[InOne]

*double post*

[InOne]

Stangled with her sock, suggests the killer had some kind of sexual kink then.

[mrscolumbo]

Apparently Mr Jefferies is about to be released of all charges linking him to Joanna's murder and is considering legal action against A & S constabulary & the media - good luck to the man I say.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by mrscolumbo

Apparently Mr Jefferies is about to be released of all charges linking him to Joanna's murder and is considering legal action against A & S constabulary & the media - good luck to the man I say.

He doesn't have a case against the Police since they are perfectly entitled to detain anyone if they have the slightest suspicion of their involvement in a murder. They did absolutely nothing wrong.

However, he does have a strong case against the newspapers that ran scurrilous stories about him and against the individuals who slandered him. I would take them all to court.

[icemaiden]

If Joanna's body was been carried DNA would be all over whoever was carrying her

So it might be possible that her sock came off as her body was been dragged by the feet somewhere?

...or if she was been dragged by one foot (she was small and light) and then sock discarded due to DNA.

[InOne]

Quater of a million people have now clicked on the facebook add to encourage people to people to come forward according to news beat. Can someone tell me how this helps and why this is all they're saying about it. Also the the police assure us they will catch the killer. Right...

[arista]

Jo Yeates Murder: Landlord 'May Sue Police'

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-..._-_Sky_Sources


So CJ may have a go at the Police.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by arista

Jo Yeates Murder: Landlord 'May Sue Police'

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-..._-_Sky_Sources


So CJ may have a go at the Police.

Police have the right to arrest any suspect and detain them lawfully for the prescribed times, and he gave them enough reason to be suspicious so he has no case, unless he is going to allege police brutality or some such twaddle! Imagine if every released suspect started suing the police, it would undermine the whole justice system.

[mrscolumbo]

Blimey 1/4 million hits and counting on the facebook page - well if the police or profiler are hoping to find the answer to the murder there we could well be into another new year and beyond!

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by angus58

he gave them enough reason to be suspicious

Please explain how?

[Fronn]

Yep - cant see what on earth Facebook is going to achieve apart from attracting the curious. Regarding the sock, I'm not sure why this wasn't revealed at the start (perhaps they were hoping to find it in the flat). It may have been found by anyone in the meantime and discarded/recycled etc. They must have some idea if strangulation was with hands or a ligature such as a sock, surely distinctive marks are left?? Why dont they bring in the coppers who caught Steve Wright in Ipswich, they seemed to have forensic evience aplenty. Just hope the Bristol bloke's not planning a serial spree like Wright cos it looks like he'd have a free rein on current form.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

Please explain how?

He dithered about the statements he made to his neighbours, changing his story depending who was asking him; he was the only one who DEFINITELY had a key to Joanna's apartment, he lived in the same building, and was by his own admission present in the building the night that Joanna disappeared. Any more questions?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by angus58

He dithered about the statements he made to his neighbours, changing his story depending who was askign him; he was the only one who DEFINITELY had a key to Joanna's apartment and he lived in the same building, and was by his own admission present in the building the night that Joanna disappeared. Any more questions?

We don't know what he actually told the police, and we only know what the neighbour 'recalls' (which may not have been precisely what CJ said).

Errrr.... Greg also would have had a key given that they shared the flat.

Another neighbour may have had a key, a friend of theirs, a family member, as well as possibly any previous tenant if the locks weren't changed over during tenancy changes. We don't know who may or may not have had keys -it is an assumption to say that the only one who definately had a key was CJ. Joanna could have given a copy key to a.n.other and not even told Greg for all any of us know.

I also go along with Fronn (Hello btw!). I cannot for the life of me, understand why the police have a sock that Joanna was wearing, but cannot determine whether it was used to strangle her - marks on the external skin from the friction of the fabric/fibres, damage to internal tissue at point of strangulation surely could be determined. I really am finding this hard to believe that the police have an item such as the remaining sock - yet after all this time, cannot say whether the 'missing one' would have been used.

I honestly am beginning to doubt the abilities of the forensics team and their level of expertise in this case, I really am.

