[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Zippy

well, innocent until proven guilty....

but thats just my hunch having read some details about where she was found and what she didnt have on her etc. She didnt have her mobile with her and thats the first thing people grab these days when going out. And if it was somebody she knew that narrows the suspects down massively. It's easy to tick them off as suspects....except those without alibi's. He obviously doesnt have one.

Oh I agree it doesn't look too good but he could simply have done what many single men at his age do in the evening... spend it at home alone doing nothing more that watching a movie, reading a book. Hell of a steep price to pay to pay for it though.....I mean, let's say for talking sake, he didn't do it and that was his alibi.

He's the owner of their property, he lives in the same building, he inspects his rented flats regularly, his prints, hair, particles of clothing, anything of forensic value - that type of thing - are bound to be evident in or around their flat, especially if he did a recent inspection.

The boyfriend's car doesn't start, he seeks the aid of a neighbour to help get the car started, boyfriend drives off for the weekend. CJ goes back into his flat for a quiet evening spent alone. The girlfriend comes home - then disappears to be found dead days later. And suddenly he's in the frame, having done nothing more than help the boyfriend to get on his way and return indoors to have a quiet evening on his lonesome.

it's very plausible. (it's also plausible that he is guilty but it will be interesting to see what they've got on him all the same).

[babycakes]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Now this raises a question in my mind.

Never mind apologies...... if he is released without charge - I wonder if he is able to sue the newspapers for printing defammatory and libellious stories?

What I also find strange is: he worked at that school from 1967 to 2001 - if pupils found him so odd and he had anything 'suspect' (not killer wise, I mean in the way he is now being portrayed as some sick weirdo) - I doubt any private school would have retained his services. He worked there for 34 years - eccentric or not, he clearly wasn't that 'odd'.

It is all trial by media at this stage and it really is bang out of order. All this kind of nonsense should be embargoed until a final decision is made - ie: if and when he has been charged, placed in court for trial and found guilty (based on facts and forensics and not just circumstancial evidence - something I find a complete enigma).

Happy New Year Mids

There's a guy on DS that was a pupil of CJ, who has nothing but praise for him, as an interesting and diligent schoolmaster. He's basically said that everything he has read in the tabloids is BS in regard to his character and I must admit all that jazz about Rossetti and films about the Holocaust (er, hello, anyone received an education that writes for the gutter press ??)

Like you, I understand the PS system, and agree that is pretty normal to be invited to a masters house/flat for pizza, or philosophy discussions, or to listen to music. Their life is entrenched in the school and therefore the pupils.

And everyone using these pages, or FB etc really should be cautious in what and how they write. If a person of interest to the press (not just the LL, for all we know there may be others in the frame) is discussed in an inappropriate way, it could be used by a defence team to show that they cannot receive a fair trial. Not wagging fingers, it is just something everyone needs to be mindful of.

I am embarassed to say that I find myself ghoulishly intrigued by this sad mystery. My son lives a mere stones throw away from the flat so I know the area very well, but there is definately a whodunnit quality that makes me feel a bitashamed of myself for my interest.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by babycakes

Happy New Year Mids

There's a guy on DS that was a pupil of CJ, who has nothing but praise for him, as an interesting and diligent schoolmaster. He's basically said that everything he has read in the tabloids is BS in regard to his character and I must admit all that jazz about Rossetti and films about the Holocaust (er, hello, anyone received an education that writes for the gutter press ??)

Like you, I understand the PS system, and agree that is pretty normal to be invited to a masters house/flat for pizza, or philosophy discussions, or to listen to music. Their life is entrenched in the school and therefore the pupils.

And everyone using these pages, or FB etc really should be cautious in what and how they write. If a person of interest to the press (not just the LL, for all we know there may be others in the frame) is discussed in an inappropriate way, it could be used by a defence team to show that they cannot receive a fair trial. Not wagging fingers, it is just something everyone needs to be mindful of.

