ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums
Page 6 of 29 « First 45 6 7816 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   Serious Debates & News (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=61)
-   -   Joanna Yeates - 32 year old man arrested (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169674)

Pyramid* 30-12-2010 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zippy (Post 4026465)
He looks like a retired old ******. Can't imagine he attacked her for sexual reasons. Maybe she was behind with rent or something?

Of course, he could be entirely innocent. :)
There's a part of me that thinks he isn't the guy. Sure he looks a bit odd, but I'm not so sure it is him....... guess we'll find out soon enough though.

keithafc 30-12-2010 10:36 PM
I bet it was the dad who did it(just putting it out there..). He didn't want her daughter back, he wanted his daughters body back...

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 06:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keithafc (Post 4026669)
I bet it was the dad who did it(just putting it out there..). He didn't want her daughter back, he wanted his daughters body back...
I'm not entirely sure this is a situation that merits having the piss taken out of it. Just putting it out there.....


I hadn't realised that the police had taken two vehicles away:-
Quote:
Sky reported that two cars have been taken away by police - one, the Chrysler, was described as belonging to Mr Jeffries - the report did not say to whom the second, a Volvo, belonged.
Having seen the clip of the Landlord telling reporters that what he had said to police had been very distorted - it's interesting to see this snippet from Sky News:-

Quote:
Sky News' crime correspondent Martin Brunt, in Bristol, said that after Jefferies had spoken to Sky News there were questions surrounding his claim.

"I think he first told neighbours that he thought he had seen Miss Yeates leaving with two people before he spoke to the police, but when we spoke to him he seemed rather vague about the details," he said.
"It then became a bit of mystery and it almost was a case of things not adding up."
The man apparently said to neighbours that he thought. The Sky reporter reports that he (the reporter), 'thinks' he first told neighbours. The reporter is basing his report on suppositions.

Given that Mr Jeffries clearly is very educated as far as the English language and its usage is concerned, given that it is his forte - he would be very aware of his wording, it's context, the delivery etc, and most likely, would be very precise about the wording he used - makes me wonder if they are all barking up the wrong tree with this guy. The plot thickens.....

InOne 31-12-2010 07:02 AM
Well we'll find out today if he will be charged or not. My guess is no...

Angus 31-12-2010 07:19 AM
Either the Landlord told the neighbours he thought he had seen two people with Joanna on the 17th or he didn't. Which is it? If he is now denying he said anything, then the neighbours and/or the reporter are prevaricating. If he did say he saw her with 2 people it begs the question what are the police doing to trace them, and why haven't they come forward themselves to be eliminated?

Unless of course he is lying, in which case it begs the question why did he lie if not to throw suspicion on someone else?

InOne 31-12-2010 07:24 AM
He might be one of those who gets a thrill from being in the spotlight, so plays sick games with the police.

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostalex (Post 4026327)
Does a white majority country with a white majority press, focus on a majority of white victim crime? yes.

Is that wrong? i dunno.

Is the press opportunistic and sensationalist? yes.
I think you might just have answered that question on another level: given your comments about a 'white majority county' - it's fair to say that the majority of press coverage will be about that same 'white majority' - you know, in the same way that it is a 'white man' who is currently being investigated in connection with this murder. Would you feel it to be more balanced if a black man was being questioned as a possible suspect? I doubt it.

Of course more news will be around white people - for exactly the reason you gave, the majority of people in this country ARE white. or are you suggesting that this story shouldn't be given coverage because Joanna wasn't black?

InOne 31-12-2010 07:30 AM
Same goes with class. Maddie came from a middle class family and got loads of coverage. Whilst Shannon Matthews came from a working class family and didn't get nearly enough. Shannons turned out to be 10x more horrific and sinister as well.

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027099)
Well we'll find out today if he will be charged or not. My guess is no...

I don't think he will be charged. I'll be surprised if he is (going on the scant information that the public will be privy to).

Quote:
Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 4027102)
Either the Landlord told the neighbours he thought he had seen two people with Joanna on the 17th or he didn't. Which is it? If he is now denying he said anything, then the neighbours and/or the reporter are prevaricating. If he did say he saw her with 2 people it begs the question what are the police doing to trace them, and why haven't they come forward themselves to be eliminated?

Unless of course he is lying, in which case it begs the question why did he lie if not to throw suspicion on someone else?

Without going back and checking on articles: I recall reading that he had said he saw Joanna leaving the flat with 2 people but couldn't distinguish if they were male or female. I also read in another report that it was 3 people. That's what isn't sitting well with me - the reports aren't consistent - is that the fault of bad reporting - or false reporting?

As you say, what is being done to trace these persons? (if of course, they even existed...... as you say, he could be lying).

