Joanna Yeates -Body Now Found.

  • Thread starter Thread starter CT
  • Start date Start date
Oh don't you love a conspiracy theory?

Here's a fact: newpapers are in business to sell newspapers.

Here's a quote from someone in the media: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story".

The landlord looks slightly off normal: let's get out the electrodes, he'll confess eventually.
We don't need a confession - he doesn't conform to what's normal and thats enough :bat:
 
Oh don't you love a conspiracy theory?

Here's a fact: newpapers are in business to sell newspapers.

Here's a quote from someone in the media: "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story".

The landlord looks slightly off normal: let's get out the electrodes, he'll confess eventually.

Not long back from collecting my daily paper. Some wild headlines in some of the papers today. Totally OTT.
 
The killer was the last person to see her alive - Press speculation of that sort does more harm than good IMO...

In November 2009, I was the last person to see two people alive.
Wasn't me that killed them even though I was trying hard at the time...


That'll teach them for saying "I think your white balance is off a bit there, Rob" :naughty:
 
Not long back from collecting my daily paper. Some wild headlines in some of the papers today. Totally OTT.

Reminds me of some of the Raoul Moat articles. Most memorably a photo of a two month old Raoul with his hands curled with the tagline "...Baby Raoul clenches his fist". I do wonder if these 'journalists' really feel proud of their work?:cuckoo:
 
The cops arrest you on reasonable suspicion of an offence similar to this, seize your computer and find that you've been browsing porn sites, Some nobhead close to the enquiry tells his mate from the press for a few bob and it's all over the media. Then horror of horrors, it transpires you're a bit of a weirdo photographer given to photographing nude women,

You're already dead in the water in the eyes of the public, but then the press start nosing round and find a couple of your ex girl friends, who say they always thought there was something a bit odd about you.

You're eventually released without charge, but it's all over - you might as well just move house as far away as possible.
 
The cops arrest you on reasonable suspicion of an offence similar to this, seize your computer and find that you've been browsing porn sites, Some nobhead close to the enquiry tells his mate from the press for a few bob and it's all over the media. Then horror of horrors, it transpires you're a bit of a weirdo photographer given to photographing nude women,

You're already dead in the water in the eyes of the public, but then the press start nosing round and find a couple of your ex girl friends, who say they always thought there was something a bit odd about you.

You're eventually released without charge, but it's all over - you might as well just move house as far away as possible.


I've just been reading about a guy whose body was exhumed as the Police thought he was a serial killer The Daily Record tracked down his daughter in New Zealand and asked her how it felt to have a rapist and murderer for a father.

Once the DNA test was done it transpired the man was totally innocent.....
 
The cops arrest you on reasonable suspicion of an offence similar to this, seize your computer and find that you've been browsing porn sites, Some nobhead close to the enquiry tells his mate from the press for a few bob and it's all over the media. Then horror of horrors, it transpires you're a bit of a weirdo photographer given to photographing nude women,

You're already dead in the water in the eyes of the public, but then the press start nosing round and find a couple of your ex girl friends, who say they always thought there was something a bit odd about you.

You're eventually released without charge, but it's all over - you might as well just move house as far away as possible.

That is exactly what is in some of the papers today.
 
From the Daily Mirror...

*Were you taught by Chris Jefferies or do you know him? If so call our newsdesk free on 0800 282 591 or email mirrornews@mirror.co.uk"

Downright offensive, and this sort of press activity needs curbing IMHO.
 
I've just been reading about a guy whose body was exhumed as the Police thought he was a serial killer The Daily Record tracked down his daughter in New Zealand and asked her how it felt to have a rapist and murderer for a father.

Once the DNA test was done it transpired the man was totally innocent.....
DNA - biggest advance in forensics since fingerprinting and a good result there for the family.
 
:bonk:
That's a bit harsh.
AFAIK being a fan of dark and violent films doesn't make you a killer.

The police are doing their job and right now none of us know what evidence they may or may not have. Anything else is pure speculation at this stage.

I was simply employing the thought processes behind some of the statements already voiced in this thread.

Same as 'He looks the sort'. type statement made earlier.

How quick we are to judge.

And the fact that he has been arrested at this early stage in the investigations comes across to me more as a sign of desperation by the Police to appease the nation, rather than a certainty that they have the right man.

As has happened so oft before, he could easily be released without charge but with a permanent slur on his good name while the true offender sits and laughs.

THEN perhaps the Police will do the job properly rather than going for the easy option.

BUT, then again he might be guilty.

The latest 'Gossip' is that Mr Jeffries dared to help the boyfriend get his car going so that he could visit his family. Now that has turned against him as it is suggested that he had an ulterior motive for being helpful - Something, it would seem, that was part of his kind nature.

