Forensics

[mrswah]

We don't actually know whether or not the car was examined.

It is, however, a mystery that it has never been mentioned, or that the public was never shown a photograph of it. As for where it is now, scrapped, I would imagine------it would be old now. I suppose Joanna's parents inherited it and sold it-------but it has never been mentioned, unlike the cars of CJ, VT and Peter Stanley.

As far as I know, 25th October was the date Jo and Greg moved into their flat, although last time I posted this, others disputed it and said that it was at the beginning of October. I have not seen anything to back that up!

[Leonora]

We don't actually know whether or not the car was examined.

It is, however, a mystery that it has never been mentioned, or that the public was never shown a photograph of it. As for where it is now, scrapped, I would imagine------it would be old now. I suppose Joanna's parents inherited it and sold it-------but it has never been mentioned, unlike the cars of CJ, VT and Peter Stanley.
...

The police's failure to make any statements about the car implies that they didn't want anyone to ask these kinds of questions. On the other hand, their public relations director may have been too preoccupied with the pizza to bother about Joanna's car, but I think this account in The Mail suggests another fate for the vehicle:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341676/Missing-architect-Joanna-Yeates-We-assume-shes-dead--lives-gone-say-parents.html

This article includes a picture of a crane attached to one of the fire engines. The crane is powerful enough to raise a much larger car than Joanna's, and has a reach of 5 metres. Beside Longwood Lane is Durnford Quarry, whose excavations get filled with deep pools of water. This may explain why a safety boat was among the appliances sent by Avon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service to recover Joanna's body.

[Leonora]

I don't really understand why Joanna Yeates car wasn't Forensically examined, to be honest... There were people who could have had a lift in the car the week before the murder (As The Police were looking at contacts the week prior)...

If there was a stalker as they suggested.. checking the car over would be a wise move...

I was thinking today when I was out.... why didn't Greg take the train to sheffield ?? It would have been quicker... he wouldn't have had to drive in bad weather... And Joanna would have a vehicle so she could get about in over the weekend...

I'm sure his brother would have collected him and drove him about sheffield...  Just seemed the easiest option with having such car problems before he set off!!

He also intended to go skiing in South Yorkshire that weekend:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-boyfriend-visited-his-baby-103676#ixzz2kL7nBxLa

He would have needed a car to get to the slopes, and probably preferred to take his skis (which you, however, tell us he had given away before moving to Clifton!) with him in the car rather on to a crowded train.

[[...]]

He also intended to go skiing in South Yorkshire that weekend:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-boyfriend-visited-his-baby-103676#ixzz2kL7nBxLa

He would have needed a car to get to the slopes, and probably preferred to take his skis (which you, however, tell us he had given away before moving to Clifton!) with him in the car rather on to a crowded train.

I remember about that, he originally was supposed to be going skiing.. then it changed to a christening...  that always threw me....

So that why I was excited when I found out about his ski bonanza give away at Canygne Road, Which there was a post and a link to it in the  original topic mrswah started...

I'll clip his name off the screenshot  but you'll see the words and the date... His First give away was the 16th October 2010.. his second give away was the 28th October 2010... they have since been removed from the internet and I mean recently..... ?????

The Christening thing came later... but the mother never went so I couldn't understand this personally... seemed odd... Had the trains stopped that weekend??  I know it snowed but I don't know if it affected the railway..

One ­neighbour said they saw someone they thought was Greg – who police say is not a suspect – with skis in South ­Yorkshire on the Saturday and Sunday, while another said he spotted his car, which Frank had told him belonged to his brother. Former ­neighbour Sharon Burns, 35, said: “It’s highly likely when Greg came to visit before Christmas, it was the first time he had seen the twins.”

I wonder which neighbour gave this report?????

