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

Status
Not open for further replies.
but then he said he found both of them, didn't he, not just one... so maybe he was mistaken, or the amethyst ones were in her hand when she was attacked.
 
Or she had multiple piercings and wore studs and drops
 
When photos of her body/face were shown last week it was reported that she was wearing one of her stud earrings. It sounds as though GR may have been mistaken in thinking she'd been wearing the teardrop earrings that day.

I wonder if they found the missing stud earring anywhere.

Yes, he only said he thought they were the pair she was wearing. But he said that she would normally keep them on her bedside table. He found one in the bed, and one elsewhere. The clasps ("backs") were missing from both. Only one of the missing clasps was ever found.
 
I thought it meant in the early hours of Saturday morning after Greg had reported her missing - surely Greg would not be there on the day that VT was arrested? They must mean that night, surely? The Friday night she died/early hours of Saturday when the police got involved. they must have suspected foul play once they realised she had none of her possessions and nobody had seen her.

It was Sunday night/early hours Monday when the police were called. Greg had been away, remember?
 
I thought it meant in the early hours of Saturday morning after Greg had reported her missing - surely Greg would not be there on the day that VT was arrested? They must mean that night, surely? The Friday night she died/early hours of Saturday when the police got involved. they must have suspected foul play once they realised she had none of her possessions and nobody had seen her.

Greg reported her missing just after midnight on the Sunday night / Monday morning. I think the police officer was referring to the first "house-to-house enquiries" interview, which was early on the Monday morning - someone thought this was as early as 4am, although that strikes me as very early for what was then regarded as a case of a missing adult.
 
<<It was Sunday night/early hours Monday when the police were called. Greg had been away, remember?>>


Doh. Forgive me, I am in a fog today! YES, Sunday night/Mon morning it must have been.
 
I wonder what forensic evidence was found inside Flat1? If VT was in the bedroom it's likely he left trace evidence. I can't really imagine him straightening the bed covers but leaving coats all over the floor, so suspect that the tear drop earrings could be a red herring. Not sure why the LE let him cover it though if it is immaterial
 
...the first "house-to-house enquiries" interview, which was early on the Monday morning - someone thought this was as early as 4am, although that strikes me as very early for what was then regarded as a case of a missing adult.

Veggiefan I think you've got something not quite right on this point. It may have been technically classed as a missing person but it was made clear that right from the Sunday night the police realised that there was something very gravely wrong. I can't recall for sure how we know this but we do. I suspect it was something Joanna's mother said that revealed that the police never at any stage treated it as a "don't worry she's probably all right" affair.
 
Greg reported her missing just after midnight on the Sunday night / Monday morning. I think the police officer was referring to the first "house-to-house enquiries" interview, which was early on the Monday morning - someone thought this was as early as 4am, although that strikes me as very early for what was then regarded as a case of a missing adult.

It was 2 am on the Monday morning when the police arrived and they and Greg then went to Tabak's flat to enquire. Greg had reported it at 12 45 am.
I believe I read that the police came back at 4 am to speak to Joanna's parents. (It didn't say whether that was by telephone or face to face.)

TO ADD: Before returning, the police had contacted hospitals to check whether Joanna had turned up anywhere and then had come back at 4 am to speak to the parents.
 
It may have been technically classed as a missing person but it was made clear that right from the Sunday night the police realised that there was something very gravely wrong. I can't recall for sure how we know this but we do. I suspect it was something Joanna's mother said that revealed that the police never at any stage treated it as a "don't worry she's probably all right" affair.

That's right, we've puzzled since the start over what it might have been that made them so sure she had been "abducted". And they all seemed so very, very pessimistic right from the off.
 
i can only think that VT straightened up (certain areas, but not others) to make it look like an abduction?
 
Veggiefan I think you've got something not quite right on this point. It may have been technically classed as a missing person but it was made clear that right from the Sunday night the police realised that there was something very gravely wrong. I can't recall for sure how we know this but we do. I suspect it was something Joanna's mother said that revealed that the police never at any stage treated it as a "don't worry she's probably all right" affair.

You're probably right. What is certainly true is that the police don't normally go round knocking-up neighbours in the early hours of the morning just after an adult has gone missing, so they must have been convinced that it was more than ordinary missing person, right from the outset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
108
Guests online
3,380
Total visitors
3,488

Forum statistics

Threads
592,193
Messages
17,964,862
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top