears he had brought himself under suspicion by making a series of comments which now appear to be irrelevant and innocuous. There was no case against him.’

‘The investigation changed dramatically three weeks ago after this new CCTV footage came to light. Detectives interviewed the owner of the car earlier this month but eliminated him at that stage’.

First of all, CJ was arrested (before this breakthrough) because of his innocuous comments but there was no case against him, the investigation was hitting a brick wall.

Then came the breakthrough when CCTV came to light of a car going over the bridge in the early hours of the 18th which shifted the case’s dynamics.

So CJ’s arrest must have had nothing to do with this car as he was arrested and released on bail before the car on CCTV came to light.

This CCTV footage, shifted the case’s dynamics in a new direction to the owner/driver of the car caught going over the bridge, someone who had been interviewed early in the enquiry and had eliminated him at that stage.

Officers spoke to the couple in the early stages of the inquiry but ruled out Tabak as a suspect. They have taken a detailed statement from both him and Tanja about his movements after December 17 when Jo was last seen alive after a night out.

So it must have been VT driving a car registered in his name or TM’s car.

Earlier in the enquiry they had also interviewed TM and took a detailed statement regarding VT’s movements, so whatever both he and she told the police at that time eliminated him at that stage

 

[Distant Observer]

Baby P scandal boss Sharon Shoesmith set for £400k payout after court rules she was unlawfully dismissed.

Another unfair decision in my view and most people are outraged by it. What a state the justice system is in. There is never a fait outcome to these cases for any of the victims, I dread to think what the outcome of Js case will be.

Not really relevant to the JY case but I don't think there could be a clearer outcome than the court deciding Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed. This is irrespective of what one thinks of her performance in her job or the poor suffering of baby P.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Not really relevant to the JY case but I don't think there could be a clearer outcome than the court deciding Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed. This is irrespective of what one thinks of her performance in her job or the poor suffering of baby P.

Neither are some of the other cases discussed here directly related to the JY case. The only relevance here are the misguided sentences issued by the courts relating to certain cases. Imo I think she had a job to do and she did not do it properly and now stands to make millions, I don't call that justice and in that respect I only hope that the Courts Judges and Jury show some respect for JYs case , as they don't seem to have in recent cases. It also seems like public opinion has lost confidence with the law of this country, as in, do as you will.

It's not what you do but who you know.

 

[kINGFISHER]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ather-child-jail-human-right-family-life.html . Justice system gone mad.


It's not what you do but who you know.

 

[whiterum]

I wonder if VT would have got away with it if he had been able to dispose of the remains in the deep quarry.

Only someone incredibly stupid would drive over a bridge with CCTV and dump a body just up the lane, especially not in a car which could eventually be traced back to him and he’s certainly no idiot. It’s obvious that he must have been disturbed and panicked.

With no body there would be no definite knowledge regarding when, how or even if she had been killed, whether or not she ate the pizza, no missing sock, no DNA, no apparent reason to check the CCTV on the bridge.

VT had the time and presence of mind to clean up so well that the police found no trace of him in the flat. Why did he take the body, yet leave behind a mysterious scene of a possible crime occurring in the flat, when he could easily have disposed of her essential items as well. Then it could appear that she ever have reached home or went out somewhere that week-end.

The scene created a lot of speculation as to potential suspects regarding her disappearance. A real who-dun-nit, must be someone she knew, someone with access, no suspicion whatever in his direction.

With no body, VT could be as irrelevant to the JY missing person enquiry, as the route to Longwood lane.

 

[badhorsie]

Baby P scandal boss Sharon Shoesmith set for £400k payout after court rules she was unlawfully dismissed.

Another unfair decision in my view and most people are outraged by it. What a state the justice system is in. There is never a fait outcome to these cases for any of the victims, I dread to think what the outcome of Js case will be.