AND HERE is even MORE damning evidence.:bonk:

A PAEDOPHILE colleague of murder suspect Chris Jefferies abused a young boy at the flat where Jo lived.

Fellow public school teacher Stephen Johnston used to live below Jefferies in Flat 1 of the building in Bristol.

And from 1991 to 1994, Johnston sexually abused a pupil in the apartment Jo disappeared from. After Johnston’s arrest, police found hundreds of photographs of boys’ naked bottoms taken in the apartment.
 
Last edited:
I'm so glad my post hasn't come into question :lol:
 
"I did speak to the police and confirm my comb-over is real hair and i'm not prepared to comment further"
 
:bonk:

I was simply employing the thought processes behind some of the statements already voiced in this thread.

:lol: I know that Terry!
My response was aimed at the ones who made the statements, not you for quoting them.
(Not helped by the fact that the quotes from your thread didn't appear when I quoted it in my reply)
 
From the Daily Mirror...

*Were you taught by Chris Jefferies or do you know him? If so call our newsdesk free on 0800 282 591 or email mirrornews@mirror.co.uk"

Downright offensive, and this sort of press activity needs curbing IMHO.

Nothing the Mirror prints would surprise me! Earlier on in the year the thought it was tasteful to have the video of Shoya Tomizawa being tragically killed in Moto 2 race on their website. :bang:
 
For the most part we only have what the press are saying is fact.
BBC (and Sky) initially reported that the police had 96 hours to question the suspect.
BBC are now saying that it was 24 hours and it has been extended by a further 12 hours.

"A 12-hour extension - which will take police up until about 1900 GMT on Friday - was granted by a senior officer after the initial 24 hours to question him ran out."

Not that it's so relevant now, but we always have 24 hours in which to question a suspect, subject to their detention being required for that period.

After 24 hours, permission must be sought from a Superintendent to extend detention for up to 36 hours. This must also be justified and necessary.

After 36 hours, we go to a magistrate. These are more unusual for regular crimes, but not so uncommon in murder investigations. The magistrate can order detention without charge for a further 36 hours. Again, we must justify why a suspect cannot be released on bail, and show what the state of the investigation is, and what lines of enquiry are being pursued.

Finally, a warrant of detention can be further extended up to a maximum of 96 hours (for a total of four days in custody) by a magistrate, with all the same provisos as before. These are more unusual, but still not rare in murder cases. At the end of 96 hours, a suspect must be released - except in terrorism cases, which aren't relevant to discuss here.

The media has been reporting these routine procedures as sensational new developments in the case. I am, as you may know, a serving detective within the Metropolitan Police. I wholly assure you, they are nothing sensational and, despite the ridiculous media coverage - turning a real-life murder investigation into a circus - Avon & Somerset are going through absolutely normal processes. I have had to tune out of the press coverage, because I find it absolutely sickening.
 
Not that it's so relevant now, but we always have 24 hours in which to question a suspect, subject to their detention being required for that period.

After 24 hours, permission must be sought from a Superintendent to extend detention for up to 36 hours. This must also be justified and necessary.

After 36 hours, we go to a magistrate. These are more unusual for regular crimes, but not so uncommon in murder investigations. The magistrate can order detention without charge for a further 36 hours. Again, we must justify why a suspect cannot be released on bail, and show what the state of the investigation is, and what lines of enquiry are being pursued.

Finally, a warrant of detention can be further extended up to a maximum of 96 hours (for a total of four days in custody) by a magistrate, with all the same provisos as before. These are more unusual, but still not rare in murder cases. At the end of 96 hours, a suspect must be released - except in terrorism cases, which aren't relevant to discuss here.

The media has been reporting these routine procedures as sensational new developments in the case. I am, as you may know, a serving detective within the Metropolitan Police. I wholly assure you, they are nothing sensational and, despite the ridiculous media coverage - turning a real-life murder investigation into a circus - Avon & Somerset are going through absolutely normal processes. I have had to tune out of the press coverage, because I find it absolutely sickening.

Thanks - I made mention of it because it was another example of careless reporting.
The Attorney General has expressed concern about press coverage in the case.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12100015
 
...Avon & Somerset are going through absolutely normal processes...

Like I mentioned earlier: for them not to question at length a batchelor living in the same building with keys to her apartment would be pretty negligent...
 
News at Ten revealed he's been released on police bail. :shrug:
 
Well I'm not in the least bit surprised.

Poor b****r.
 
News at Ten revealed he's been released on police bail. :shrug:

Now, courtesy of the media, we have the impossible situation. It will be almost impossible - if he were charged - for him to have a fair trial, owing to the rampant press speculation, and if not, his life will almost certainly have been destroyed for the sake of some column inches.
 
