[Mifletz]

There may have been a conspiracy by several people to kill her eg if she had knowledge of a Clifton pedo ring including even policemen and judges; if her parents & brother had molested her as a child & she was threatening to spill the beans unless she inherited everything; if her fiance had found out/suspected that she was seeing other men and he engaged his friends to rough her up/seduce her/test her, and it all went horribly wrong etc etc, and all in cahoots with the landlord who'd let them in.

I think the police suspect something conspiratorial like this, but they have to tread exceedingly carefully.

Have the police taken DNA from her family, including the mother?

Originally Posted by marney

I see where you are coming from , but the parents said they feel the police are holding back information I would have doubts about them been involved.

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Mifletz

There may have been a conspiracy by several people to kill her eg if she had knowledge of a Clifton pedo ring including even policemen and judges; if her parents & brother had molested her as a child & she was threatening to spill the beans unless she inherited everything; if her fiance had found out/suspected that she was seeing other men and he engaged his friends to rough her up/seduce her/test her, and it all went horribly wrong etc etc, and all in cahoots with the landlord who'd let them in.

I think the police suspect something conspiratorial like this, but they have to tread exceedingly carefully.

Have the police taken DNA from her family, including the mother?

All that sounds pretty crazy and farfetched lol

[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!

[Pyramid*]

From the Daily Mail ref: text messsage Joanna sent:-

Police are also studying phone records after one of Jo's friends revealed that the landscape architect sent him a text at 8.20pm on December 17.

Jo had invited Matthew Wood out for a drink in the message but because he was at a Christmas party he didn't reply until 9.20pm.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Af52VcK8

Okay. I'm confused. Weren't there reports that this guy didn't reply because he was sleeping? Yet it says here, he was at a Christmas Party. Am I losing the plot entirely !!! (highly possible and highly probable!!).

What it says that she invites him out for a drink: but what is missing is when and where - inviting someone 'out' for a drink usually indicates what it says, 'out' (as opposed to 'come round for a drink). Did the text state 'when' the intended 'invite out' for a drink, was? The following night? Or an invite later in the week?


Timeline from the Guardian.

8.10pm: Yeates was caught on CCTV popping into a Waitrose supermarket in the Clifton Triangle.
8.30pm: She used her mobile phone to ring her friend Rebecca Scott and arranged to meet on Christmas Eve.
8.40pm: At a Tesco Express on Regent Street in Clifton Village, about a quarter-of-a-mile from her flat, Yeates bought a pizza, which is missing. She then visits a nearby off-licence to buy a bottle of cider.

So she goes into 'Waitrose before texting this guy.

She sends him a text before she telphones her friend Rebecca.

Having no reply from this guy, she continues to to purchase pizza, and then into another shop for Cider.

Does this guy drink Cider I wonder? Was she buying in the hope he would join her at the flat? If so - I find that odd....... her boyfriend that she's loved up with and is devoted to, has left only 90 minutes earlier, and she's inviting another guy out for a drink on a weekend that she was telling friends that she was looking forward to being on her own, getting the flat all sorted, making nice Mince Pies etc...- I guess a lot rests on what or where the 'invite for drinks' was based on. That weekend when Greg was away? That night?

curiouser and curiouser!

[marney]

As I said she could have been lonely, just because you are in the hub of things means nothing and some people feel even more isolated. A platonic friendship maybe. But maybe more to this then we know. I didn't catch all the news tonight but no doubt you will be pleased that CJ is apparently going to be released.

[icemaiden]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

From the Daily Mail ref: text messsage Joanna sent:-




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Af52VcK8

Okay. I'm confused. Weren't there reports that this guy didn't reply because he was sleeping? Yet it says here, he was at a Christmas Party. Am I losing the plot entirely !!! (highly possible and highly probable!!).

What it says that she invites him out for a drink: but what is missing is when and where - inviting someone 'out' for a drink usually indicates what it says, 'out' (as opposed to 'come round for a drink). Did the text state 'when' the intended 'invite out' for a drink, was? The following night? Or an invite later in the week?


Timeline from the Guardian.

8.10pm: Yeates was caught on CCTV popping into a Waitrose supermarket in the Clifton Triangle.
8.30pm: She used her mobile phone to ring her friend Rebecca Scott and arranged to meet on Christmas Eve.
8.40pm: At a Tesco Express on Regent Street in Clifton Village, about a quarter-of-a-mile from her flat, Yeates bought a pizza, which is missing. She then visits a nearby off-licence to buy a bottle of cider.

So she goes into 'Waitrose before texting this guy.