One sock on Joanna, one missing - yet cannot yet determine if murder weapon or not.

A missing pizza and box that could have simply have been eaten and disposed.

Arresting a man with so little evidence so far that they have not enough to charge him.

Don't know if they are looking for a killer or killers.

Changing their mind to it probably being someone who knew joanna, to now not ruling out a burglar, random or a premeditated act.
It's not looking good, that's for sure.

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by angus58

He dithered about the statements he made to his neighbours, changing his story depending who was asking him; he was the only one who DEFINITELY had a key to Joanna's apartment, he lived in the same building, and was by his own admission present in the building the night that Joanna disappeared. Any more questions?

So what crime did he commit to get arrested?

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

We don't know what he actually told the police, and we only know what the neighbour 'recalls' (which may not have been precisely what CJ said).

Errrr.... Greg also would have had a key given that they shared the flat.

Another neighbour may have had a key, a friend of theirs, a family member, as well as possibly any previous tenant if the locks weren't changed over during tenancy changes. We don't know who may or may not have had keys -it is an assumption to say that the only one who definately had a key was CJ. Joanna could have given a copy key to a.n.other and not even told Greg for all any of us know.

I also go along with Fronn (Hello btw!). I cannot for the life of me, understand why the police have a sock that Joanna was wearing, but cannot determine whether it was used to strangle her - marks on the external skin from the friction of the fabric/fibres, damage to internal tissue at point of strangulation surely could be determined. I really am finding this hard to believe that the police have an item such as the remaining sock - yet after all this time, cannot say whether the 'missing one' would have been used.

I honestly am beginning to doubt the abilities of the forensics team and their level of expertise in this case, I really am.

One sock on Joanna, one missing - yet cannot yet determine if murder weapon or not.

A missing pizza and box that could have simply have been eaten and disposed.

Arresting a man with so little evidence so far that they have not enough to charge him.

Don't know if they are looking for a killer or killers.

It's not looking good, that's for sure.

How ya doing Miss Marple?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

How ya doing Miss Marple?

Cheeky buggar!! (Wish there was a 'two fingered humorous salute smilie! ) I guess I'm the 'anti Miss Marple' - I'm doing the oppositte in a way !

[Angus]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

So what crime did he commit to get arrested?

He was taken in for questioning, and released within the prescribed timeframe. You don't have to have committed a crime, only be SUSPECTED of committing a crime. It's not the police who have blackened his name, but the media.

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by angus58

He was taken in for questioning, and released within the prescribed timeframe. You don't have to have committed a crime, only be SUSPECTED of committing a crime. It's not the police who have blackened his name, but the media.

More like the police were under pressure from the media and the public to make an arrest and he seemed like an easy target.

[Angus]

Pyramid, I am merely saying that the police had sufficient justification to take him in for questioning and they are perfectly within their scope of power to do so - he was detained within the prescribed time limits then released. Of course her BF had a key but presumably his alibi was watertight, whereas the Landlord's was not.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by JobsForTheBoys

More like the police were under pressure from the media and the public to make an arrest and he seemed like an easy target.

Very likely, but I am pointing out that the police were acting entirely within their scope of power and if they had any suspicions whatsoever they would be remiss NOT to have questioned him, so what exactly is your point? That the police should not be able to take someone in for questioning if there is any suspicion of that person's involvement in a crime as serious as murder? I am confident that the Police have no case to answer, but media certainly does.

[JobsForTheBoys]

Originally Posted by angus58

Very likely, but I am pointing out that the police were acting entirely within their scope of power and if they had any suspicions whatsoever they would be remiss NOT to have questioned him, so what exactly is your point? That the police should not be able to take someone in for questioning if there is any suspicion of that person's involvement in a crime as serious as murder? I am confident that the Police have no case to answer, but media certainly does.

They could have asked him to come to the station of his own free will (I'm sure he would have obliged) to answer their questions or even questioned him in his own home.