Now, courtesy of the media, we have the impossible situation. It will be almost impossible - if he were charged - for him to have a fair trial, owing to the rampant press speculation, and if not, his life will almost certainly have been destroyed for the sake of some column inches.


I quite agree that the coverage has been an example of the gutter press at it's best, however the statement by A&S Police that they " did not believe there was an increased risk to the public" hasn't really helped quell the media frenzy.
 
Now, courtesy of the media, we have the impossible situation. It will be almost impossible - if he were charged - for him to have a fair trial, owing to the rampant press speculation, and if not, his life will almost certainly have been destroyed for the sake of some column inches.

I would like to think I could sit on a jury and reach a verdict on the basis of the evidence presented in court and not the rubbish peddled by much of the press.

You are, of course, correct about the effect on his life. Unless he goes into hiding he'll have the press camped on his doorstep (or on hydraulic platforms looking through telephoto lenses).

The other point not to be forgotten is where does the investigation go from here. Still is an unsolved murder.
 
Last edited:
Well? They haven't arrested the father yet - And he is a skinhead after all.

It would certainly not be the first time a father has appeared on TV, bleating his heart out, only to later found to be the perpetrater.

Ever heard of Fred West?

Seriously, apart from all else, that landlord will not only be hounded for a while but has lost his rent, has to find alternative accom and will probably have to take a big drop in the sale price of his flat (And the one above) if he wanted to move on, esp in a poor market.

(I appreciate that sort of thing aughtn't be considered at this sad time, but HE will have to).

Sadly, for plod, he will have to start looking into evidence rather than use speculation, and actually search out and FIND the killer - Not just pick on the nearest possible suspect because he is different.

As for the press, the outcome or the after effects of their dirty laundry finding, still sells copy and that is their job and they will ALWAYS do just that until prevented from doing so by a change in the rules.

And are we all not to blame too, as it is what WE feed upon, hence this thread still continuing.

Who BUYS the papers?
 
Sadly, for plod, he will have to start looking into evidence rather than use speculation, and actually search out and FIND the killer - Not just pick on the nearest possible suspect because he is different.

I would imagine that the criteria they used came to a bit more than 'he looks a bit funny', don't you...?

Like I've said - for them not to have questioned a batchelor living in the same building with keys to her flat and no confirmed alibi for his whereabouts at the time of her disappearance, would have been pretty negligent IMO...
 
Now, courtesy of the media, we have the impossible situation. It will be almost impossible - if he were charged - for him to have a fair trial, owing to the rampant press speculation, and if not, his life will almost certainly have been destroyed for the sake of some column inches.


A bit like Colin Stagg in that respect, although in his case the Met were equally guilty........
 
I hope they have more than circumstantial evidence - no alibi, looks a bit funny, could have been in the flat. Lack of alibi shouldn't really be that important as I would imagine that a murderer with half an ounce of sense would make sure they had an alibi at the time or perceived time of death.

Did notice one of the passing remarks of neighbours mentioned how fit and strong he was so you can see where the press is going with this.
 
I hope they have more than circumstantial evidence - no alibi, looks a bit funny, could have been in the flat. Lack of alibi shouldn't really be that important as I would imagine that a murderer with half an ounce of sense would make sure they had an alibi at the time or perceived time of death...

All possible suspects will be questioned.
Got to start somewhere, so it makes sense to start with the most obvious: i.e. someone in the right place at the right time with the opportunity to do the deed.
 
A bit like Colin Stagg in that respect, although in his case the Met were equally guilty........

That was completely different. An utterly disgraceful episode for my force (widely acknowledged) where officers decided "he must be responsible" and then went all out to ridiculous extremes to prove it. The saving grace is that that was nearly 20 years ago and - thankfully - things have significantly changed since then.

I fail to see any similarity with this case.
 
Well it's not the end of the matter for this guy, he's been bailed to return to a police station while enquiries continue - he's not out of the frame by any means. Strange though, that the police chose to proceed by arresting him at this very early stage and putting themselves under pressure unless they had some very tangible evidence or very pertinent points to put to him.

That apart, we should be grateful that we have a free press in this country, but sadly, they lack the good sense and restraint to regulate themselves. They're only too well aware of the provisions of the Contempt Of Court Act, but time and again they wilfully ignore it. No wonder the Attorney General is getting out of his pram - time for some pretty severe penalties imposed on the offending papers I think.
 
I would imagine that the criteria they used came to a bit more than 'he looks a bit funny', don't you...?

Like I've said - for them not to have questioned a batchelor living in the same building with keys to her flat and no confirmed alibi for his whereabouts at the time of her disappearance, would have been pretty negligent IMO...


That provides enough information to QUESTION him yes but we will never know what grounds they had to arrest him? They don't need much, it seems.

