ONE of our top retired detectives gives us his personal view of the murder case that has shocked Britain.
The death of Joanna Yeates has captured the imagination of the British public. It’s a classic murder mystery involving a beautiful young professional woman with no apparent motive.
Murder is not uncommon in our society but few cases touch the heart- strings like this one. Jo was reported missing before Christmas and police quickly realised they had a potential murder on their hands. The heart- wrenching press conference shows the true effects on the family of cases such as this. The public responds because they want to help and they rely on the police for a swift result.
Statistically the police are very good at solving murders and can generally show a detection rate in excess of 90 per cent. Most murders can be described as domestic and it is fairly obvious who the perpetrator is. The detection rate falls sharply when a stranger kills.
From the outset of this case the police have been unable to establish whether Jo was killed by someone she knew or a stranger. They cannot even say whether more than one person was involved. They also have no idea where she was killed. This is not a criticism – police can only go where the evidence leads them and at the moment they have no clear direction.
Evidence falls into the following categories: forensic, eye-witness, circumstantial, admission. Before the investigating officer can make sense of the evidence and information he must establish a clear motive.
In Jo’s case the motive is still unknown even after 22 days. She does not appear to have been sexually assaulted. She was not robbed. The cause of death was strangulation. She was a fit, healthy young woman and the absence of defence wounds leads one to believe she was overpowered by her assailant. This has all the hallmarks of a young man’s crime.
The police don’t know whether the attack happened in the street, in a vehicle, at her address or at another location. It seems unlikely that the attack occurred randomly in the street by a stranger. She could have been attacked in a vehicle – unlikely but possible. Should this be the case her attacker was probably known to her as she would not have got into a car with a stranger. On balance the most likely location is a dwelling, either hers or somebody else’s.
But this raises all sorts of questions. If she was attacked by a stranger in her home why was the body removed and left three miles away near a quarry? The risks involved in moving and disposing of a body are enormous and there seems no reason why the killer would do that, unless he had an ulterior motive of buying time and distancing himself from the murder scene. It is surprising more care was not taken in disposal – after all the offender had time and the initiative on his side. With more planning Jo may not have been found for weeks or perhaps not at all.
There is little doubt that a lot of planning and thought has gone in to this murder. Little evidence has been left and the killer has made best use of the limited windows of opportunity. This does not sound like a random prowler looking for a victim.
It is possible that somebody called at the flat or was already there and accompanied her to another location. The idea of this person being a stranger seems absurd because of the risks involved and the lack of a motive.
The police are convinced Jo went back to her apartment because her coat, purse and keys were found there. Jo’s parents visited the flat and felt she had been abducted although there were no apparent signs of a disturbance. She could have been tricked into leaving but this is unlikely to have been accomplished by a stranger.
What if she never made it to the apartment? Could the killer have returned her belongings to the flat? A crucial clue may be the receipt found in her purse for the pizza. The pizza and wrappings have not been found and it is possible the killer was unaware that Jo kept the receipt.
Jo’s body was found fully clothed apart from a missing sock. It has been suggested that the sock could have been used in her murder. The post-mortem will establish whether she was manually strangled or a ligature was used but a thick ski sock would make a poor ligature. It has been suggested the missing sock could have been taken as a trophy by a potential serial killer.
This is pure speculation and almost certainly wrong. There is no evidence that Jo’s murder is linked to any other – and a more personal item of clothing or jewellery is the usual target of the trophy collector.
It is probable the sock was accidentally mislaid as the body was being moved and it is likely to have been left in the vehicle used to move her. A passing fox could even have taken it while she lay in the open.
Apparently the police have been using a criminal psychologist to assist in profiling the offender. Profiling is not an exact science and at best it is a well-informed opinion based on experience and professional assessment. There is a value in going down this path but in this case there does not seem to be enough information to make an accurate profile.
So where does this leave the police? Clearly they are relying heavily on obtaining forensic evidence. The examination of Jo’s apartment has been intensive and is ongoing. They are looking for signs of a struggle, finger prints, DNA and any evidence that supports the conjecture she may have been killed at that location.
The latest equipment, including lasers for uncovering latent fingerprints, has been used, though if the killer was known to Jo his fingerprints and DNA could be legitimately at the scene. The front door has been removed for tests to establish whether an intruder could have gained access without Jo’s keys.