But I suppose an arrest sounds better. Makes them look like they are doing their job doesnt it?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by angus58

Pyramid, I am merely saying that the police had sufficient justification to take him in for questioning and they are perfectly within their scope of power to do so - he was detained within the prescribed time limits then released. Of course her BF had a key but presumably his alibi was watertight, whereas the Landlord's was not.

I don't believe I suggested they didn't have sufficient justification,nor that the police weren't within their scope of power to do so Angus. What I did say was that they have not any enough evidence to charge the man. Being a suspect doesn't mean the person is guilty.

Being on the property, having a key to the flat, not having a good enough alibi other than possibly being in on his own that fatal night - might simply have been enough for the police to bring him in for questioning, given that they clearly have not a clue what or who they are looking for, can't determine a murder weapon, where it happened, when, if she ate the pizza or not, was it a burglary or not.

As I say, it's assumption only that Joanna herself did not have a copy of a key made and gave to someone that Greg was unaware of. For all we know, Greg could have had a key made and gave it to a.n.other to do the dirty deed.... No one knows, therefore that too, reamains a possibility -no matter how slim.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I don't believe I suggested they didn't have sufficient justification,nor that the police weren't within their scope of power to do so Angus. What I did say was that they have not any enough evidence to charge the man. Being a suspect doesn't mean the person is guilty.

Being on the property, having a key to the flat, not having a good enough alibi other than possibly being in on his own that fatal night - might simply have been enough for the police to bring him in for questioning, given that they clearly have not a clue what or who they are looking for, can't determine a murder weapon, where it happened, when, if she ate the pizza or not, was it a burglary or not.

As I say, it's assumption only that Joanna herself did not have a copy of a key made and gave to someone that Greg was unaware of. For all we know, Greg could have had a key made and gave it to a.n.other to do the dirty deed.... No one knows, therefore that too, reamains a possibility -no matter how slim.

Somehow I think we're talking at cross purposes here - in response to Arista's post that he was contemplating suing the police, I originally stated that he has no case against the police since they were perfectly within their rights to arrest him with sufficient, albeit circumstantial, suspicions and question him within a prescribed time limit. He has been released without charge after their investigations, so he has no case against them. He has no basis to sue for "wrongful arrest".

The scurrilous media campaign against him - now that's a different story. I hope he sues the pants off them, and all the individuals who crawled out of the woodwork to put the boot in.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by angus58

Somehow I think we're talking at cross purposes here - in response to Arista's post that he was contemplating suing the police, I originally stated that he has no case against the police since they were perfectly within their rights to arrest him with sufficient, albeit circumstantial, suspicions and question him within a prescribed time limit. He has been released without charge after their investigations, so he has no case against them. He has no basis to sue for "wrongful arrest".

The scurrilous media campaign against him - now that's a different story. I hope he sues the pants off them, and all the individuals who crawled out of the woodwork to put the boot in.

Cross purposes - maybes aye, maybes no !!

I read that he was looking at the view of suing for wrongful arrest - I would imagine that his lawyers will be advising him in respect of what precisely constitues. As only he, the police and his lawyers will be aware if they did in fact have 'reasonable grounds' for his arrest. The police may have a lot more under their belt that just him being the landlord and having a key: they may not. The police may feel they had sufficient grounds, clearly CJ thinks otherwise - and perhaps so too, will his legal team? Only time will tell on that matter.

]
Wrongful Arrest (nicked from google)
Otherwise known as unlawful arrest and detention may result in damages payable to the victim for false imprisonment. If the police have acted outside their legitimate powers by detaining someone who has not been subjected to a lawful arrest and interfered with that persons liberty, the police officer may be acting outside the scope of his duty. When making an arrest, a police officer must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence is being committed, or is about to be committed and if an arrest is made outside these grounds then a police officer will have acted outside his legal powers and may well be liable to pay damages for false imprisonment.

With regards to the way he was portrayed and libelled by the media, and slandered by some others - if he is indeed innocent - I'd be doing all I could to sue those responsible for blackening my name in the way the did with CJ.

[Angus]

I am 100% confident that he will not win any action against the police for "wrongful arrest".