UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧

Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010. => Topic started by: [...] on March 31, 2017, 08:57:41 PM

Title: Forensics
Post by: [...] on March 31, 2017, 08:57:41 PM
There is not a lot know about exactly how the forensics where carried out in this case...

Longwood Lane.. where we have Andrew Mott with his Broom Handle trying to stop Joanna Yeates body from thawing..

A lane where a body apparently lay undiscovered for 8 days, which many local people have said they can't see possible..

When I look at the photographs that are available for Longwood Lane and the Police carrying out their searches I suddenly started to question it..

We have Photographs that I have attached, showing police officer searching... searching for what??  I'd of expected them to have plastic gloves on, but they haven't.. they are handling Forensic paper bags with bare hands..(3rd Picture) they have broom handles and rakes, but no one with them to photograph where possibly the evidence they recover has been recovered from??

I would have imagined that they would have used markers or flags to indicate where the evidence or any materials they come across lay, so someone whom is suited up can handle this important evidence..

What it reminds me of is when you have a team of searches looking for a missing person and not a team of Forensic scientists/ specialists collecting important evidence from in and around the second scene of crime..

The other really noticable thing is the LACK of SNOW......

What are they looking for???? or is it for the media????

140

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2017, 01:00:53 AM
Re-reading I find is always of interest... I skip too many times... The wording is of the utmost importance and I will say again don't skim...

I have read article time and time again, and believe I have taken the information in, when truly I haven't, and probably most other people haven't either..

I will quote again..

Quote
Tests showed that both Miss Yeates's and Tabak's DNA were recovered from her body and that it was statistically one million times more likely it was their DNA than others.

It is my opinion that the answer was quiet clever on this... "One Million times  that it was there's more likely that it was theirs!!

Well... that's not quiet an untrue... because once you introduce Joanna Yeates DNA then the likely hood that it's One Million times more likely that it was theirs is fairish...

The Defence didn't challenge this as far as I am aware! (They should have!)

Quote
Tabak's and another unidentified person's DNA was also found on Miss Yeates's jeans - behind her knees - which would have been consistent with Tabak carrying her body, the court was told.

The question is who is theirs???????

(1): Joanna Yeates

(2): The Unidentified persons DNA!!!!!!!

It cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA she's refering too because later she says"...

Quote
Ms Lennen said the statistical interpretation of the results from Miss Yeates's jeans showed that it was 1,100 times more likely that the DNA was from Vincent Tabak and another person, rather than two unknown people unrelated to the defendant.

AND ANOTHER PERSON!!!!

When it comes to Dr Vincent Tabak he is on a scale of 1/1000, which is NO MATCH AT ALL....!!!!!

Who is this other person she keeps refering too?????

1/1000 is an extremely small number when we are talking DNA, we want definative proof!!!!

Why are THEY NOT BOTHERED by the extra DNA PROFILE???????  That is One BIG Question!!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-killer-confessed-to-chaplain-2372235.html


Edit.....  One other thing they didn't clarify with THE OTHER DNA PROFILE that they found...

WAS IT MALE OR FEMALE??????

I don't remember anyone asking that question!!


Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 01, 2017, 08:53:59 AM
There are known to be problems with the reliability of "low copy" or enhanced DNA samples.

www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464347a.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpPkmDeS3Dg

I believe that, in the Joanna Yeates case, the samples were used up in the enhancing process, meaning that the results could not be confirmed or challenged.  This is (IMO) very concerning.

As for there being DNA samples from another person on Joanna's body, this is not surprising. She lived with her partner, she socialised with friends----DNA is easily transferable. One would have expected there to have been DNA samples from several people on her clothing/body.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 01, 2017, 09:08:35 AM
Before opening the link below, try to guess from the following alone whether (1) Counsel, and (2) the expert witness, are (A) for the Prosecution, or (B) for the Defence:

Cross-examining the witness, Counsel asked if DNA was found in the car boot matching any unidentified persons.

Witness: “No there was not.”

For the benefit of the jury, Counsel clarified that scientists cannot say whether the blood in the boot of the car was a result of direct contact.

Counsel: “What if we knew the body would have been placed in a cover that you would put a bicycle in? If the cover was done up that would prevent the transfer of DNA, unless DNA got on the cover of the cycle bag?”

Witness: “Either that, or the blood was sufficient enough to seep through the cycle bag.”

Counsel: “If at Longwood Lane the body was taken out of the cycle bag and the cycle bag put back in the boot, any blood transfer onto the bicycle bag either directly from the victim or the hands of the defendant would be a candidate for the DNA in the boot?”

Witness: “Yes it could be.”

