Jo Yeates Murder Case. Trial evidence.

This was a strange case. A very young and attractive female whose movements were confined to a narrow time frame and a geographically limited area containing intensive surveillance camera coverage. Although some items became of particular interest only after the initial reports it appears that the Avon and Somerset Constabulary made some very significant errors early on in the case.

The boyfriend who returned from his out-of-town family visit reported what was essentially a missing persons case but which clearly had overtones of missing under highly unusual circumstances indicative of violence since she was missing from her apartment yet her coat and cell phone were in the living room indicating at the very least an abrupt departure and most likely indicating an involuntary departure.

It seems that the police made two crucial errors. They did not empty the trash bins in the immediate area and thus failed to discover a pizza box that was in the killer's trash bin. It was sometime after the crime was reported that surveillance film revealed her purchasing the pizza. It also seems that the police concluded virtually immediately that the apartment was too neat to have been the scene of a violent struggle. Later evidence indicated a series of screams and the sound of a brief struggle took place promptly after her entry into her home and the presumed inadvertent discovery of her next door neighbor's presence in her apartment.

In any situation such as this any situation involving a hasty departure is to be explored. A neighbor stopping over for a moment, a knock on the door that is a ruse, or anything else wherein the missing woman's evening is suddenly interrupted by a person who is known to her and perceived as non-threatening. Similarly, any telephone message or answering machine message or notepad in the area is normally explored for any indication of a reason why she might have made an abrupt departure from home but left behind her cell phone and coat on a cold night.

All manner of garbage bins inside the home and in the general area would normally be investigated. Weapons, clothing, blood, anything someone had an urgent need to dispose of may at trial become crucial evidence. These are customary steps and hardly need explaining.

As yet unreported in the press, the ability of the Dutch engineer to enter via a common door in a refurbished wall is of unknown ease and the presence of that door is unknown to someone viewing the wall from the victim's flat.

The victim's landlord who was briefly of interest in the case mainly due to his eccentric reputation will be giving evidence in the separate phone hacking inquiry.

ADDENDUM: So far the trial has been the usual cowardly stance of She let me in, I misinterpreted her signals and never having had any intent to rape or kill simply panicked and tried to keep her quiet thus making it manslaughter not murder. Of course after this sudden panic he quietly ate a pizza and disposed of her corpse.
I do so hope the jury sees through all that utter nonsense and makes it premeditated murder with malice aforethought.
It seems that 10 out of the 12 jurors did see it as premeditated murder. The sentence is life with a mandatory 20 years in custody.
As is often the case, there was a post-conviction revelation of the defendant having had dozens of images of women being strangled on his computer.