Its not what you do but who you know

Did you know there was a thread on Baby P?
Respectfully, we really try and keep on topic here, otherwise things get confused.
Wouldn't hurt to start a thread on the British "Justice System"

 

[kINGFISHER]

WHITERUM I wonder if VT would have got away with it if he had been able to dispose of the remains in the deep quarry.

Only someone incredibly stupid would drive over a bridge with CCTV and dump a body just up the lane, especially not in a car which could eventually be traced back to him and he’s certainly no idiot. It’s obvious that he must have been disturbed and panicked.



I wonder if VT would have got away with it if he had been able to dispose of the remains in the deep quarry.

Only someone incredibly stupid would drive over a bridge with CCTV and dump a body just up the lane, especially not in a car which could eventually be traced back to him and he’s certainly no idiot. It’s obvious that he must have been disturbed and panicked.


I don't think he is daft if he wanted to hide the body I'm sure he could have. Three miles come on he could have gone twenty , so the question is , did he want the body to be found there on Christmas day or was it like you said he panicked. I would have thought anyway the quarry would have been the one place police would have looked at first, so in any event would the quarry have been that fool proof . If his intention was to dump the body over the wall out of site then, surely he would have been better off taking it elsewhere if he could not manage the wall. A difficult one but Imo it was more intentional, a statement even.

 

[whiterum]

I don't think he is daft if he wanted to hide the body I'm sure he could have. Three miles come on he could have gone twenty , so the question is , did he want the body to be found there on Christmas day or was it like you said he panicked. I would have thought anyway the quarry would have been the one place police would have looked at first, so in any event would the quarry have been that fool proof . If his intention was to dump the body over the wall out of site then, surely he would have been better off taking it elsewhere if he could not manage the wall. A difficult one but Imo it was more intentional, a statement even.

The only statement he could be making if he drove a car traceable to himself over a Bridge with obvious CCTV cameras and intentionally dumped his neighbour’s body at a roadside nearby, whether it be found a few hours later, during the week, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, is that he is way beyond daft but a strong candidate for the loony bin.

With this unlikely action in mind, I think it is reasonable to conclude that his intention was to get rid of the body where police suspected

Officers believe that the killer might have been disturbed by a passing car and decided to flee the scene quicker than planned

Jones said forensic work was still continuing at Yeates's flat, and could take weeks. It is painstaking, meticulous work," he added. He said the police were looking at a theory that the killer had been planning to leave her body in the quarry close to the spot where she was found, but had ended up dumping it on the verge.

 

[kINGFISHER]

The only statement he could be making if he drove a car traceable to himself over a Bridge with obvious CCTV cameras and intentionally dumped his neighbour’s body at a roadside nearby, whether it be found a few hours later, during the week, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day, is that he is way beyond daft but a strong candidate for the loony bin.
Quote:
Officers believe that the killer might have been disturbed by a passing car and decided to flee the scene quicker than planned
Quote:
Jones said forensic work was still continuing at Yeates's flat, and could take weeks. It is painstaking, meticulous work," he added. He said the police were looking at a theory that the killer had been planning to leave her body in the quarry close to the spot where she was found, but had ended up dumping it on the verge.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks
Reply
With this unlikely action in mind, I think it is reasonable to conclude that his intention was to get rid of the body where police suspected

Conflicting , I know
The road, despite its semi-rural location, is regularly used by drivers and pedestrians, and locals say her body would have been noticed on Christmas Eve if it had been there.

It is not yet known how long Miss Yeates had been dead when she was found.

Her killer may have kept her captive or stored her body while ignoring emotional television appeals from her parents for her safe return.

Whoever dumped her there would have also have run less risk of being spotted on Christmas Day while revellers celebrated indoors.
Two dog walkers found her body, which police are convinced had been recently dumped by the side of the road

QUOTE WHITERUM ,Is that he is way beyond daft but a strong candidate for the loony bin.
Have to agree,whichever of these situations it is.

 

[whiterum]

Conflicting , I know

Her killer may have kept her captive or stored her body while ignoring emotional television appeals from her parents for her safe return.