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-boyfriend-visited-his-baby-103676#ixzz2kL7nBxLa


Edit:....  I have managed to find it again..... 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/36573472454/

[mrswah]

As far as I recall, Greg went to Sheffield in order to attend the christening, AND to go skiing. I don't remember which newspaper it was in, but a neighbour in Sheffield was reported to have seen Greg's car and his skis that weekend.

His parents were reported as having planned to attend the christening, but were put off by the bad weather.

I don't see anything odd about the fact that Jo did not go with him:  people go away without their partners all the time!

I also don't see anything odd about him having sold some skis-----keen skiiers probably do have several pairs, for all I know, just as keen cyclists might have more than one bike.

I am, however, intrigued by the car, as I said in a previous post. I would have expected some tabloid to have posted a picture of it.

I am also intrigued at the fact that Greg no longer has any contact with Jo's parents .  I don't have the link handy, but Mr and Mrs Yeates said as much to the Bristol Post.

[Leonora]

I remember about that, he originally was supposed to be going skiing.. then it changed to a christening...  that always threw me....

So that why I was excited when I found out about his ski bonanza give away at Canygne Road, Which there was a post and a link to it in the  original topic mrswah started...

I'll clip his name off the screenshot  but you'll see the words and the date... His First give away was the 16th October 2010.. his second give away was the 28th October 2010... they have since been removed from the internet and I mean recently..... ?????

The Christening thing came later... but the mother never went so I couldn't understand this personally... seemed odd... Had the trains stopped that weekend??  I know it snowed but I don't know if it affected the railway..

I am impressed that you have managed to preserve these two posts for posterity, in the face of the stealthy, sinister purge of source information about the case that seems to be taking place. However, there is no doubt that G was/is a sports enthusiast. This is born out by the phrases he used in these screenshots. So the skis he describes here were surely his reserves, and perhaps even his reserves of last resort.

Are you sure his parents didn't go to the christening? They were probably both retired, so his mother had probably been in Sheffield well in advance of the christening, to "help out" with the twins.

Nevertheless, I share your scepticism.

[[...]]

As far as I recall, Greg went to Sheffield in order to attend the christening, AND to go skiing. I don't remember which newspaper it was in, but a neighbour in Sheffield was reported to have seen Greg's car and his skis that weekend.

His parents were reported as having planned to attend the christening, but were put off by the bad weather.

I don't see anything odd about the fact that Jo did not go with him:  people go away without their partners all the time!

I also don't see anything odd about him having sold some skis-----keen skiiers probably do have several pairs, for all I know, just as keen cyclists might have more than one bike.

I am, however, intrigued by the car, as I said in a previous post. I would have expected some tabloid to have posted a picture of it.

I am also intrigued at the fact that Greg no longer has any contact with Jo's parents .  I don't have the link handy, but Mr and Mrs Yeates said as much to the Bristol Post.

Mrswah... the reason for the posts in part was to show that they moved in to Clifton before 25th October 2010..

Defence Counsel: When did the couple move in to Flat 1?
Tabak: 25 October 2010

As with the questioning of Dr Vincent Tabak the Defence wanted to relay....

He didn't sell the ski's he gave them away... beer would be welcome....  How do you attach ski's to a ford KA... I'm sure I read somewhere that was the model of car.... That would have been difficult... Did either CJ or Peter Stanley mention the ski's being on the cars roof???

I just like to understand whats been said... I'm not pointing finger..... I like things to be consistant.. and follow on..


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[mrswah]

Greg himself, when giving his testimony in court, said that he and Jo moved into their flat on 25th October. it is on the same link to Sally Ramage's account.

[[...]]

Greg himself, when giving his testimony in court, said that he and Jo moved into their flat on 25th October. it is on the same link to Sally Ramage's account.

That's weird if he posted on facebook on the 16th Oct 2010 that he was giving free ski's away and to collect from Clifton...

[[...]]

Here we go again... Another Bug Bare...

The bathroom image of Flat 1......  They forensic powder is clearly concentrated all over the Bath and Shower area..

