Author Topic: Forensics  (Read 2117 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: Forensics
« Reply #105 on: May 19, 2017, 03:53:27 PM »
Leonora... I know that you have questioned who the woman in the Purple coat is before... And i think she is something to do with the investigation and at this point I haven't discovered...

But for a while now, I have wondered who the guy in the red coat is... The Photograph of him that i have attached isn't the best one and he's stood with the woman in the purple coat... But somewhere i have seen an images of him and another woman stood in the same area and at present can't find it....

But I had always wondered whether the picture I'm having a little difficulty locating is actually a picture of "The Birch's"??

please check out my above post leonora... I feel it could be of interest to you....

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: Forensics
« Reply #106 on: May 19, 2017, 04:17:00 PM »
Remember quite a while ago now.... when I rambled on about the three stones on the top of the wall and how I knew that they had been moved and replace...  Then I felt I'd made an error and removed it...

The three stone were definitely moved and replaced .... The colouration of that area and the stones are different... That was what drew my attention to them in the first place.... and on better pictures I could see gaps where they hadn't quite bedded them down in the exact place......

I believe that these stones were removed, they were removed as to aid The Fireman with The Rope Access Gear to have a flat edge on which to put Joanna Yeates across.... and with this assist in bringing Joanna Yeates up and over this wall and placing her on the grass verge on Longwood lane..... Therefore having to put back the three stones and the reason they look different to the wall...

So.... that is my logical approach as to "Why" The Fire Service was used.... And "how" Joanna Yeates could be in "Two different locations on the same day.,.... (IMO)



« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 09:21:58 PM by John »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: Forensics
« Reply #107 on: May 19, 2017, 08:56:53 PM »
I'm sat here trying to work the last piece of the puzzle regards the wall... and why the "Stain"... part way down is a lighter colour to the other stones in the whole dark coloured wall...

Again Tanya Nickson Provides us with the answer.....

There was blood on the wall behind the body of Joanna Yeates.... Well I don't think there was any blood on the wall behind her or.. on top of the wall for that matter....

But visually it would work for  JURY (IMO)...

She has to use chemicals on the wall to show where she has swabbed for the blood samples.. and in turn the chemicals have cleaned the surface of the stone... Visually for a Jury, she then can point out to them, because they can see the colour difference in the wall... That this was the area that the blood of Joanna Yeates was retrieved from... And the Jury don't have the amount of time I have had to work out anything different... And would believe an expert witness....

So she wouldn't be lying that she tested the wall behind Joanna Yeates ... It just isn't in the way we believe ....(IMO)

Quote
The image was shown during the evidence of forensic scientist Tanya Nickson, who examined bloodstains found on a wall next to where Miss Yeates was found on Christmas morning on Longwood Lane, in Failand, North Somerset.
Again  I'm lookin at this in a different light....

Quote
The image was shown during the evidence of forensic scientist Tanya Nickson, who examined bloodstains found on a wall next to where Miss Yeates was found on Christmas morning on Longwood Lane, in Failand, North Somerset.

They can mention Longwood lane as long as they like..... But they never say the grass verge....

And "Eleanor".... it was you who also have helped to bring this around "Full" circle.... because you kept mentioning that Joanna Yeates was found in a "Ditch".... and for some stupid reason... I corrected you several times... Please accept my apology... because you are "Perfectly Correct" (IMO)... She was in a ditch... but it was on the other side of the "Wall" on Longwood Lane.....

So I would like to say with everyone effort... I believe I am pretty damn close to exactly how Joanna Yeates ended up "On a Grass Verge on Longwood Lane"......

And if the "Trial" says he "Tried to put her over the wall"... but failed... leaving blood smears behind.... It cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak who left Joanna Yeates dead on the Infamous "Longwood Lane "....

You also see.... Dr Delaney helped me yesterday.... when he didn't confirm that Joanna Yeates had "Blood " in her hair..... What he actually said was : What appeared to be blood in her hair!!

So there is NO BLOOD...... (IMO) we missed the subtle use of language....  No Blood.... No Blood on wall..... No Blood in Dr Vincent Tabak's car boot... whether its hiding in the boot of the car... or on the "Seal" as DCI Phil Jones said in one of his many TV appearance....

Jixy.... I do believe I missed the subtle signs.... But it is all coming into focus now....

I do believe I have untangle the "Marmion".....  ?{)(** Well... part of it at least...!!!

 This is all my opinion... But I believe I have unravelled the mystery of The Fire Brigade... well at least I hope I have... or at least set a track on which a train can now drive down.......!

mrswah and leonra... your persistance with the Fire Equipment was perfect.... 8)--))

Oh yes... And Andrew Mott with his trusty Broom Handle....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-killer-confessed-to-chaplain-2372235.html
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 09:07:25 PM by Nine.. Again »

Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #108 on: May 21, 2017, 09:13:11 AM »
I knew I had seen 3 Forensic tents... I'll attach images with them all circled....

