[arista]

Originally Posted by Novo

The poor guy doesn't even look strong enough to strangle a fly

A party guest at a home opposite said she heard screams coming from the direction of the flat at around the time Mr Jefferies claimed he saw her

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz19cS9hbWu

[arista]

Originally Posted by Novo

The poor guy doesn't even look strong enough to strangle a fly

maybe thats how he gets it Up

[Jords]

Looks like an old perv n'all o.o

[Artificial Snow]

Oh and to the people that think that this guy must be a pervert because of his appearance, please try and avoid having preconceived ideas like this. He is innocent until proven guilty. We simply do not know all the facts yet. He could very well be innocent.

By the way, hello everyone. This forum looks cool.

[Artificial Snow]

Funny it's you, the one I criticised, who is calling troll.

The only reason you're calling me a troll is because it deflects the argument I made.

The fact remains, your views are so congruent with those touted repeatedly in the Daily Hatemail. You seem to be unable to understand how these tabloids operate, probably because they've brainwashed you with their drivel.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Artificial Snow

Funny it's you, the one I criticised, who is calling troll.

The only reason you're calling me a troll is because it deflects the argument I made.

The fact remains, your views are so congruent with those touted repeatedly in the Daily Hatemail. You seem to be unable to understand how these tabloids operate, probably because they've brainwashed you with their drivel.

Ahhh..... poor Artificial snow - can't actually make comment on the thread but goes about attacking forum members posts just because you disagree !! Tough luck - I've got my opinion and I'll stick to it. I really don't give a flying fig what you think - about my opinions or indeed me: you are merely some sad wee soul who joined a forum for what..... to say you don't like someone. Great stuff, that's really 'big' of you.


Now.... you wouldn't happen to care to actually contribute to the thread subject as it has evolved somewhat over the past few days?

[lostalex]

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.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

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]

Well we'll find out today if he will be charged or not. My guess is no...

[Angus]

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]

He might be one of those who gets a thrill from being in the spotlight, so plays sick games with the police.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by InOne

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).

Originally Posted by angus58

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)

Originally Posted by InOne

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]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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*]

Originally Posted by InOne

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?

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

[arista]

Originally Posted by InOne

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*]

Originally Posted by arista

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]

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*]

Originally Posted by InOne

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.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by InOne

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:

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?

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

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]

And god, all day waiting

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

[Angus]

Originally Posted by InOne

And god, all day waiting

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.