Every possibility is being considered, placing a huge burden on crime-scene analysts and forensic scientists. Because the pizza and wrappings have not been found more than 200 tons of domestic rubbish must be searched. The chances of finding the items are remote and evidentially it is likely to be of limited value but it has to be done. While keeping an open mind to all possibilities police will be focusing on the most likely scenario. Killing by a stranger cannot be ruled out but they will look into Jo’s social life and background. This may not be easy because many young people have complicated lives through social networking sites.
The police are working flat out and under tremendous pressure to get a positive result. They desperately need a lucky break. Unsolved murders don’t happen because the police don’t care, sometimes the evidence is just not there and that is every copper’s nightmare. It is beginning to look as though there won’t be a quick result and the police could be in for a long haul.
In the UK there is a massive antipathy to law enforcement agencies using polygraph equipment. I personally think lie detectors should be available and one can certainly see their value in cases like this. The police have bent over backwards to accommodate the media and have kept them regularly updated. Sometimes they give too much information which is often of doubtful value. The media can be a double-headed weapon and what begins as apparent support can quickly change into criticism.
Mistakes are always made in murder hunts, particularly if a decision has to be made about arresting a suspect. Going in too soon means you show your hand and alert the suspect, perhaps losing the chance of finding further evidence. Keeping your powder dry and delaying an arrest might mean losing vital opportunities. If the police get it wrong they are vilified, get it right and they are hailed as geniuses.
The handling of the arrest of Chris Jefferies has raised a few eyebrows among former murder squad detectives. There was clearly a need for him to be interviewed because of conflicting accounts of what he may have seen. Asking him to attend the police station rather than a dramatic dawn arrest would seem to have been a preferable option. Publicity surrounding his arrest led to a media frenzy, with every aspect of his professional and personal life probed. Whatever happened to the standard police response “A man is helping us with our inquiries”? In the long run police may find themselves liable for compensation.
There is no doubt that the police involved in this investigation are as good as any of their counterparts up and down the country. I am confident that they will solve this case and the answer will probably be tragic, simple and obvious.
Murder is not uncommon in our society but few cases touch the heart- strings like this one. Jo was reported missing before Christmas and police quickly realised they had a potential murder on their hands. The heart- wrenching press conference shows the true effects on the family of cases such as this. The public responds because they want to help and they rely on the police for a swift result.
Statistically the police are very good at solving murders and can generally show a detection rate in excess of 90 per cent. Most murders can be described as domestic and it is fairly obvious who the perpetrator is. The detection rate falls sharply when a stranger kills.
From the outset of this case the police have been unable to establish whether Jo was killed by someone she knew or a stranger. They cannot even say whether more than one person was involved. They also have no idea where she was killed. This is not a criticism – police can only go where the evidence leads them and at the moment they have no clear direction.
Evidence falls into the following categories: forensic, eye-witness, circumstantial, admission. Before the investigating officer can make sense of the evidence and information he must establish a clear motive.
In Jo’s case the motive is still unknown even after 22 days. She does not appear to have been sexually assaulted. She was not robbed. The cause of death was strangulation. She was a fit, healthy young woman and the absence of defence wounds leads one to believe she was overpowered by her assailant. This has all the hallmarks of a young man’s crime.
The police don’t know whether the attack happened in the street, in a vehicle, at her address or at another location. It seems unlikely that the attack occurred randomly in the street by a stranger. She could have been attacked in a vehicle – unlikely but possible. Should this be the case her attacker was probably known to her as she would not have got into a car with a stranger. On balance the most likely location is a dwelling, either hers or somebody else’s.
But this raises all sorts of questions. If she was attacked by a stranger in her home why was the body removed and left three miles away near a quarry? The risks involved in moving and disposing of a body are enormous and there seems no reason why the killer would do that, unless he had an ulterior motive of buying time and distancing himself from the murder scene. It is surprising more care was not taken in disposal – after all the offender had time and the initiative on his side. With more planning Jo may not have been found for weeks or perhaps not at all.
There is little doubt that a lot of planning and thought has gone in to this murder. Little evidence has been left and the killer has made best use of the limited windows of opportunity. This does not sound like a random prowler looking for a victim.