Counsel: “If a cycle bag was used to transfer the body from Canynge Road to Longwood Lane and that the cycle bag had previously been used to store the bicycle of the defendant then it may well be that the cycle bag itself would contain DNA from him, which in turn could be transferred to the victim – if he had her in that bag?”

Witness: “Yes that is possible.”

Counsel also speculated that DNA on the body and jeans could have been from an attempt to put the body over a wall.

Witness: “It could not be discounted.”

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-did-killer-carry-jo/story-13598784-detail/story.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 01, 2017, 09:18:04 AM
There are known to be problems with the reliability of "low copy" or enhanced DNA samples.

www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/464347a.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpPkmDeS3Dg

I believe that, in the Joanna Yeates case, the samples were used up in the enhancing process, meaning that the results could not be confirmed or challenged.  This is (IMO) very concerning.

As for there being DNA samples from another person on Joanna's body, this is not surprising. She lived with her partner, she socialised with friends----DNA is easily transferable. One would have expected there to have been DNA samples from several people on her clothing/body.
While socialising with her friends at the Bristol Ram pub, she sat on a bench with a group of them to drink her cider. If she had been wearing the same jeans and top as she was wearing when her body was found, then any DNA from the seat and the back-rest of the bench would have been transferred to her clothes. While she was in the pub, she went to the LADIES, where any DNA on the seat and back rest of the WC she used and the floor in front of it would have been transferred to her clothes and the backs of her knees.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2017, 10:12:20 AM
Before opening the link below, try to guess from the following alone whether (1) Counsel, and (2) the expert witness, are (A) for the Prosecution, or (B) for the Defence:

Cross-examining the witness, Counsel asked if DNA was found in the car boot matching any unidentified persons.

Witness: “No there was not.”

For the benefit of the jury, Counsel clarified that scientists cannot say whether the blood in the boot of the car was a result of direct contact.

Counsel: “What if we knew the body would have been placed in a cover that you would put a bicycle in? If the cover was done up that would prevent the transfer of DNA, unless DNA got on the cover of the cycle bag?”

Witness: “Either that, or the blood was sufficient enough to seep through the cycle bag.”

Counsel: “If at Longwood Lane the body was taken out of the cycle bag and the cycle bag put back in the boot, any blood transfer onto the bicycle bag either directly from the victim or the hands of the defendant would be a candidate for the DNA in the boot?”

Witness: “Yes it could be.”

Counsel: “If a cycle bag was used to transfer the body from Canynge Road to Longwood Lane and that the cycle bag had previously been used to store the bicycle of the defendant then it may well be that the cycle bag itself would contain DNA from him, which in turn could be transferred to the victim – if he had her in that bag?”

Witness: “Yes that is possible.”

Counsel also speculated that DNA on the body and jeans could have been from an attempt to put the body over a wall.

Witness: “It could not be discounted.”

http://www.somersetlive.co.uk/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-did-killer-carry-jo/story-13598784-detail/story.html


Yes Leonora...  Of course it was the Defence who said this.. they have discredited their own client throughout this trial...

The defence always helps the prosecution (IMO)

The body would not be bleeding... he was suppose taken her to his flat, the blood would stop circulating in her body once death had occured, the blood was apparently a spot found on the seal of the boot...

This was confirmed in a video by DCI Phil Jones, I think it was the Judge Rinder one, but I'd have to check my old posts to find the transcript and link.

If it was a spot it would have to be big enough to see with the naked eye as to be able for them to collect it from the seal.. If it was large enough to see with the naked eye... then WHY wasn't it photographed????

Why wasn't there a photograhed in court of the seal where the blood was apparently found...
Also was the blood sample marked that it was from the seal of the boot or just the boot in general?????

This is the type of QUESTION the defence should have been asking Lyndsey Lennen!!!  (IMO)


I'll try find the post and put a link here :


EDIT:...      http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368393;topicseen#msg368393
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2017, 12:05:43 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-hope-frozen-DNA-sample-body-solve-murder.html

                                                 "Could DNA Traces Unlock Mystery"

Quote
A Sample of DNA found on Joanna Yeates body could be a crucial discovery in the hunt for her killer.....
It is understood that Police Forensic Specialist are working round the clock to find out to whom it belongs.

The sample was taken from Miss Yeates body soon After it was dumped at the side of a road on Christmas Morning.
Althought the freezing temperatures meant post-mortem examination results were serverally delayed, crime experts say as the cold weather provided excellent conditions for preserving the DNA evidence.
The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police... as well as against samples that have been taken during the investigation..It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.

The revelation came the day after the only man arrested over the killing so far was released,Chris Jefferies 65 spent three daysin police custody before being freed pending further inquires,and has had his flat two floors abovethe one rented to Miss Yeatesand her boyfriend turned upside down by forensic teams.
The forensic examination at Mr Jefferies flat continued Yesterday, with two crime scene investigators.. entering carrying brown evidence bags.