It could also be the case that the police want to identify someone as a suspect quickly - and this 'very eccentric, oddball man' who possibly happened to perhaps be the last person to see Joanna - would seem to fit the bill....it's not the first time the police have wanted a case solved, and quickly - and targetted the wrong person. (I'm thinking back to the McCann case and of the British Man who was persecuted beyond belief.... different scenario altogether, but just as a loose example)

Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027104)
He might be one of those who gets a thrill from being in the spotlight, so plays sick games with the police.
I think if that was the case - ref the thrill of being in the spotlight - he'd not have taken the, "My previous communications have been very, very distorted so I have no comment to make" statement. I'm not entirely sure I'm with you on that train of thought.

InOne 31-12-2010 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4027110)
I don't think he will be charged. I'll be surprised if he is (going on the scant information that the public will be privy to).




Without going back and checking on articles: I recall reading that he had said he saw Joanna leaving the flat with 2 people but couldn't distinguish if they were male or female. I also read in another report that it was 3 people. That's what isn't sitting well with me - the reports aren't consistent - is that the fault of bad reporting - or false reporting?

As you say, what is being done to trace these persons? (if of course, they even existed...... as you say, he could be lying).

It could also be the case that the police want to identify someone as a suspect quickly - and this 'very eccentric, oddball man' who possibly happened to perhaps be the last person to see Joanna - would seem to fit the bill....it's not the first time the police have wanted a case solved, and quickly - and targetted the wrong person. (I'm thinking back to the McCann case and of the British Man who was persecuted beyond belief.... different scenario altogether, but just as a loose example)



I think if that was the case - ref the thrill of being in the spotlight - he'd not have taken the, "My previous communications have been very, very distorted so I have no comment to make" statement. I'm not entirely sure I'm with you on that train of thought.
Well the tale is not quite over yet, god knows what he'll say in the final hours they have him. But it is looking like he'll walk and it will be all up in the air again.

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027106)
Same goes with class. Maddie came from a middle class family and got loads of coverage. Whilst Shannon Matthews came from a working class family and didn't get nearly enough. Shannons turned out to be 10x more horrific and sinister as well.
Oh I don't agree with that - the Shannon Mattews story was in every media outlet there is - reporters were crawling all over the place for a long time - I recall repeated and numerous interviews at the parents home, at community centre within the area she lived, with neighbours, friends, fund raising events for rewards and all sorts of stuff being covered. That was given massive media coverage.

In fact, IIRC, there was a high degree of criticism being thrown around because the parents were being 'viewed' in a less than sympathetic light - and that was being skewed as due to them being from the poorer side of society - when in fact, it turned out to be the correct view being taken. Remember all the pornographic images found on the 'husbands' pc, of all the holes in the story from the mother, all the questionmarks - yet the police took a bashing for not trying to find the person responsible, for not trying to find Shannon - when in fact, they were right to home in on the parents - as they were in fact the 'abducters', the mother was responsible, and I'm quite sure the police knew they weren't looking for a body very early on. Sometimes it's not until we see the full picture, that reasons which seemed odd at the time, become crystal clear.

arista 31-12-2010 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027104)
He might be one of those who gets a thrill from being in the spotlight, so plays sick games with the police.

So long as the Police
are still Looking for the Killer of her

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027113)
Well the tale is not quite over yet, god knows what he'll say in the final hours they have him. But it is looking like he'll walk and it will be all up in the air again.
Off the cuff - don't go looking - but are you aware of the time frame - by what time they have to charge him today?

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 07:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by arista (Post 4027118)
So long as the Police
are still Looking for the Killer of her
Interesting point - if they are holding out on it being Mr Jeffries and turns out it's not, the killer will have had more time to cover up any possible tracks.

Like I say, I'm not entirely convinced (on the very little info the public have been given so far), that this Mr Jeffries is the killer. But as I said earlier: perhaps more will come out if he is charged, information that's not beneficial to be given public airing at this point in time.

InOne 31-12-2010 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4027114)
Oh I don't agree with that - the Shannon Mattews story was in every media outlet there is - reporters were crawling all over the place for a long time - I recall repeated and numerous interviews at the parents home, at community centre within the area she lived, with neighbours, friends, fund raising events for rewards and all sorts of stuff being covered. That was given massive media coverage.

In fact, IIRC, there was a high degree of criticism being thrown around because the parents were being 'viewed' in a less than sympathetic light - and that was being skewed as due to them being from the poorer side of society - when in fact, it turned out to be the correct view being taken. Remember all the pornographic images found on the 'husbands' pc, of all the holes in the story from the mother, all the questionmarks - yet the police took a bashing for not trying to find the person responsible, for not trying to find Shannon - when in fact, they were right to home in on the parents - as they were in fact the 'abducters', the mother was responsible, and I'm quite sure the police knew they weren't looking for a body very early on. Sometimes it's not until we see the full picture, that reasons which seemed odd at the time, become crystal clear.
Hmmm, I knew there was always doubt from the start about the case. Not sure I remember it dominating as you say, but maybe that's just me.

InOne 31-12-2010 08:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4027119)
Off the cuff - don't go looking - but are you aware of the time frame - by what time they have to charge him today?
Can't be too long now, not listened to an update for a bit cos I've been listening to music, but will soon.