There is No forensic powder on the Toilet , the sink or anywhere else in that bathroom.... WHY???

There should not be areas that are clean... you have 2 problems here... Either the forensic powder only stick to oily surfaces and someone has cleaned the sink and toilet within an inch of its existence .. OR... there was a REAL reason that they concentrated on the Bath and the shower area..

I'm going with the latter....

Question.. why would you concentrate on an area so much???

I think it possible that either Joanna Yeates took a shower or bath before she changed her clothing... Or who ever killed her had washed her in the bath!!!

The body of Joanna Yeates was extremely clean if we are to believe that there were only 2 profiles found upon her...

She had been at work all day... she had been to The Ram... she had been to various shops were she would have touch doors etc... so transfer DNA was extremely possible and very likely..

So... had Joanna Yeates body been cleaned??? 

They were definatley looking for something in the way that the forensic powder is dawbed all over the bath and shower area.... The powder should be there for a reason??

Did they think the attack took place there ??? I don't know ... but I believe the possibility that either she was washed by someone or had bathed herself is the most likely as a reason for the lack of DNA found upon her person...

Because she had been cleaned or had bathed herself????

Was that the reason they didn't test the friends who were sat in The Ram with her???

[[...]]

                                     The Inquest......

When is there a duty to hold an inquest?
The duty is set out in the Coroners Act 1988 (as amended). Where a Coroner is informed that the body of a person is lying within his Jurisdiction and there is reasonable cause to suspect that the deceased: - has died a violent or unnatural death; or - has died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown; or - has died in prison (or certain other places or circumstances) then, whether the cause of death arose within his Jurisdiction or not, the Coroner shall, as soon as practicable, hold an inquest into the death of the deceased.

When was Joanna Yeates Inquest held????

What happens if somebody has been charged with causing the death?
Where a person has been sent for trial for causing a death, for example by murder, manslaughter, infanticide or certain types of road traffic deaths, the inquest is adjourned until the criminal trial is over. On adjourning an inquest, the Coroner sends the Registrar a certificate stating the particulars that are needed to register the death and for a death certificate to be issued. When the trial is over and the Coroner informed of the outcome, he/she will decide whether or not to resume the inquest. There may be no need if all the facts surrounding the death have emerged at the trial and,, in such cases the Coroner will send another certificate to the Registrar of Deaths, confirming the outcome of the Crown Court trial. If the inquest is resumed the finding of the inquest as to the cause of death cannot be inconsistent with the outcome of the criminal trial.

I do not remember it happening after the trial... I do not seem to be able to find anything on the inquest of Joanna Yeates... this very much publised case... Why Not????

Where they not happy to publish that Dr Vincent Tabak was the perpetator??

Attendance at an inquest
When a Coroner's investigations into a death are complete, a date for a full inquest will be set. The 'properly interested persons' (see below) will be informed of the date by the Coroner's Officer and witnesses will be asked to attend to provide evidence. If they are unwilling to attend voluntarily they may be summoned. The inquest is held in the public interest and not on behalf of any individual. It is not always necessary for the bereaved relatives to attend the inquest and some prefer not to, as the details of the death may need to be dealt with in graphic terms. If you do attend the inquest a supporter, for example a friend, can accompany you. In many Coroners' Courts, volunteers from the Coroners Courts Support Service, (a registered charity) may be there to offer support.

Who attended this inquest.... who was summoned ???

Who is a properly interested person?
The categories of properly interested persons are set out in the Coroners Rules 1984 (as amended). They include: - a parent, spouse, child, civil partner or partner and any personal representative of the deceased; - any beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased; - any insurer having issued such a policy; - a representative from a Trade Union to whom the deceased belonged at the time of death (if the death arose in connection with the person's employment or was due to industrial disease); - anyone whose action or failure to act may, in the Coroner's view, have contributed to the death;- the Chief Officer of Police (who may only ask witnesses questions through a lawyer);- any person appointed as an inspector or a representative of an enforcing authority or a person appointed by a Government Department to attend the inquest; or - anyone else who the Coroner may decide also has a proper interest. The Coroner decides who will be given properly interested person status.

