eFestivals Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 He was held for three days, which means a magistrate had to allow that. The magistrate who is privy to all the information in the case (unlike you or me), including his statement, must have thought there were reasonable grounds for an arrest in the first place to provide an extension. You're factually wrong, and hugely over-stating the part that a magistrate plays in that process. The magistrate does NOT get to see all of the info, they get a short presentation by the old bill for why the old bill should keep him arrested longer. The old bill essentially say "we think he might have done it, and if we're given longer we'll be more likely to know", and that's about it. The grounds for his arrest were only ever "we think he might have done it". There was no evidence that he might have, just some things which suggested to some people (thick-as-pigshit coppers ) that he might have - but with the absence of a decent suspect and him being merely a possible being what was driving them. In the absence of a decent suspect they'll arrest any suspect for a high profile crime like this. The extension is there so the old bill can try to collect some evidence, not because they already have some. It's exceedingly likely that the extension was granted only on the basis that it would be more hours until the results of some forensic tests were available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brighteyes Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I've been confused ever since the case broke in the media as to why the media were giving it so, so much attention. Obviously it's awful, but the other day on the BBC website I saw a story called 'Jo did not eat pizza'. Is it just because she's a pretty, successful, white girl? But yes, the Mail really is a horrific piece of crap which makes me quite angry about a large portion of this country, who are, in two words, useless dicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sifi Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I've been confused ever since the case broke in the media as to why the media were giving it so, so much attention. Obviously it's awful, but the other day on the BBC website I saw a story called 'Jo did not eat pizza'. Is it just because she's a pretty, successful, white girl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brighteyes Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 I thought she was a gardener? Not to say that gardeners aren't successful. One of my childhood heroes was Percy Thrower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed209 Posted January 20, 2011 Report Share Posted January 20, 2011 You're factually wrong, and hugely over-stating the part that a magistrate plays in that process. The magistrate does NOT get to see all of the info, they get a short presentation by the old bill for why the old bill should keep him arrested longer. The old bill essentially say "we think he might have done it, and if we're given longer we'll be more likely to know", and that's about it. The grounds for his arrest were only ever "we think he might have done it". There was no evidence that he might have, just some things which suggested to some people (thick-as-pigshit coppers ) that he might have - but with the absence of a decent suspect and him being merely a possible being what was driving them. In the absence of a decent suspect they'll arrest any suspect for a high profile crime like this. The extension is there so the old bill can try to collect some evidence, not because they already have some. It's exceedingly likely that the extension was granted only on the basis that it would be more hours until the results of some forensic tests were available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I've been confused ever since the case broke in the media as to why the media were giving it so, so much attention. Obviously it's awful, but the other day on the BBC website I saw a story called 'Jo did not eat pizza'. Is it just because she's a pretty, successful, white girl? it's a common and known phenomenon that's called 'missing white girl syndrome'. Two other women of similar-ish age went missing in unusual circumstances that same weekend (with one, a black girl, not found until long after Jo's body). They got almost no press for their disappearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 it's a common and known phenomenon that's called 'missing white girl syndrome'. Two other women of similar-ish age went missing in unusual circumstances that same weekend (with one, a black girl, not found until long after Jo's body). They got almost no press for their disappearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 OK, I thought the magistrate was given more information than that. But arresting someone is only ever "we think he might have done it". That's why they arrest on suspicion of the crime. This allowed them to collect the forensic evidence and then eliminated him from his enquiries. I feel sorry for the guy, but you don't know what he told the police. If he really did mess up his statement with regards to that very key piece of information, then he's an idiot and deserved to be arrested. I don't know what he told the police, nope. And nor do you. In fact, it sounds like even the old bill didn't know. But it was widely reported at the time of his arrest that he'd been telling neighbours since her disappearance that he *might* have seen her on that night. He repeated that 'might' to the TV cameras. If it's true that he told the old bill that he 'definitely' saw her, and that discrepancy is what caused him to be arrested, then it makes the old bill look even thicker than I'd said - because those other neighbours had repeated to the old bill what the landlord had been saying many days before he said it to a TV camera which then caused his arrest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 i know, who picks and chooses? it's obvious isn't it? The 'establishment-run white-controlled media, who love to have a pretty face (by default, white of course ) on screen or in their papers, who matches their own 'middle class ideas. Exactly the same thing happened with the disappearance of Maddie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jump Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/21/jo-yeates-murder-vincent-tabak-friends-stunned-by-his-arrest-115875-22864361/ I've just read this... Last night, as detectives continued to quiz Tabak over the killing, it emerged the Mirror had tried to speak to him soon after Jo’s body was discovered. When asked to comment on the case he immediately hung up. Edited January 21, 2011 by jump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LusciousLucy Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Ah, it's just occurred to me that Liz Jones is that bint that wrote this hilarious article about Glastonbury http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1030641/So-DID-fashionista-LIZ-JONES-survive-Glastonbury.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eFestivals Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/21/jo-yeates-murder-vincent-tabak-friends-stunned-by-his-arrest-115875-22864361/ I've just read this... The landlord was 'guilty' because he talked to the press, and now this Dutch lad is being labelled as 'guilty' by the Mirror because he wouldn't talk to the press. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 it's obvious isn't it? The 'establishment-run white-controlled media, who love to have a pretty face (by default, white of course ) on screen or in their papers, who matches their own 'middle class ideas. Exactly the same thing happened with the disappearance of Maddie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyhack Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 yeah i know, but there's so many that will happen. to plenty of pretty white faces. would be interesting to see the decisions made with why some are made a big deal of and others getting little or no coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modey Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 so, it was the next door neighbour all along...good work by the police Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 so, it was the next door neighbour all along...good work by the police Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brighteyes Posted January 22, 2011 Report Share Posted January 22, 2011 so, it was the next door neighbour all along...good work by the police Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLittleFish Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 This is just f**king sick Snobbishness over peoples gravesites? What the holy f**k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t8yman Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 This is just f**king sick Snobbishness over peoples gravesites? What the holy f**k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachbon Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 (edited) no one has the right to judge anyone for the way they grieve or the way they want to remember someone's life. i personally wouldn't decorate someone's grave they way they have in some of those pictures, but if that's what people want to do and if it gives them a bit of comfort, then surely it's a good thing? Edited February 5, 2011 by _rachelbon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t8yman Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Ive now read the article, and think she's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLittleFish Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Thing is, a photographer has been sent into a cemetary with the objective to photograph sites that no doubt people can have a good sneer at - the whole thing is just f**king sick. There's no other word for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t8yman Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 I think you will find that the pictures are credited to many different agencies. Its hardly as if the Mail commisioned an article to point and laugh (on this occasion). although I wouldnt normally put that past them. cant believe I am kinda defending the Daily Mail there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brighteyes Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Personally I think most of those pictures are creepy as f**k. I don't find the article particularly snobbish though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted February 5, 2011 Report Share Posted February 5, 2011 Personally I think most of those pictures are creepy as f**k. I don't find the article particularly snobbish though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.