She sends him a text before she telphones her friend Rebecca.

Having no reply from this guy, she continues to to purchase pizza, and then into another shop for Cider.

Does this guy drink Cider I wonder? Was she buying in the hope he would join her at the flat? If so - I find that odd....... her boyfriend that she's loved up with and is devoted to, has left only 90 minutes earlier, and she's inviting another guy out for a drink on a weekend that she was telling friends that she was looking forward to being on her own, getting the flat all sorted, making nice Mince Pies etc...- I guess a lot rests on what or where the 'invite for drinks' was based on. That weekend when Greg was away? That night?

curiouser and curiouser!

Did she buy cider? no mention of receipts only for pizza. The girl who worked in bargain booze said she had no recollection of seeing Joanna that evening.

Joanna and Greg was having a party on Tuesday evening, maybe she was checking out the prices and what was available.

Maybe she took the cider from the pub with her. Maybe someone asked her to get him/her a pizza, she dropped it off to them and the rest is history.

[icemaiden]

Originally Posted by marney

As I said she could have been lonely, just because you are in the hub of things means nothing and some people feel even more isolated. A platonic friendship maybe. But maybe more to this then we know. I didn't catch all the news tonight but no doubt you will be pleased that CJ is apparently going to be released.

If she was that lonely would she not ring BF and have a chat, Or her mother or best friend?

[marney]

Exactly thats what i think she droped that pizza off. The note sent to the pub maybe not be a hoax but a list of pizza toppings for the person she was buying the pizza for. I hope the police have had a good look at the writing.

[marney]

When she phoned her friend she said she was at a loose end, boyfriend away lonely maybe.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by marney

As I said she could have been lonely, just because you are in the hub of things means nothing and some people feel even more isolated. A platonic friendship maybe. But maybe more to this then we know. I didn't catch all the news tonight but no doubt you will be pleased that CJ is apparently going to be released.

[marney]

Sorry Pyramid you might be disappointed It is Mr Jeffries and his lawyers that are asking and pushing for his release and expecting it to be imminently. The police are saying they have no intention of doing so. What have they got on him I wonder. Latest news. So the plot remains the same, interesting.

Five years ago the Andertons lived there so I would not expect him to lose much of his strength in that time. WE WERE QUESTIONING HIS STRENGTH NOT HIS CHARACTER SO WHY COME UP WITH ALL THE REST OF THE STUFF ITS NOT RELEVANT TO HIS STRENGTH WE WERE QUESTIONING IF HE WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO DO IT.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by marney

Sorry Pyramid you might be disappointed It is Mr Jeffries and his lawyers that are asking and pushing for his release and expecting it to be imminently. The police are saying they have no intention of doing so. What have they got on him I wonder. Latest news. So the plot remains the same, interesting.

Five years ago the Andertons lived there so I would not expect him to lose much of his strength in that time. WE WERE QUESTIONING HIS STRENGTH NOT HIS CHARACTER SO WHY COME UP WITH ALL THE REST OF THE STUFF ITS NOT RELEVANT TO HIS STRENGTH WE WERE QUESTIONING IF HE WAS STRONG ENOUGH TO DO IT.

What on earth are you going on about? This is hardly newsbreaking stuff - this happened many days ago.

As for the rest -I mentioned nothing about CJ's strength of character - but was speaking of his physical strength - as was very clear in my post. VERY.

[marney]

I am afraid you are wrong this was on the local news tonight why are you so upset would they put out old news of many days ago, tonight go to the somerset local news. 10/1/11. Pull the other one.

[marney]

BUT TONIGHT THE POLICE DO NOT EXPECT ANY IMMEDIATE CHANGE HIS LAWYERS ARE PUSHING BUT THE POLICE ARE HAVING NONE OF IT. REPORTED 10/1/11 YOU SAID IT WAS REPOTED THAT HE WOULD BE RELEASED SOON. SO THIS IS NEW NEWS he will not be relesed from bail soon.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by marney

BUT TONIGHT THE POLICE DO NOT EXPECT ANY IMMEDIATE CHANGE HIS LAWYERS ARE PUSHING BUT THE POLICE ARE HAVING NONE OF IT. REPORTED 10/1/11 YOU SAID IT WAS REPOTED THAT HE WOULD BE RELEASED SOON. SO THIS IS NEW NEWS he will not be relesed from bail soon.

Oh you mean the police wont remove his bail conditions?

Why didnt you just say that in post #505, as he already has been released, as in from police custody.