Scientists have also examined at least three vehicle kept near the building in which Miss Yeates lived.
This followed an immediate and intensive inch by inch search of the area surrounding the spot where her body was discovered on a roadside in Failand outside Bristol.


(1): Which 3 vehicles had they tested????

(2): Forensics are being carried out at CJ's.. did they have the keys to the other flats??

(3): The sample is being tested against DNA already stored..

So it's the 3rd January 2011 and we have the DNA turned around, not like DCI Phil Jones says that it was on the 20th January they got the DNA results and the Crime Watch program saying it took weeks..

Obviously it didn't!!!!




[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2017, 12:17:27 PM
This from Lyndsey Lennen in an Interview with the Guardian on:... Tuesday 17 January 2012 19.45 GMT


Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison at this point so I believe she freely states information we were NOT aware of at trial.. I'll say again...
How could she have Dr Vincent Tabaks BLACK COAT at this point???
How could she have the SUSPECTS clothing?????? (plural)

Also she says: 
Quote
There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak."

Whom is the other persons DNA????
Who is the other SUSPECT????

Quote
Joanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.

A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.

So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."


She states that it was all TURNED AROUND IN 48 HOURS!!


A billion to one???? she doesn't say THAT in court... she says 1/1000

High levels of salt??? Does snow have a high salt content???? Not that I'm aware of.... But GRIT on the roads does!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics


EDIT:....   
Quote
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky."

I hadn't really thought about that... but how would he supervise the removal of her clothing if she was frozen in a foetal position??

Also wouldn't that be Dr Delaney department when he had her at the Mortuary ?? Surely he has the expertise and Knowledge on how to remove and bag any evidence on a victims body before he carries out the Post Mortem!!!!

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2017, 12:58:45 PM
While socialising with her friends at the Bristol Ram pub, she sat on a bench with a group of them to drink her cider. If she had been wearing the same jeans and top as she was wearing when her body was found, then any DNA from the seat and the back-rest of the bench would have been transferred to her clothes. While she was in the pub, she went to the LADIES, where any DNA on the seat and back rest of the WC she used and the floor in front of it would have been transferred to her clothes and the backs of her knees.


Yes... that is also a possibility... But the other DNA profile could also be the killers DNA whether it was Male or Female..

They never CLARIFIED whether it was male or female no matter how it came to be on Joanna Yeates body!!!!

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 01, 2017, 01:04:21 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-hope-frozen-DNA-sample-body-solve-murder.html

                                                 "Could DNA Traces Unlock Mystery"


(1): Which 3 vehicles had they tested????

(2): Forensics are being carried out at CJ's.. did they have the keys to the other flats??

(3): The sample is being tested against DNA already stored..

So it's the 3rd January 2011 and we have the DNA turned around, not like DCI Phil Jones says that it was on the 29th January they got the DNA results and the Crime Watch program saying it took weeks..

Obviously it didn't!!!!
This was a landmark story. The Editor himself, accompanied by one of the journalists, went to Avon & Somerset Constabulary in person, to twist the arms of the police to let them publish this exclusive story, you will remember. (Did he fly down from London in a private helicopter?) According to his testimony, Vincent Tabak began to shake in his shoes (and presumably reach for his vodka) when he read this story the next day. LGC alone knew that they had NOT found any DNA from the landlord on the body - so they knew that his precipitate arrest was a sign of something iffy going on in Operation Braid. Their suspicions were confirmed when he was released. So they did what any self-respecting Forensics company would do - they approached the Daily Mail.

Working out which 3 vehicles they had tested is hardly rocket science, Nine. The two cars used by the landlord were taken away with much ado (flashing of cameras and whirring of newsreels). If Joanna's own little Ford Ka hadn't actually been forensically examined, then it was because the 70 officers were too busy sifting rubbish in search of a pizza. That makes 3 doesn't it? They couldn't test Tanja's Renault Megane cos it was in Holland or Aberdeen Road.

The police certainly had keys to the landlord's flat and flat No. 2, as they had banished Vincent and Tanja to Aberdeen Road. I have never seen any evidence that they had keys to the other flats.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2017, 01:16:04 PM
This was a landmark story. The Editor himself, accompanied by one of the journalists, went to Avon & Somerset Constabulary in person, to twist the arms of the police to let them publish this exclusive story, you will remember. (Did he fly down from London in a private helicopter?) According to his testimony, Vincent Tabak began to shake in his shoes (and presumably reach for his vodka) when he read this story the next day. LGC alone knew that they had NOT found any DNA from the landlord on the body - so they knew that his precipitate arrest was a sign of something iffy going on in Operation Braid. Their suspicions were confirmed when he was released. So they did what any self-respecting Forensics company would do - they approached the Daily Mail.