I am embarassed to say that I find myself ghoulishly intrigued by this sad mystery. My son lives a mere stones throw away from the flat so I know the area very well, but there is definately a whodunnit quality that makes me feel a bitashamed of myself for my interest.

hello you !! How you doing... Very Happy New Year to you too (pass on the same to all the squad for me please in the Sunny Place, wish them all the best for 2011)

I agree totally BC. you can understand why the Attorney General is concerned about the way the matter is being reported. By all means, let all this come out after conviction/sentencing but not at such a tentative stage.

funny enough: I mentioned that the comment made by a former pupil being 'taken to his flat for a book reading being very very unusual' - that that was in fact, bollocks - and something that I speak from in my own experience - and like you have now said, although many years later after my own education: your son has experienced the same at his school - and that it's hardly anything to be concerned about or unusual.

I said a few posts ago that I too have a fascination for this (and this type of thing) - but I think that's human nature to a certain degree - a great many of us are nosey, but this reaches higher levels that merely nosiness, it's the intrigue, the mystery, the frustration at wondering 'what is going on behind the scences' that we all know nothing about yet.

[Zippy]

nobody who knew him can say he's innocent. None of us know what lurks in the minds of others or what theyre capable of in certain situations.

Why do you think parents are so shocked when their child is revealed as a serial killer? Those closest are often the last to suspect. It's complex psychology. And murderers can be extremely complex people....with many sides.

[InOne]

To be fair, when someone is a killer, family pretend to be shocked but they aren't. If they are a Psychopath the parents will know early on that there is something now quite right. But usually they'll pretend it's nothing or come up for other excuses for their behaviour

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by InOne

To be fair, when someone is a killer, family pretend to be shocked but they aren't. If they are a Psychopath the parents will know early on that there is something now quite right. But usually they'll pretend it's nothing or come up for other excuses for their behaviour

just because a family know their child is a bit odd or a bit of a loner doesn't mean they think they will go out murdering and cutting heads off every thursday. Thats a big stretch.

So yes, they certainly will be shocked. Especially if they have no history of violence.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Zippy

just because a family know their child is a bit odd or a bit of a loner doesn't mean they think they will go out murdering and cutting heads off every thursday. Thats a big stretch.

So yes, they certainly will be shocked. Especially if they have no history of violence.

And you know a family that's been in that situation do you?

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by InOne

And you know a family that's been in that situation do you?

No because serial killers dont frequent my area.

But Ive watched many docus and used to read books on famous murders and stuff.

And you don't know families either. For you to imply that theyre not shocked to learn their child is a serial killer is just a typical InOne statement. *rolls eyes*

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Zippy

No because serial killers dont frequent my area.

But Ive watched many docus and used to read books on famous murders and stuff.

And you don't know families either. For you to imply that theyre not shocked to learn their child is a serial killer is just a typical InOne statement. *rolls eyes*

No point getting into something like this with you. You just harp on and can't admit when wrong.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by InOne

No point getting into something like this with you. You just harp on and can't admit when wrong.

Good. thats you silenced.

[InOne]

I'll just keep on topic and ignore your idiocy

[MTVN]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12103905

"Jo Yeates murder suspect Chris Jefferies freed on bail"

[keithafc]

Originally Posted by InOne

I'll just keep on topic and ignore your idiocy

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Zippy

nobody who knew him can say he's innocent. None of us know what lurks in the minds of others or what theyre capable of in certain situations.

Why do you think parents are so shocked when their child is revealed as a serial killer? Those closest are often the last to suspect. It's complex psychology. And murderers can be extremely complex people....with many sides.

Originally Posted by Zippy

just because a family know their child is a bit odd or a bit of a loner doesn't mean they think they will go out murdering and cutting heads off every thursday. Thats a big stretch.

So yes, they certainly will be shocked. Especially if they have no history of violence.

And no one who knows him can say he is guilty - unless they are aware of him having done this before.

Besides which: perhaps its the way I'm reading it, but your first post above seems to contradict your second.

[Former OC]

Originally Posted by babycakes

Happy New Year Mids

There's a guy on DS that was a pupil of CJ, who has nothing but praise for him, as an interesting and diligent schoolmaster. He's basically said that everything he has read in the tabloids is BS in regard to his character and I must admit all that jazz about Rossetti and films about the Holocaust (er, hello, anyone received an education that writes for the gutter press ??)

Like you, I understand the PS system, and agree that is pretty normal to be invited to a masters house/flat for pizza, or philosophy discussions, or to listen to music. Their life is entrenched in the school and therefore the pupils.