It is possible that somebody called at the flat or was already there and accompanied her to another location. The idea of this person being a stranger seems absurd because of the risks involved and the lack of a motive.
The police are convinced Jo went back to her apartment because her coat, purse and keys were found there. Jo’s parents visited the flat and felt she had been abducted although there were no apparent signs of a disturbance. She could have been tricked into leaving but this is unlikely to have been accomplished by a stranger.
What if she never made it to the apartment? Could the killer have returned her belongings to the flat? A crucial clue may be the receipt found in her purse for the pizza. The pizza and wrappings have not been found and it is possible the killer was unaware that Jo kept the receipt.
Jo’s body was found fully clothed apart from a missing sock. It has been suggested that the sock could have been used in her murder. The post-mortem will establish whether she was manually strangled or a ligature was used but a thick ski sock would make a poor ligature. It has been suggested the missing sock could have been taken as a trophy by a potential serial killer.
This is pure speculation and almost certainly wrong. There is no evidence that Jo’s murder is linked to any other – and a more personal item of clothing or jewellery is the usual target of the trophy collector.
It is probable the sock was accidentally mislaid as the body was being moved and it is likely to have been left in the vehicle used to move her. A passing fox could even have taken it while she lay in the open.
Apparently the police have been using a criminal psychologist to assist in profiling the offender. Profiling is not an exact science and at best it is a well-informed opinion based on experience and professional assessment. There is a value in going down this path but in this case there does not seem to be enough information to make an accurate profile.
So where does this leave the police? Clearly they are relying heavily on obtaining forensic evidence. The examination of Jo’s apartment has been intensive and is ongoing. They are looking for signs of a struggle, finger prints, DNA and any evidence that supports the conjecture she may have been killed at that location.
The latest equipment, including lasers for uncovering latent fingerprints, has been used, though if the killer was known to Jo his fingerprints and DNA could be legitimately at the scene. The front door has been removed for tests to establish whether an intruder could have gained access without Jo’s keys.
Every possibility is being considered, placing a huge burden on crime-scene analysts and forensic scientists. Because the pizza and wrappings have not been found more than 200 tons of domestic rubbish must be searched. The chances of finding the items are remote and evidentially it is likely to be of limited value but it has to be done. While keeping an open mind to all possibilities police will be focusing on the most likely scenario. Killing by a stranger cannot be ruled out but they will look into Jo’s social life and background. This may not be easy because many young people have complicated lives through social networking sites.
The police are working flat out and under tremendous pressure to get a positive result. They desperately need a lucky break. Unsolved murders don’t happen because the police don’t care, sometimes the evidence is just not there and that is every copper’s nightmare. It is beginning to look as though there won’t be a quick result and the police could be in for a long haul.
In the UK there is a massive antipathy to law enforcement agencies using polygraph equipment. I personally think lie detectors should be available and one can certainly see their value in cases like this. The police have bent over backwards to accommodate the media and have kept them regularly updated. Sometimes they give too much information which is often of doubtful value. The media can be a double-headed weapon and what begins as apparent support can quickly change into criticism.
Mistakes are always made in murder hunts, particularly if a decision has to be made about arresting a suspect. Going in too soon means you show your hand and alert the suspect, perhaps losing the chance of finding further evidence. Keeping your powder dry and delaying an arrest might mean losing vital opportunities. If the police get it wrong they are vilified, get it right and they are hailed as geniuses.
The handling of the arrest of Chris Jefferies has raised a few eyebrows among former murder squad detectives. There was clearly a need for him to be interviewed because of conflicting accounts of what he may have seen. Asking him to attend the police station rather than a dramatic dawn arrest would seem to have been a preferable option. Publicity surrounding his arrest led to a media frenzy, with every aspect of his professional and personal life probed. Whatever happened to the standard police response “A man is helping us with our inquiries”? In the long run police may find themselves liable for compensation.
There is no doubt that the police involved in this investigation are as good as any of their counterparts up and down the country. I am confident that they will solve this case and the answer will probably be tragic, simple and obvious.
 | SEARCH for: |
Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/221838/Joanna-Yeates-The-crucial-questionsJoanna-Yeates-The-crucial-questions#ixzz1AvkG9iI6
