We don't seem to know much about activity between December 17th, when Jo went missing and Christmas Day when her body was discovered, but then a 'missing person' enquiry will always be lower profile than that of a murder. However, we do know that the police didn't check with neighbours who had CCTV cameras until after the body was found and that at least one over-writes itself every 4 days. We have heard that a massive search for the box of the pizza she bought was under way, but only that it 'might contain vital evidence' though not why. The search didn't seem important though until the day after the bins were emptied. A press conference was held during which nothing of substance was revealed (it couldn't be, there isn't anything) but the lead officer in the enquiry, DCI Phil Jones droned on at length about how hard his men were working on it. So it seems that was what it was about, a PR puff on behalf of the police. It would be nice if they stayed focused on what is important; a girls murder and worried less about their image.
We were told soon after the body was found that she was fully clothed and there was no sign of a sexual assault. Now we are told a sock and some other items of clothing were missing and she may have been sexually assaulted. I fully support the notion that, in private, in the confines of their offices the police should discuss and consider any possibilities. But what we seem to have with A&S police is a force publicly leaping from theory to theory and randomly releasing snippets of information. The pizza box. Was it sinister that it was 'missing' or did Jo cook it and eat it throwing the box away, to be collected by the binmen before officers started looking for it? Did the autopsy not reveal whether or not a pizza was her last meal, or have the police omitted to check? On current form, the latter doesn't seem unlikely unfortunately.
I don't think there is any doubt that the killer took the body by car for disposal. That meant that this was unobserved as she was placed in the car in an urban street, or persuaded to enter a vehicle and killed elsewhere. But the former is more likely I feel as the place she was left is interesting. If you go West from Clifton, you come to the A4 running North/South, a fast route for escape but public, what if you were stopped? The other side of the A4 is Leigh Woods, which you may feel a likely spot to get rid of the body, but it is skirted by the A369 that may still be too busy. If you want to stick to B roads and lanes then Longwood Lane, where Jo was found is one of the first you naturally come across. To me, without a clear sexual motive or one of robbery, it seems likely to have been a spur of the moment altercation that led to a killing and the rapid disposal of the body.
It snowed the next day and so the body was covered and the cold would not aid discerning a time of death. Which is why stomach contents I think are of great importance. I would want to know whether she would normally buy such a pizza to eat by herself and whether two bottles of cider were her preferred tipple. Would she normally, to buy such a limited range of things visit Waitrose, Tesco and Bargain Booze? It seems quite a trawl to acquire so few items.
I am also fascinated by the speculation that she may have been abducted whilst collecting her post. This, we are led to believe she would have done with only socks on and no coat, despite requiring a journey around the outside of the building. Her boots and coat we can now be told were not on the body but were 'found at the flat'. Or maybe the police have only just realised.
The suggestion that their investigation was being led by people who perhaps lack a little something did, of course, seed itself in our minds when the landlord was arrested. Whilst he could have let himself into her flat (there was no sign of forced entry) and he had given 'contradictory' statements to the police, this seems thin ground indeed on which to arrest someone for murder. Particularly if the arrested is a slight, 65 year old who has apparently strangled a fit 25 year female. I mentioned earlier that there was no sign of forced entry and yet, in one of their public musings the police speculated that someone could indeed have effected a forced entry. Well, as the initial suggestion was that forced entry meant 'breaking in' it would be unhelpful in the extreme if the police were now using the phrase to also mean 'pushing their way in' once a door had been opened. Otherwise, if there still isn't any sign of forced entry, then there wasn't a forced entry and to now bring it up suggests a degree of confusion in the minds of those leading this investigation that we would ever hope was absent.
The important thing here is that the killer or killers of Jo Yeates should be found and then hope against hope that a judge thinks murder is a crime worthy of being taken seriously. It is a problem though that, yet again in a major operation senior police officers are appearing on our screens who give little or no confidence in their abilities. We must hope the police actually doing the legwork haven't been drinking from the same source.
No comments:
Post a Comment