I don't know what these tents were protecting.... because i know that DCi Andrew Mott said that no tent was over Joanna Yeates ...

Edit... A better shot of the Forensic tent to the Right hand side as you look up Longwood Lane...  I rember this picture.. I always wondered what the shiny thing was next to it near the wall...
I suspect that you have shown only two forensic tents. Be that as it may, that is two or three forensic tents that were NOT over the body of Joanna Yeates. I cannot begin to imagine what the shiny object is. Why did the journalists not ask DCI Jones about the forensic tents?

Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #109 on: May 21, 2017, 09:19:19 AM »
... The Ground was Frozen... And Joanna Yeates was Frozen... But not together not attached,.....

What Is "Andrew Mott" trying "Not To Reveal???
Is this the "Real Reason That They Took No Photographs of the recovery with "Straps and Broom Handles???
Because if it's "Problematic"... And The Conditions made this Recovery so difficult.... Was the Location they have lead us to believe, the real Location That Joanna Yeates Body was found...... Because it doesn't appear to be the case...

And if the Location is Different.... Again Dr Vincent tabak could NOT have committed this Crime!! (IMO)
That is amazing. Like everyone else, I always supposed until now that Joanna's body WAS frozen to the ground. It annoyed me that neither the pathologist nor the DNA expert didn't draw the same conclusion, namely, that she had not managed to get to the bathroom before she was strangled, and therefore she would have died just before or just after arriving at her front-door.

Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #110 on: May 21, 2017, 09:32:28 AM »
With the Pictures I have attached... we can clearly see The Arm of the crane extended and in use.....

Again when I originally saw this image I didn't question it.... I stupidly assume the Crane was used To recover her from being "Frozen to The Ground"... But when I think about that... That is Stupid.... The Force Of the Crane would damage the body so that isn't the reason that it's there....

And neither do I believe that it is there to lower down Firemen with Rope Access Equipment To retreive god knows what from over The Quarry Wall....  They would need something a lot lower to access the quarry than being lowered by a crane... Seems preposterous to me... And If as a member suggested before the reason for "The FireMan" wearing A Rope Access harness.... why wasn't he in protective Forensic clothing To retrieve whatever was down there ???

It is Possible That Joanna Yeates was actually over the wall....  And with the Untruth's that we have seen that have been told... What is to say that Joanna Yeates Location was different to what they told us ???

Just because A statement was read out in court by The People who apparently found Joanna Yeates... doesn't make that true either...(IMO)... They should have been in court!!!

Just a little thought.... Wouldn't you think if you had "Firemen" dangling from a Crane... That the news media would have had that image Emblazened across every Front Page In The Country!!!
I can only nod in assent to your exasperation. I would like to ask why the eager journalists didn't ask all the same questions, especially as they had been hanging around for hours on Christmas day, in the freezing cold waiting for their stories. I can promise you that some journalists are very intelligent! If they DID ask these questions, and didn't get answers, why were we not told? Why did Leveson not ask about the curious case of the dog in the night, the news media that did not bark, "firemen, woof, woof!"?

Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #111 on: May 21, 2017, 09:39:48 AM »
I'll attach another photograph.... This one is of A Fireman looking completely exhausted and he is wiping his brow..

Why would A Fireman look so tired... If they were just hanging about advising on how the Police could shove straps underneath Joanna Yeates body as it lay on a grass verge on Longwood Lane???

Maybe he was the One of the Firemen who wore The Rope Access equipment.... (IMO) as always...
Another thing to consider about this particular Fireman who looks hot... Is his jacket is nearly zipped all the way down.... now why would he do that on such a cold day if he hadn't been active???

Your line of reasoning fits the facts like a glove. It explains how it was possible to take photos that could be shown to the jury, and why they couldn't be shown photos of the broom handle in use. It also explains why Dr Delaney had to hang around for so many hours before being able to get near Joanna's body. I really like the image of the fireman wiping his brow.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 09:24:39 PM by John »

Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #112 on: May 21, 2017, 10:58:18 AM »
Remember quite a while ago now.... when I rambled on about the three stones on the top of the wall and how I knew that they had been moved and replace...  Then I felt I'd made an error and removed it...

The three stone were definitely moved and replaced .... The colouration of that area and the stones are different... That was what drew my attention to them in the first place.... and on better pictures I could see gaps where they hadn't quite bedded them down in the exact place......

I believe that these stones were removed, they were removed as to aid The Fireman with The Rope Access Gear to have a flat edge on which to put Joanna Yeates across.... and with this assist in bringing Joanna Yeates up and over this wall and placing her on the grass verge on Longwood lane..... Therefore having to put back the three stones and the reason they look different to the wall...