Who attended from the interested parties ????

Inquest verdicts
All the details that are completed on the Inquisition by the Coroner (or by the Jury) at the end of the inquest are "the verdict". However, the short-form conclusion reached by the Coroner (or Jury) is commonly referred to as 'the verdict'. Commonly-used short form conclusions include: - natural cause(s) - accident or misadventure; - he/she killed him/herself (i.e. suicide); - unlawful killing; - lawful killing; - industrial (or occupational) disease or - open verdict (where there is insufficient evidence for any other verdict). The Coroner is not obliged to make use of a short form conclusion. He/she may use a variant or the Coroner may give a "narrative verdict" which sets out the facts surrounding the death in narrative form.

What was the conclusion????

Is it possible to obtain a record of the inquest?
Once an inquest has been completed, a properly interested person may apply to inspect (without charge) the notes of evidence or any document put in evidence at the inquest, or a copy of any post-mortem examination report. Copies may be obtained following payment of a fee to the Coroner. The notes may be in the form of a transcript from a voice recording or the Coroner's own notes. The Coroner's manuscript notes may not be a full verbatim record.

Well there are plenty of Interested persons.....  any takers ??

Will the inquest be reported by the press and media?
Inquests must be held in public in accordance with the principle of open justice, so members of the public and journalists have the right to, and indeed may, attend the inquest and press reports may appear. The only exception is that parts of a very small number of inquests may be held in private for national security reasons. Whether journalists attend a particular inquest and whether they report on it is a matter for them. The Coroner cannot forbid them from attending Court. Press and media reports that are fair and accurate are unlikely to be actionable for defamation. Those working on newspapers or magazines must abide by the Editor's Code of Practice, upheld by the Press Complaints Commission, which sets out the guidance for print journalists in the UK. The Code, a copy of which is posted on the notice board outside the Coroner's Court and which can be seen at www.pcc.org.uk has requirements on accuracy, privacy and discrimination. It also has specific rules in cases involving grief and shock. For instance, publication in such circumstances must be handled sensitively and, when reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used. The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) mostly deals with complaints about published material. However, it can also help to prevent physical harassment by journalists and will sometimes be able to assist with problems related to material that has not yet appeared in print. Its staff are always happy to discuss matters informally; the PCC can be contacted on: 020 7831 0022 or 0845 600 2757. It also operates an out-of-hours number for emergencies only (07659 152656). 
The content of suicide notes and personal letters will not usually be read out at the inquest, unless the Coroner decides it is important to do so. If they are read out, their contents may be reported. Although every attempt is made to avoid any upset to people's private lives, sometimes it is unavoidable. Photographs taken of the deceased and of the scene of death may also form part of the evidence presented in Court, but the Coroner will always try to handle such material with sensitivity.

So where were the hungry media who sensationalised this case when the Inquest took place??? Where were they...

An absolute gift for them to hammer Dr Vincent Tabak and his horrendous crime ..

http://www.coronerscourtssupportservice.org.uk/faq-s/#7

[[...]]

I mentioned the other day how I couldn't understand the gentleman being able to approach Canygne Road to hand in the sock he had found... I still find that a bit odd... you would expect them to keep everyone away....


(1): The Sock.....  The image is of the sock that they say is Similar to the
      one Joanna Yeates was wearing.... I realise it isn't HER other sock... but there are stains on it.....

Who's SOCK is it????

If your looking for a sock you need to look for the correct sock.. similar??? The pattern could be different... The shading could be different..... the length could be different... The knit could be different....

Why did they show an image of a DIRTY Sock if it isn't Joanna Yeates sock??  Because there could be evidence upon it if it was her sock!!