I think that the Police Force should be scrutenised a little more over who they charge with Rape & Murder and the reasons WHY, bearing in mind the lasting effects of such action which are greatly exacerbated by the actions of the media.


That was completely different. An utterly disgraceful episode for my force (widely acknowledged) where officers decided "he must be responsible" and then went all out to ridiculous extremes to prove it. The saving grace is that that was nearly 20 years ago and - thankfully - things have significantly changed since then.

I fail to see any similarity with this case.

There IS a similarity inasmuch as the freedom of the press is to blame in both cases.

If the Police force were allowed to do their job, in private, and not feeling that they must justify their every action, they would operate better.

They wouldn't feel the need, as in the Colin Stagg case (As this) to keep the media informed of progress.

They could interview and investigate the 1 - 20 or so suspects until they had enough evidence to charge and THEN the public would hear about it.

That is how it SHOULD be.
 
Last edited:
That was completely different. An utterly disgraceful episode for my force (widely acknowledged) where officers decided "he must be responsible" and then went all out to ridiculous extremes to prove it. The saving grace is that that was nearly 20 years ago and - thankfully - things have significantly changed since then.

I fail to see any similarity with this case.

Let me enlighten you then....

As you have rightly stated the Met decided Stagg was guilty despite not having any proof, Avon and Somerset, by comparison,issued a statement to the effect that there is no danger to the public from the killer of Joanna Yeates.

Surely the only way they can make such a statement is if they already know (or have decided they do, without evidence to back their case up) who the culprit is?

Also, if you cast your mind back, the media treatment of Jefferies also echoes that of Stagg, both have been held to be guilty of an horrendous crime, solely on the basis of being an eccentric loner.
 
There IS a similarity inasmuch as the freedom of the press is to blame in both cases.

If the Police force were allowed to do their job, in private, and not feeling that they must justify their every action, they would operate better.

They wouldn't feel the need, as in the Colin Stagg case (As this) to keep the media informed of progress.

They could interview and investigate the 1 - 20 or so suspects until they had enough evidence to charge and THEN the public would hear about it.

That is how it SHOULD be.

I might be tempted to agree with that, but we live in times of instant communication and a public right to know. I've had a lot to do with the press over the years, and I can tell you that generally speaking, they're not my favourite people as a group. I'm fortunate to remember a time when we routinely told the press b****r all, but used them when it was to our advantage in reaching out to the public.

Times have changed and all forces have press liaison and media offices these days They'd be severely censured for not keeping the press informed. In a nutshell, the press have it all their own way these days, but still lack the wit to show some restraint in what they publish.

I personally find it aggravating to watch some army officer in Iraq or Afghanistan, being chivvied and harassed by the press for every little detail of ongoing operations, but perhaps we wouldn't have lost 80,000 men in a single day on The Somme for a worthless tract of land which no strategic value whatsoever if those responsible at the time were subject to the media glare their modern counterparts are?

As far as Chris Jeffries is concerned, let's all keep sight of the fact that we don't know on what grounds he was arrested or what evidence the police have which might appear to implicate him outside of the obvious circumstantial evidence, so speculation about the rights or wrongs of the police action is pointless at this stage.
 
I might be tempted to agree with that, but we live in times of instant communication and a public right to know. I've had a lot to do with the press over the years, and I can tell you that generally speaking, they're not my favourite people as a group. I'm fortunate to remember a time when we routinely told the press b****r all, but used them when it was to our advantage in reaching out to the public.

Times have changed and all forces have press liaison and media offices these days They'd be severely censured for not keeping the press informed. In a nutshell, the press have it all their own way these days, but still lack the wit to show some restraint in what they publish.

I personally find it aggravating to watch some army officer in Iraq or Afghanistan, being chivvied and harassed by the press for every little detail of ongoing operations, but perhaps we wouldn't have lost 80,000 men in a single day on The Somme for a worthless tract of land which no strategic value whatsoever if those responsible at the time were subject to the media glare their modern counterparts are?

As far as Chris Jeffries is concerned, let's all keep sight of the fact that we don't know on what grounds he was arrested or what evidence the police have which might appear to implicate him outside of the obvious circumstantial evidence, so speculation about the rights or wrongs of the police action is pointless at this stage.

That is absolutely correct - well said:clap:
 
If he's been released on bail has he been formerly charged with her murder or with some other crime? Or haven't the police said at this point?
 
If he's been released on bail has he been formerly charged with her murder or with some other crime? Or haven't the police said at this point?
No he's not been charged with anything as yet. He's simply been bailed to return to a police station at some future date which will have been set.
 
He's hardly likely to have been charged with murder if he is trotting about on police bail, is he?
 
There's a subtle difference between police bail and that imposed/granted by the courts though!
 
Back
Top