And everyone using these pages, or FB etc really should be cautious in what and how they write. If a person of interest to the press (not just the LL, for all we know there may be others in the frame) is discussed in an inappropriate way, it could be used by a defence team to show that they cannot receive a fair trial. Not wagging fingers, it is just something everyone needs to be mindful of.

I am embarassed to say that I find myself ghoulishly intrigued by this sad mystery. My son lives a mere stones throw away from the flat so I know the area very well, but there is definately a whodunnit quality that makes me feel a bitashamed of myself for my interest.

I was at Clifton during the late 70s/early 80s and was taught by Chris Jeferries for 5 years. I would entirely agree with the viewpoint that he was an excellent teacher whose character has been largely misrepresented. Some of the gutter press reporting has been laughable. For instance to state he was obsessed by death is a gross overstatement. He sought to teach us the whole gamut of human emotions from grief to joy through literature and the arts - death was merely one instance of this, he was just as interested in more life affirming subjects - I spent far more time laughing at Chaucer, marvelling at Ted Hughes poetry than I ever did watching Night and Fog (this also misses the point that Night and Fog wasn't a sensationalist Channel 5esque Nazi documentary but a major artistic piece of work by a renowned French film maker in collaboration with two surivors of Auschwitz). Todays headline in The Sun argues that this so called obsession scared the children - well I hate to break it to you but the entrance age for public schools is 13 - the so called children were all teenagers perfectly mature enough to deal with such subject matter. In addition there has been much prurient reporting of his lewd statements to pupils - well i was taught by him twice/three times a week for 5 years and I can categorically state that not once did he ever say one improper word to me or anyone else I knew. H emay have been flamboyantly threatrical in his teaching style he was actually very reserved in his attitude to pupils - he did not want to be your confidante.

As others have said there was nothing unusual in going to a masters house - I went to many, again not once did anything improper go on or was even suggested. Oddly this was actually proved by the Sun in their non story that a pupil and his friends (surely a weird predatory paedophile would ask pupils individually) were inivited to his house, strange though the pupil thought this (I would dispute this) he had to admit nothing happened!

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12103905

"Jo Yeates murder suspect Chris Jefferies freed on bail"

Now.... if he's on bail, that can mean one of two things... either not enough to be charged - or he has been charged but has been given conditional bail until time of court case (the latter would be odd given the crime).

If there's not enough evidence to charge you, you'll be released on police bail. You don't have to pay to be released on police bail, but you'll have to return to the station for further questioning when asked.
If you're charged and the police think there's a risk that you may commit another offence, fail to turn up at court, intimidate other witnesses or obstruct the course of justice, they can impose conditional bail. This means your freedom will be restricted in some way. For example, a curfew may be imposed on you if your offence was committed at night.

[JobsForTheBoys]

The press will be absolutely gutted because they already had him hung drawn and quatered.

If he is innocent I do hope they have to pay him substantial compansation.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Former OC

I was at Clifton during the late 70s/early 80s and was taught by Chris Jeferries for 5 years. I would entirely agree with the viewpoint that he was an excellent teacher whose character has been largely misrepresented. Some of the gutter press reporting has been laughable. For instance to state he was obsessed by death is a gross overstatement. He sought to teach us the whole gamut of human emotions from grief to joy through literature and the arts - death was merely one instance of this, he was just as interested in more life affirming subjects - I spent far more time laughing at Chaucer, marvelling at Ted Hughes poetry than I ever did watching Night and Fog (this also misses the point that Night and Fog wasn't a sensationalist Channel 5esque Nazi documentary but a major artistic piece of work by a renowned French film maker in collaboration with two surivors of Auschwitz). Todays headline in The Sun argues that this so called obsession scared the children - well I hate to break it to you but the entrance age for public schools is 13 - the so called children were all teenagers perfectly mature enough to deal with such subject matter. In addition there has been much prurient reporting of his lewd statements to pupils - well i was taught by him twice/three times a week for 5 years and I can categorically state that not once did he ever say one improper word to me or anyone else I knew. H emay have been flamboyantly threatrical in his teaching style he was actually very reserved in his attitude to pupils - he did not want to be your confidante.

