Certainly the 24hour holding time has passed, so we're into the 36 hours.# Edit: from the newspapers: It could be said that they have extended it as they have found so little evidence so far..... and don't want to let him go until they try to find some more.

Perhaps any evidence they may have found, is not enough to charge him with.

There is that possibility.

It's a case of having to wait till later on today/tonight by the looks of things....

Wont they

Will they

Won't they !

:bouncy:

As interesting as all this is....... reality kicks in and I have things to attend to - not least, a hairdresser appointment to meet!

Catch up with the latest later on. Y'all be good now.:blush:

wee comment from a neighbour

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/...97_306x405.jpg
Police quiz 'nutty professor' with a blue rinse , when younger

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz19grsAa5A

Oh No Arista. You don't read the Daily Mail do you....... :shocked::shocked:

:D

Here's what the telegraph has to say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ants-flat.html

I have to laugh though at these 'former tenants' complaining about not being able to put up curtains / nets / landlord having keys / access etc - and then mentioning that it was in the lease agreements. If they were not happy with it at the time: why rent from the man in the first place?

Some years ago, I rented my house out and I had a clause in the contract that I could inspect the property at any time without prior notice as long as it was within reasonable hours - my tenants didn't have any issue with that. It certainly didn't put them off renting my property.

I can't help but feel it's a case of jumping on bandwagons.

"You don't read the Daily Mail "

No I read the Guardian
DM is best for Dramatic Pictures

sorry but I have to laugh at one of the 'headlines' here. Friend in jail for paedophile crimes.

I have a friend from years ago that I knew, who was sentenced to 18 years in jail for an (obviously) very serious related drug crime. Oddly enough: apart from a very occasional smoke now and then (and I mean lucky if it's half a dozen smokes a year) - it doesn't make me a drug baron!

ie: in other words, they don't know for sure, they only 'thought...' , and don't want to be named in case they are talking a lot of bullsh!t and they're done for slander/libel. :rolleyes: (at the story...not you!)

He will be tarnished for life now. Even if he didn't do it

Unfortunately - yes, you are correct.

He seems like an easy target for the Press, I wonder if they would be calling him a peeping tom if he didn't look the way he does

I have to agree. He could of course be guilty - but he does seem to be an easy target as you say, through nothing more than being an eccentric and a little bit odd by way of appearance.

Yep, if he looked like Brad Pitt or something he'd have loads of followers and flocks of girls proesting he's innocent. Although the Celebrity killer thing might be more an american trend. Like with Bundy and The Night Stalker

"and they're done for slander/libel. "


I think CJ has a Property abroad
if he is let go, it would be best for hin to leave the area.

If he isn't charged - it would be a bloody disgrace that he would have to even consider such a thing - although, truth be told... you're probably right....as InOne mentioned, he'll be tarred now.

Would be awful if that was the case.

Yes well they are now saying he is helping them
as if to say , he will not be charged.

Yes he would be best to leave the Area for good.

where does it say that?

Hinted on BBCNews

I think "helping them with their enquiries" is a blanket euphemism that covers all bases.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12100015

"The attorney general is considering issuing a notice to remind the media that coverage of the arrest in the Jo Yeates murder inquiry must be fair."

I think he would be right to do so

Yep, there's a fair bit on here too about the A G's view:

http://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-...ing-questioned

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content...4/15875704.jpg

So CJ loves Death
scared the kids.

Again, all I call see here is a bit of 'sensationalism' in this particular article.

This part for instance:

It starts by saying pupils mostly tried to avoid the man...... tried to avoid him so much that they accepted an invite to his flat for a book reading :rolleyes:- that's the first thing. The comment initially states, they were, 'taken to the teacher's flat'. No.. they weren't 'taken'. They went of their own volition.

The second thing is the comment about going to a Master's house being very very strange. What bollocks..... I went to private school as a boarder - and a 'select few senior pupils' were invited to our English Master's flat for dinner now and then, partly to discuss studies we all shared a love for at the time and partly it also served to learn social etiquette applied at formal dinner parties. Outside of the perverted world: it's called dedication from all concerned, as well as being treated like an adult.

That aside: the fact the police have had to request a 2nd extension tells me that anything they may have 'on him', certainly hasn't been enough to charge him .... or to the extent that when it came to a court case, it might not be enough to convince a jury he was guilty.

They are either having a hard time getting enough evidence to secure a conviction - or as Angus58 suggested earlier, they are wanting to gather more than enough to ensure the case is watertight.

At this stage, I really still am having doubts that this man is guilty.

See, that is why these papers are bollocks, just have these silly stories and no actual facts!!!