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027126)
Hmmm, I knew there was always doubt from the start about the case. Not sure I remember it dominating as you say, but maybe that's just me.
The thing that sticks in my mind about that quite early on was the mother sitting on the sofa at home with reporters filming her watching herself on the news and she grinning and laughing and making some flippant comment about her (the mum herself) being on telly. There were tons more things like that at the time - but when you think of the manpower and costs involved with that (not to mention all the support -financially and otherwise that neighbours and friends gave) - it was utterly appalling.

Found this snippet ref the time Mr Jeffries was arrested:

Quote:
December 30
Police arrest Mr Jefferies at his flat at 7am on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates. He is taken to a police station for questioning.
That means it could be up to7pm this evening before we hear anything eh?

Angus 31-12-2010 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4027119)
Off the cuff - don't go looking - but are you aware of the time frame - by what time they have to charge him today?
I understand the usual time frame is 96 hours, then they either have to charge him or release him.

InOne 31-12-2010 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4027130)
The thing that sticks in my mind about that quite early on was the mother sitting on the sofa at home with reporters filming her watching herself on the news and she grinning and laughing and making some flippant comment about her (the mum herself) being on telly. There were tons more things like that at the time - but when you think of the manpower and costs involved with that (not to mention all the support -financially and otherwise that neighbours and friends gave) - it was utterly appalling.

Found this snippet ref the time Mr Jeffries was arrested:
Yep, and they both just laughed in the court, watched a doc about it and even Karens close friends knew there was something up with the way she was acting. Hope Shannon got good psychological help after all that :(

InOne 31-12-2010 08:14 AM
And god, all day waiting :bored:

So we all agree he probs won't be charged?

Angus 31-12-2010 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027137)
And god, all day waiting :bored:

So we all agree he probs won't be charged?
Not unless the police can find some firm evidence linking him to Joanna's disappearance - her dna in his flat or something. Am beginning to wonder whether this is one of those instances where he tried to be helpful by mentioning something he thought he saw, and this has been pounced on by the police to demonstrate they are doing something other than chasing their own backsides.

On the other hand, my money is still on him being involved if for no other reason than opportunity and timing. It could explain why there were no signs of a struggle at her flat, and why she might have left it without her bag etc, maybe thinking she was just popping out for a few minutes as she was not going too far.

I wonder whether the police are also searching neighbours' homes, especially any Joanna might have been friendly with.

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027136)
Yep, and they both just laughed in the court, watched a doc about it and even Karens close friends knew there was something up with the way she was acting. Hope Shannon got good psychological help after all that :(
Pair of sickos. No other word for it. So much for motherly love eh. :mad:


Quote:
Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 4027135)
I understand the usual time frame is 96 hours, then they either have to charge him or release him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InOne (Post 4027137)
And god, all day waiting :bored:

So we all agree he probs won't be charged?
Inone: I wouldn't hold your breath....... !!
How long can you be held?

You cannot normally be held for more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime. However, for more serious offences, a police superintendent can extend that period to 36 hours. A court can extend it to 96 hours.

Angus 31-12-2010 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramid* (Post 4027139)
Pair of sickos. No other word for it. So much for motherly love eh. :mad:





Inone: I wouldn't hold your breath....... !!
How long can you be held?

You cannot normally be held for more than 24 hours without being charged with a crime. However, for more serious offences, a police superintendent can extend that period to 36 hours. A court can extend it to 96 hours.
So the police must have asked for that extension since they had so much evidence to sift through?

InOne 31-12-2010 08:27 AM
Well it's their only good lead, so they'll be pressing. The police will be gutted if nothing comes from it. I just think we would've heard something from all the searching and questioning if he was gonna be charged.

Pyramid* 31-12-2010 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by angus58 (Post 4027138)
Not unless the police can find some firm evidence linking him to Joanna's disappearance - her dna in his flat or something. Am beginning to wonder whether this is one of those instances where he tried to be helpful by mentioning something he thought he saw, and this has been pounced on by the police to demonstrate they are doing something other than chasing their own backsides.

On the other hand, my money is still on him being involved if for no other reason than opportunity and timing. It could explain why there were no signs of a struggle at her flat, and why she might have left it without her bag etc, maybe thinking she was just popping out for a few minutes as she was not going too far.

I wonder whether the police are also searching neighbours' homes, especially any Joanna might have been friendly with.
I have to agree with your points - but the other thing to remember is: (a) the boyfriend was conveniently out of town - . he could also have involvment (look at Maxine Carr....covered up for a loved one at the time) - not a lot has been said about the boyfriend or his alibi.
(b) people who would have known Joanna and/or her boyfriend, could have been aware of him not being there that weekend also.

It's clearly been someone that Joanna felt safe with, enough to leave the house unlocked, with her purse etc lying around. The thing that gets me is - Mr Jeffries had access to their flat - so it would be reasonable to assume that evidence of him being there by way of any forensics - could be by innocent means.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:43 AM.
Page 6 of 29 « First 45 6 7816 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.