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.

Jo Yeates murder Bristol, UK

Much publicity on this one. Strange case. Small area, narrow time frame. Camera coverage was pretty good and her destination and probable routes known. She had a cell phone with her and two different antenna arrays showed her travels.

After a flurry of publicity about the landlord, the cops have now settled on a Dutch citizen variously described as an architect or computer technician at the firm where Jo worked. It seems he is a specialist in the design of ergonomic work spaces.

No answer yet to the missing pizza mystery.

As an employee of the same firm would she have opened her door to him? Was he already inside the apartment when she came home? Or did he breach that common door?

Early reports are contradictory as to whether the suspect was then an immediate neighbor of the victim or whether he lived a few hundred yards distant. Some of the confusion may be due to the possibility that he broke up with his girlfriend just prior to the murder and this may have occasioned a geographical change. It seems that the anonymous call to the police was from the suspect's former girlfriend who is a financial analyst, however, she denies both the call and the break-up and affirmatively states she is standing by him. The suspects family members in Holland state he behaved normally on his Christmas visit and is a non-violent, honest man.

It seems the common doorway may have been a possible means of entry but I wonder how the police think the scene was too uncluttered for an assault to have taken place there. The police are forensically examining the slightly distant digs of a woman now on holiday in Chile. How would he have transported her to that location? Would he have been transporting her corpse or could she have merely been unconscious. It seems the traces of saliva indicate to the police an attempt at rape. Saliva on her breast does not prevent the attempted rape from being post-mortem but such things are not indicated by any other evidence and are generally rather rare.

Strange case and yet its a small geographic area with lots of cameras. Even the time of the initial attack seems to be now known due to reliable reports of screams and noise. A distinctively dressed victim who would show up on camera as well as being noted by passersby for her youth and beauty and yet the police had difficulty in tracing her path despite knowing her destination. A police belief in a third crime scene because her home is not sufficiently in disarray, yet some question as to both reason and manner of transportation. Was the perpetrator so forensically aware that he chose to transport her in a suitcase to the apartment of the woman now in Chile? An impulsive crime perhaps but one wherein the perpetrator kept calm and thought about evidence and the fact that he would be a prime suspect since he was a next door neighbor. I wonder if the common doorway was visible as such on each side of the common wall? Had some prior tenant placed decorations over the door making the victim not realize there was a point of potential entry?