(2): Picture 2 is of the Gentleman.. happily chatting with a policeman  walking back towards the entrance of 44 Canygne Road....


(3): Image 3 I've circled what could be a spot of Blood..... But if it's not her sock, then i don't know !!!




[attachment deleted by admin]

[Leonora]

Here we go again... Another Bug Bare...

The bathroom image of Flat 1......  They forensic powder is clearly concentrated all over the Bath and Shower area..

There is No forensic powder on the Toilet , the sink or anywhere else in that bathroom.... WHY???

There should not be areas that are clean... you have 2 problems here... Either the forensic powder only stick to oily surfaces and someone has cleaned the sink and toilet within an inch of its existence .. OR... there was a REAL reason that they concentrated on the Bath and the shower area..

I'm going with the latter....

Question.. why would you concentrate on an area so much???

I think it possible that either Joanna Yeates took a shower or bath before she changed her clothing... Or who ever killed her had washed her in the bath!!!

The body of Joanna Yeates was extremely clean if we are to believe that there were only 2 profiles found upon her...

She had been at work all day... she had been to The Ram... she had been to various shops were she would have touch doors etc... so transfer DNA was extremely possible and very likely..

So... had Joanna Yeates body been cleaned??? 

They were definatley looking for something in the way that the forensic powder is dawbed all over the bath and shower area.... The powder should be there for a reason??

Did they think the attack took place there ??? I don't know ... but I believe the possibility that either she was washed by someone or had bathed herself is the most likely as a reason for the lack of DNA found upon her person...

Is that the reason they didn't check Greg's DNA a to eliminate him????

Because she had been cleaned or had bathed herself????

Was that the reason they didn't test the friends who were sat in The Ram with her???

How do you know it is forensic powder? You are just guessing. It could be soot.

The body of Joanna Yeates WAS clean. The pathologist, Dr. Delaney, told the court that he washed it in cold water. Goodness knows what happened to all the DNA profiles he washed away while he was doing this!

Not only might Joanna have taken a bath or a shower after changing her clothes - she may have washed her hair, and she may have taken a shower before or after breakfast. Her boyfriend Greg may also have done any of these things. Any third or fourth parties who may have been visiting or gained access by deception may have used the bathroom. Some couples like to kiss and cuddle in the bathroom. The possibilities are endless, but it is not use speculating without facts.

Thanks to you, though, some of us are beginning to see the wood through the trees. With great deliberation and publicity, the judge, the jury and the journalists were taken to see the interior of Joanna's flat, with its grubby bathroom and all its mysteries. Yet not one witness told the court about the forensic examination of the flat and the bedding or its findings. Mr Clegg was very anxious to talk to the jury about the screams, but Mr Lickley didn't bother to explain the sooty bathroom to the court. Why did none of this puzzle the supposedly nosy journalists? The lawyers hung the dirty bathroom out to dry before all these people, daring them to speculate why the lack of forensic evidence from the flat was never mentioned during the trial, daring to demonstrate how stupid we all of us really are when all is said and done.

[[...]]

The body of Joanna Yeates WAS clean. The pathologist, Dr. Delaney, told the court that he washed it in cold water. Goodness knows what happened to all the DNA profiles he washed away while he was doing this!

So... how did the defence have anyone to take any samples if the body was washed by Dr Delaney?????

[Leonora]

So... how did the defence have anyone to take any samples if the body was washed by Dr Delaney?????

This was before there was anyone to defend. Even though Dr Delaney is much more trustworthy than any of the other expert witnesses, it is just as Lindsay Lennen told The Guardian - "Because of Tabak's confession, the evidence wasn't tested in court". That confession was very convenient for the prosecution, especially as it was so helpfully fabricated by the defence.

I wouldn't be surprised if Dr Delaney was told to wash the body to ensure that the defence pathologist couldn't find anyone's DNA on it, just as he allowed the contents of her digestive system to be removed and sent to Glasgow, so that no one else could test them.