So.... that is my logical approach as to "Why" The Fire Service was used.... And "how" Joanna Yeates could be in "Two different locations on the same day.,.... (IMO)
I am sure what you deduce about the removal and re-instigation of the three stones at the top of the wall is correct.

I photographed the wall myself 1 years ago. Unfortunately, it would not have occurred to me to take shears with me to cut the foliage away, nor would I have felt comfortable doing so, with attendant the risk of being accosted and thrown over the wall by Avon & Somerset loyalists. I also took a photograph of the view from the top of the wall through a space in the bushes, showing the top of the concrete portal of the railway tunnel directly below. I speculate that the opening through which my picture is taken may have been made by the fireman clearing a way through the bushes 5 years earlier. I am also posting my photo of the wall and fence on on the other side of Longwood Lane opposite the spot where I took the other two pictures.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 09:26:53 PM by John »

Offline Admin

Re: Forensics
« Reply #113 on: May 21, 2017, 11:01:50 AM »
I am sure what you deduce about the removal and re-instigation of the three stones at the top of the wall is correct.

I photographed the wall myself 1 years ago. Unfortunately, it would not have occurred to me to take shears with me to cut the foliage away, nor would I have felt comfortable doing so, with attendant the risk of being accosted and thrown over the wall by Avon & Somerset loyalists. I also took a photograph of the view from the top of the wall through a space in the bushes, showing the top of the concrete portal of the railway tunnel directly below. I speculate that the opening through which my picture is taken may have been made by the fireman clearing a way through the bushes 5 years earlier. I am also posting my photo of the wall and fence on on the other side of Longwood Lane opposite the spot where I took the other two pictures.

Could it have been that the top stones (shown left) were accidentally dislodged by the fire brigade or taken away to be tested so had to be replaced by the local council?

« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 11:09:31 AM by Admin »

Offline Leonora

Re: Forensics
« Reply #114 on: May 21, 2017, 01:07:33 PM »
Could it have been that the top stones (shown left) were accidentally dislodged by the fire brigade or taken away to be tested so had to be replaced by the local council?


It is almost mind-boggling to imagine that the fire brigade could have been so careless that one of their vehicles ACCIDENTALLY did so much damage to the top of the wall, which is 2 to 3 feet from the edge of the tarmac. It was broad daylight and there wasn't the same urgency as if there had been burning buildings with people trapped inside. You are suggesting that it was this accident that determined the spot where the public would be told the body had been deposited? The painting of the yellow line shown in the very clear photo you have posted was so deliberate that it is much more likely that it was Anne Reddrop or DCI Phil Jones who engaged a contractor to repair the wall and paint the line.

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: Forensics
« Reply #115 on: May 22, 2017, 09:50:13 PM »
Quote
Forensic tests on Jo Yeates’s body have been hampered because it was frozen by the time it was discovered on Christmas morning.

This Article is contradictory...  How can "Forensic tests be hampered by 6th January 2011... If Joanna Yeates "Post Motem" had been completed ???

Quote
But the extra days in deep snow and sub-zero temperatures made it far more difficult for forensic experts to remove the corpse and obtain potentially vital evidence.

Well we know that's not true...

Quote
Yesterday a source at Avon and Somerset Police stressed that further forensic tests could still take ‘weeks and weeks’ to carry out.

Why should they take weeks???

Quote
When the body was found, the fire service were called in by police to activate a winch mechanism to lift it out for removal to a morgue.

They mention the" Winch".... which I believe was used to assist the Firemen in rope access gear, bring Joanna Yeates up from over the wall (IMO)... Lift it OUT?? shouldn't that be up??

Why else would they need the winch??? Andrew Mott under oath didn't mention the winch... he said he used his trusty Broom Handle and straps.... "No Photographs of the "WINCH" were presented in court"...

Quote
Once there, the post mortem was significantly delayed because of the body’s frozen state, meaning it took another two days for the cause of death – strangulation – to be identified.
After the delay, one positive aspect mentioned by officers working on the case was the fact that important chemical evidence had been well preserved for analysis.

Now this is new to me..... "What Chemical Evidence "????

Quote
But the extra days in deep snow and sub-zero temperatures made it far more difficult for forensic experts to remove the corpse and obtain potentially vital evidence.

Now on "Longwood Lane" itself there wasn't deep snow...  There had been many vehicles passing and that area looked like there was very little snow.... But... If it snowed on 18th December 2010 and again in the next few days... Then if her 'Body" was over the wall.. The snow could have been deeper there ....(IMO)

EDIT:......
Quote
Police say it had been there for ‘several days’ of extremely cold weather, leaving her remains effectively embedded in the snow.

How can you be embedded in the "Snow"?? We hadn't had an avalanche!! So what are they trying to say she was embedded in??? Coz it wasn't snow (IMO)...