Whoever dumped her there would have also have run less risk of being spotted on Christmas Day while revellers celebrated indoors.
Two dog walkers found her body, which police are convinced had been recently dumped by the side of the road .

Since VT has admitted he is the killer and if reports are true, was staying at TM’s parents home over Christmas, how could he have left, retrieved and dumped a body on Christmas morning, without raising suspicion. Also the body was said by police to have lain there for several days, covered with snow and leaves and in a frozen state.

The post-mortem examination had been delayed because of the frozen state of her body. DCI Jones said police believed Miss Yeates' body had lain there several days “As a result of the findings of the post mortem, we believe that Joanna's body has been in the roadside verge off Longwood Lane, Failand, for several days before being discovered on Christmas morning."

Of what benefit would it be to VT the killer, if JY’s body was found on Christmas Day or not. Surely it would have been much better for him if Jo’s body had never been found at all.

 

[notsure]

I suppose if he took her body away at night time, it would have been difficult for him to see exactly where he was, and he had to act quickly so as not to be caught in the headlights of passing cars. If he borrowed the car without asking, he had limited time, and also the weather conditions that week might have made it hazardous for him to risk going further afield. Once he left her, there was no option of going back and changing things, even though he was probably kicking himself that he hadn't hidden her more effectively.

 

[Robin Hood]

I have often thought he wanted the car seen as it was registered to somebody else who might just take the rap (I think it nearly worked) If somebody else got the blame then the Police would stop 'sniffing around' and he could get on with his life. The time element also, IMO, would play a part, he couldn't get caught with the car or possibly TM might be on her way home.

 

[kINGFISHER]

If it was CJs car then surely he would be called as a witness but his defence say he might not be as he had only taken the rent, that was all he was involved with. I would have expected him to have to explain the involvement of his car to the jury, if it was his.

 

[whiterum]

I think CJ will be called as a witness whether his car was used or not. According to neighbours he was speaking to VT in the driveway about starting GR’s car, the evening Jo was last seen alive.

 

[kINGFISHER]

Why would CJ or his defence put forward excuses for him not attend court for the trial. It is not only the car, that is, if it is his but he was also talking to VT before the crime as Whiterum mentioned. I would have thought based on those circumstances a witness would only be too pleased to testify , does make you wonder why that is not the case ?.

 

[goldielox]

Why would CJ or his defence put forward excuses for him not attend court for the trial. It is not only the car, that is, if it is his but he was also talking to VT before the crime as Whiterum mentioned. I would have thought based on those circumstances a witness would only be too pleased to testify , does make you wonder why that is not the case ?.

It doesn't make me wonder. Not a bit. Had I been arrested for the crime and subjected to any publicity..let alone the publicity CJ was subjected to..the last thing I'd want to do would be to do anything that forced me to re-live the experience in any way ie like having to set foot in a courtroom. Why too would he feel inclined to assist the police and CPS as a witness after all that? I can't see the CPS being thrilled at the thought of him taking the witness stand either. He'd be the last one I'd want to put on the stand in the circumstances if I was the CPS.

If neither side dispute his statement then he may not be called up on the day anyway.

 

[kINGFISHER]

He has been cleared apparently so why should he worry about the Police CPS or anyone . If he cares about the this terrible crime then his first feelings would be to testify to make sure that Jo s killer is brought to justice, I would have thought. Its not about him now. The prosecution may want him to testify, we don't know. But I can't see him being there IMO.

 

[veggiefan]

He has been cleared apparently so why should he worry about the Police CPS or anyone.

He might well worry about the reporting of the case by the popular press: "mad professor with a blue rinse and a love of poems about death takes the stand". I'm sure he wouldn't wish to give evidence after the previous treatment he received, unless he was obliged to do so.

The prosecution may want him to testify, we don't know. But I can't see him being there IMO.

If he has any relevant testimony, he can be summoned to appear and will be in contempt of court (and thus liable to arrest) if he does not do so.