[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by marney

He always took great care of his appearance and would dress quite trendily for someone of his age. He was also incredibly fit for someone of his age. He was incredibly strong. This is a quote from his former tenants in jo s flat. The Telegraph.

AN INTERESTING DEVELOPEMENT ON THE TEXT MESSAGE JO SENT. SHE DID INVITE HIM OUT THAT NIGHT AND NOT AS YOU INTIMATED PYRAMID SO SHE COULD HAVE GIVEN THAT PIZZA TO SOMEONE ELSE AS APPARENTLY HE IS NOT A SUSPECT. ANOTHER TWIST TO THIS CASE THOUGH.

Let's see a lot more of the article, from which you've posted comments above - from the Telegraph with today's date on the article - which refer to CJ.

As detectives continued to question the retired bachelor more details emerged of his early life.

Born in Grimsby he moved to Cheshire with his parents Kathleen and Edward, when he was aged ten.

A pupil at Sandbach Grammar School he excelled academically and studied English at Bristol University.

Neighbours of his late parents said he was especially keen on classical music as a youngster and had an organ in his bedroom as a child.
When his mother died he played the organ at her funeral.

He joined the staff at Clifton College public school in the late 1970s and despite earning a reputation as an eccentric was well regarded among the staff and pupils.

In 1991 he bought a flat belonging to the college in Canynge Road in the highly desirable Clifton area of Bristol and later bought a second apartment in the same building.

Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon moved into the basement flat owned by Mr Jefferies on October 1 this year.

Last night two former neighbours of Jefferies Gary and Kat Anderton, who lived in the flat next door to Miss Yeates said: “When we lived there he was always busy doing stuff around the house. He was very meticulous and liked things just so.

"We would see him working in the garden and his hair would blow on top of his head and stick up on top of his head.

"He always took great care of his appearance and would dress quite trendily for someone of his age. He was also incredibly fit for someone of his age. He was incredibly strong.”

Mr Anderton added: "He was a bit of a meddler and liked to know what we were doing but we never felt threatened by him. I would have let him babysit my daughter if I needed to.”

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

Few things here that 'jump out at me' (not in what you personally are saying, but the comments from the article you mention). The article refers to CJ purchasing a flat that was owned previously by the college in 1991 (20 years ago) and later he purchased another apartment in the same building (presumably these flats are the one he lives in now and the one that he lets out, and the one that Jo & Greg rented). No year is given as to when he made this 2nd purchase - he could have purchased it 2 years after his initial purchase for all we know. It could have been purchased 5 years ago, for all we know. The article doesn't make reference to that. Incidental I know, but I make mention of it to show some possible anomolies in the reporting (well...what I feel are! They may not be of course!)

There is no reference as to WHEN this couple, Mr & Mrs Anderton actually lived in the flat next to Jo's. They could have stayed there 15 years ago, 10 years ago. The way the article is worded, it 'reads' as though they stayed there when Jo stayed there. I find that peculiar. Why? Because Jo only moved in there in October 2010. (and not 'this year' as the Telegraph have incorrectly stated). If this couple only moved out 2 months ago, I'd have expected them or the Telegraph to mention that, to give credence to their comments re the 'condition' CJ was in - ie: to show that their comments were based on the present time, rather than (for example) when they lived there 15 years ago. Since there is no reference as to how long ago they lived there - it could have been October this year, could have been October 2001.

Do you see what I mean? It leans a little toward intimating that Mr & Mrs Anderton stayed there during the time Joanna stayed there - which therefore could make the remaining comments re CJ's physicalities being current - when in fact, this description from them could be as they recall him from many years ago. It's misleading at best.

for all any of us know, this couple could have lived there 10 /15 years ago - and a lot can happen to a person's health in 10 / 15 years.

Mr Anderton also states that they never felt threatned by CJ, and to labour the point, also mentions that they would have let CJ babysit their daughter if they had to. Not many couples I know would let a 65 year old man (unless a very close friend /relative) babysit their young child - this makes me think (rightly or wrongly) that they are referring to a time when CJ was much younger than today. Say 50 or younger - and saying he was very fit for his age.

The limited photos that we've all seen recently of CJ, I certainly wouldn't say he dressed trendily for his age, or took great care over his appearance. I'm deeply sceptical by nature (as you'll have guessed).

The text message. Mmm... interesting but I've not caught up on the news a yet today - I'd have to go catch up on what's what.

You are correct though..... yet another twist!