As others have said there was nothing unusual in going to a masters house - I went to many, again not once did anything improper go on or was even suggested. Oddly this was actually proved by the Sun in their non story that a pupil and his friends (surely a weird predatory paedophile would ask pupils individually) were inivited to his house, strange though the pupil thought this (I would dispute this) he had to admit nothing happened!

Thanks for joining and for sharing this and welcome!

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

The press will be absolutely gutted because they already had him hung drawn and quatered.

If he is innocent I do hope they have to pay him substantial compansation.

JFTB: I would love him to be innocent and to take this matter further - reporting on facts is one thing, but hanging somenone out to dry in the manner they have done so far, before any legal proceedings have actually taken place as far as determining guilt - has been nothing less than shocking.

[babycakes]

Originally Posted by Former OC

I was at Clifton during the late 70s/early 80s and was taught by Chris Jeferries for 5 years. I would entirely agree with the viewpoint that he was an excellent teacher whose character has been largely misrepresented. Some of the gutter press reporting has been laughable. For instance to state he was obsessed by death is a gross overstatement. He sought to teach us the whole gamut of human emotions from grief to joy through literature and the arts - death was merely one instance of this, he was just as interested in more life affirming subjects - I spent far more time laughing at Chaucer, marvelling at Ted Hughes poetry than I ever did watching Night and Fog (this also misses the point that Night and Fog wasn't a sensationalist Channel 5esque Nazi documentary but a major artistic piece of work by a renowned French film maker in collaboration with two surivors of Auschwitz). Todays headline in The Sun argues that this so called obsession scared the children - well I hate to break it to you but the entrance age for public schools is 13 - the so called children were all teenagers perfectly mature enough to deal with such subject matter. In addition there has been much prurient reporting of his lewd statements to pupils - well i was taught by him twice/three times a week for 5 years and I can categorically state that not once did he ever say one improper word to me or anyone else I knew. H emay have been flamboyantly threatrical in his teaching style he was actually very reserved in his attitude to pupils - he did not want to be your confidante.

As others have said there was nothing unusual in going to a masters house - I went to many, again not once did anything improper go on or was even suggested. Oddly this was actually proved by the Sun in their non story that a pupil and his friends (surely a weird predatory paedophile would ask pupils individually) were inivited to his house, strange though the pupil thought this (I would dispute this) he had to admit nothing happened!

Thanks so much for your input; this backs up everything the poster on DS was saying, but I think most of us are bright enough to realise the ridiculous spin and appalling journalism that is most often served up by the sensationalist media (not just the tabloids, sadly).

I just find it frightening that the media can get away with publishing such utter drivel; and for all they knew at the time of writing, they could easily be putting a judicial procedure at risk.

[InOne]

The people who believe it are worse than the people who write it

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

JFTB: I would love him to be innocent and to take this matter further - reporting on facts is one thing, but hanging somenone out to dry in the manner they have done so far, before any legal proceedings have actually taken place as far as determining guilt - has been nothing less than shocking.

I think the press can do more harm than good at times with their interference and muck raking. Some of their reporters would make excellent internet trolls.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by InOne

The people who believe it are worse than the people who write it

When you get tenants who offer up spurious comment but refuse to give their names...... you can almost guarantee they'll be eeking the truth out to some extent, if indeed, such comments were actually made by any the 'supposed' tenants in the first place.

I'm aware of laws that are enforceable now for newspapers to disclose their sources in certain circumstances. - I wonder - if all this should eventually pan out and CJ is innocent - if he has recourse not only as far as the media is concerned, but those who have slandered him and been quoted in the papers - whether they were named in the articles or not.

[Former OC]

Originally Posted by babycakes

Thanks so much for your input; this backs up everything the poster on DS was saying, but I think most of us are bright enough to realise the ridiculous spin and appalling journalism that is most often served up by the sensationalist media (not just the tabloids, sadly).

I just find it frightening that the media can get away with publishing such utter drivel; and for all they knew at the time of writing, they could easily be putting a judicial procedure at risk.

Pardon my ignorance but what does DS refer to?

[JobsForTheBoys]

Why on earth would a landlord kill one of his tenants. It just doesnt make sense, and I suppose thats one of the reasons I dont believe its him.