If your embedded in snow can you still be "Frozen solid"??


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344531/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Snow-plays-havoc-forensic-tests-murder-investigation.html#ixzz4hqH4R28i
« Last Edit: May 22, 2017, 09:58:15 PM by Nine.. Again »

Offline mrswah

Re: Forensics
« Reply #116 on: May 24, 2017, 04:36:47 PM »
Incidentally, I bet the journalists did ask questions about the rescue operation and the fire and rescue equipment. It is what journalists do!  They probably were not given straight answers, or were told that the police could not answer their questions "at this stage", or something to that effect!

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: Forensics
« Reply #117 on: June 07, 2017, 07:26:59 AM »
I had only read DCI Phil Jones written statement to "The Leveson Inquiry".. and hadn't actually realised that he said so much more...

In DCI Phil Jones own words as to why they had CJ on Bail until March 2011...

Quote
Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. So when the forensic lines of inquiry were completed, he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which is then when he was released from his bail without charge.

That's a new one on me.. Trainers hidden under a kitchen unit behind a kick board... So with that potential Evidence, and CJ's arrest... why did they go after Dr Vincent Tabak ?? When they clearly... according to DCI Phil Jones ... They had what could be a connection to Joanna Yeates ??

Which part of the house is DCI Phil Jones referring too?? CJ owned several properties... DCI Phil Jones didn't say CJ's Flat... so... Who's Trainers is he refering too?? Did CJ wear trainers??? So the DNA Profile was found.. And ???? he was eliminated ?? Was there A proflie on these trainers that belonged to CJ at all??
 Or did these trainers belong to someone else ?? I'm sure if they had belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak that evidence would have come to trial...(IMO)..


Quote
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation.

If he gave "NO COMMENT" on CJ... when was he supposed to have tried to implicate him???  The Car changing position isn't mentioned by DCI Phil Jones ...

If CJ was still a "SUSPECT" and Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently freely been talking about him in "Holland".... why didn't Dr Vincent Tabak say that he had already told them about CJ ?? Does that lend to the possibility that Dr Vincent Tabak meant a different Landlord in his "Holland" interview ??




http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones


« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 07:53:43 AM by Nine.. Again »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: Forensics
« Reply #118 on: June 07, 2017, 07:53:00 AM »
I love a good "Inquiry"....

Again from the recored Interview of DCI Phil Jones.... whom up until now claimed that the "DNA" found on Joanna yeates ... was not matched to Dr Vincent tabak till the 20th january 2011... as he said in a videoed interview on The Judge Rinder program....

At 31:25 mins: DCI Jones says:

Quote
It was around the 20th January, that erm... we positively identified there were components in the mixed DNA.. of Vincent Tabak

Ann Reddropp says at : 28:03 mins

Quote
The Police having had his DNA sample obtained voluntarily in Holland and checked against... erm.. findings on Jo's body.. discovered that it was his DNA was on her body...and that was one of the key factors, that lead to the planned arrest of him later in January..

These statement imply that it was around the 20th January that the DNA bore fruit and lead to Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest..

They have always implied that the DNA was strong enough to match against Dr Vincent Tabak... Well... DCI Phil Jones has told "The Leveson Inquiry" ..."A Different Version of Events"...

From "The Leveson Inquiry"

Quote
Mr Jay
To be clear about this, on 2 January, corporate communications department contacted you because they had received an enquiry from the Daily Mail regarding low copy DNA allegedly having been found on Joanna Yeates' body; is that right?

DCI Phil Jones reply:

Quote

Mr Philip Jones
That's correct, sir, yes.


Mr Jay wants Clarification from DCI Phil Jones about the "Low Copy DNA"..

Quote

Mr Jay
And then you took appropriate steps. Can we be clear about the Daily Mail's story? Was there low copy DNA found on her body?


And DCI Phil Jones's Reply is:.....

Quote

Mr Philip Jones
There was, sir, yes.

So as early as The 2nd January 2011... They had the Low Copy DNA sample... which could not possibly be linked to Dr Vincent Tabak!!!.... (IMO)...

If Ann Reddrop states she "Planned" Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest in January.. why would she do that ??? They had "A Pair of Trainers " that they found in Canygne Road.. That obviously had "NO" connection to Dr Vincent Tabak... And "The DNA " was Low Copy... what reason did she have to "PLAN DR VINCENT TABAK"S ARREST"????????

http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones
« Last Edit: June 07, 2017, 07:56:47 AM by Nine.. Again »

Offline mrswah

Re: Forensics
« Reply #119 on: June 07, 2017, 11:03:49 AM »
Regarding the trainers, I read that they were examined because a spot of blood was found on them. I understood they belonged to CJ. The forensics did not reveal anything significant.

Very believable that CJ should own trainers. He is a gym goer!