You mean his lawyers have approached the custody officer at the police station he was arrested and asked for the bail conditions to be lifted? Or is his lawyer now approaching the courts for removal of the conditions?

[marney]

Did not have all the details at the time OF 505 SO SORRY the police reply was that they were not changing his conditions, so lawyers must have asked for release of bail like you said. So I suppose their next step will be court. How long can they keep him on bail , what have they got on him to hold him so long.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by marney

Did not have all the details at the time OF 505 SO SORRY the police reply was that they were not changing his conditions, so lawyers must have asked for release of bail like you said. So I suppose their next step will be court. How long can they keep him on bail , what have they got on him to hold him so long.

Minimal evidence, hearsay, next to nothing.

Not enough to charge him with anything otherwise they have arrested and charged him, had him in court and he would have been remanded till a court appearance.

He will have been given a date to turn up at the police station for his bail, they will then either inform him there are no charges forthcoming and remove his bail conditions.

Or arrest him again then either charge him or possibly release him on bail again. However if they do release him on bail again there will be increased criticism of their investigative methods.

While they may not have sufficient evidence to charge him with anything at the moment, they are possibly hoping either he will incriminate himself whilst on bail, or more probably someone else will come forward and either confess or provide evidence against either him or someone else who committed the murder.

The pizza box, cider bottles could provide additional evidence against the perpetrator but are unlikely to be as crucial as has been made out by the press. Unless there are only two forensic samples on them (either DNA, fingerprints) and they are Joanna's and a suspect.

I have a feeling though while they do have some evidence against Jefferies, they have someone else in the frame for the murder.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by marney

I am afraid you are wrong this was on the local news tonight why are you so upset would they put out old news of many days ago, tonight go to the somerset local news. 10/1/11. Pull the other one.

Originally Posted by marney

BUT TONIGHT THE POLICE DO NOT EXPECT ANY IMMEDIATE CHANGE HIS LAWYERS ARE PUSHING BUT THE POLICE ARE HAVING NONE OF IT. REPORTED 10/1/11 YOU SAID IT WAS REPOTED THAT HE WOULD BE RELEASED SOON. SO THIS IS NEW NEWS he will not be relesed from bail soon.

Given that I am not psychic, I am not to be expected to understand your half-completed comments that you put up, most of which are often disjointed and make little sense. Additionally, I did not state he would be released soon - I said it was reported that he and his lawyers were looking to take action/sue the police (for wrongful arrest) and the media for their comments.

[marney]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Given that I am not psychic, I am not to be expected to understand your half-completed comments that you put up, most of which are often disjointed and make little sense. Additionally, I did not state he would be released soon - I said it was reported that he and his lawyers were looking to take action/sue the police (for wrongful arrest) and the media for their comments.

You must really calm down dear. Now is that sentence to disjointed for you or would you like me to explain in more detail.

[marney]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Minimal evidence, hearsay, next to nothing.

Not enough to charge him with anything otherwise they have arrested and charged him, had him in court and he would have been remanded till a court appearance.

He will have been given a date to turn up at the police station for his bail, they will then either inform him there are no charges forthcoming and remove his bail conditions.

Or arrest him again then either charge him or possibly release him on bail again. However if they do release him on bail again there will be increased criticism of their investigative methods.

While they may not have sufficient evidence to charge him with anything at the moment, they are possibly hoping either he will incriminate himself whilst on bail, or more probably someone else will come forward and either confess or provide evidence against either him or someone else who committed the murder.

The pizza box, cider bottles could provide additional evidence against the perpetrator but are unlikely to be as crucial as has been made out by the press. Unless there are only two forensic samples on them (either DNA, fingerprints) and they are Joanna's and a suspect.

I have a feeling though while they do have some evidence against Jefferies, they have someone else in the frame for the murder.

At long last a posting on this debate site that is totally logical.
. Of interest the Lawyers acting on Jefferies behalf are based in Manchester and London.

[InOne]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...was-found.html

Wonder if this is legit or a sick joke

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by marney

You must really calm down dear. Now is that sentence to disjointed for you or would you like me to explain in more detail.

How droll.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by InOne

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...was-found.html

Wonder if this is legit or a sick joke

There are a lot of sick people out there (killers and not). Who knows - it could just be eejits thinking they are funny. It could also be the killer playing with the police. It's mental either way, that's for sure.

[JobsForTheBoys]

CCTV cameras on the Clifton Suspension bridge not working properly.

I bet if they were responsible for issuing speeding fines at £60 a time they would be properly maintained.

[Patrick]

No sign of Jo's pizza or packaging has been found.

Maybe the killer was hungry..?