Working out which 3 vehicles they had tested is hardly rocket science, Nine. The two cars used by the landlord were taken away with much ado (flashing of cameras and whirring of newsreels). If Joanna's own little Ford Ka hadn't actually been forensically examined, then it was because the 70 officers were too busy sifting rubbish in search of a pizza. That makes 3 doesn't it? They couldn't test Tanja's Renault Megane cos it was in Holland or Aberdeen Road.

The police certainly had keys to the landlord's flat and flat No. 2, as they had banished Vincent and Tanja to Aberdeen Road. I have never seen any evidence that they had keys to the other flats.


So where are the pictures of Joanna Yeates Ford Ka???  surely they would have photographs of the car if they had examined it??

And they definitley should have examined it if only to rule Greg out....

So again there is MISSING evidence (IMO)


Has anyone managed to find the car history of the Ford Ka... maybe with the FOI act at the DVLC, maybe it will give more information as  to what happened to it...



Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 01, 2017, 01:25:18 PM
This from Lyndsey Lennen in an Interview with the Guardian on:... Tuesday 17 January 2012 19.45 GMT


Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison at this point so I believe she freely states information we were NOT aware of at trial.. I'll say again...
How could she have Dr Vincent Tabaks BLACK COAT at this point???
How could she have the SUSPECTS clothing?????? (plural)

Also she says: 
Whom is the other persons DNA????
Who is the other SUSPECT????


She states that it was all TURNED AROUND IN 48 HOURS!!


A billion to one???? she doesn't say THAT in court... she says 1/1000

High levels of salt??? Does snow have a high salt content???? Not that I'm aware of.... But GRIT on the roads does!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
Neither in this article, nor in court, did Lyndsey Lennen make any claim to be a fibre analyst, nor to have Vincent Tabak's black coat, either at the time the article was published, nor prior to his arrest. If there really were loose fibres underneath all that snow and salt and blood on Joanna's clothes, then they would have been collected after the clothes had been taken to the forensic laboratory. The police ransacked the apartment at Aberdeen Road and took away Vincent Tabak's mountain bike, his laptop, and whatever else they found of interest, which may have included the black coat. Or he may have put it on when he was taken away. In either case, the police officer who catalogued the items taken from the flat would have looked at the label on the coat, meticulously noted the brand, type and fabric, and been able to telephone these details to Lyndsey Lennen. No special education would have been needed to perform this task.

Although she was not a fibre expert, no special expertise would have been required of Lyndsey Lennen to study the list of fabrics whose fibres had been identified some weeks previously on Joanna's clothes. If she found a match, then I am sure she at once notified the detectives who were still questioning Vincent Tabak. This is of course speculation. She never mentioned fibres in her testimony, and there was no reason why she should. It had already been agreed between the Prosecution and the Defence that the fibres would be "admitted", thereby joining the green fleece, the blood alcohol percentage, the porn, and the prostitutes, among the long list headed "hearsay-hearsay-hearsay".
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 01, 2017, 01:26:45 PM

So where are the pictures of Joanna Yeates Ford Ka???  surely they would have photographs of the car if they had examined it??

And they definitley should have examined it if only to rule Greg out....

So again there is MISSING evidence (IMO)

Has anyone managed to find the car history of the Ford Ka... maybe with the FOI act at the DVLC, maybe it will give more information as  to what happened to it...
I have never seen any photos of Joanna's car outside Canynge Road, but this isn't really very surprising. As long as she was still a missing person, the press behaved very respectfully. They did publish photos and even very splendid architectural drawings of 44 Canynge Road, but they don't seem to have paid any attention to any of the parked cars at first. If we knew its registration number, we could find out what happened to it since:

https://www.gov.uk/request-information-from-dvla

I don't think we would be considered to have "just cause" if our request was based on the identity of the last known owner.
 
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 01, 2017, 01:28:52 PM
Yes, it is interesting---Joanna's car has never been mentioned anywhere, as far as I can see. Greg had taken it to Sheffield, so perhaps they did not think it needed to be examined, but it is strange that we have never even seen a photograph of it.

I believe the third car the police examined was that of Peter Stanley, another neighbour.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 01, 2017, 01:44:50 PM
Yes, it is interesting---Joanna's car has never been mentioned anywhere, as far as I can see. Greg had taken it to Sheffield, so perhaps they did not think it needed to be examined, but it is strange that we have never even seen a photograph of it.

I believe the third car the police examined was that of Peter Stanley, another neighbour.
On the contrary, the police did NOT take Peter Stanley's Jeep away for examination. They talked to him, they walked round the vehicle admiring it, and they asked him to show them the famous jump leads that he alone possessed. The news media ensured that all the other inhabitants of Canynge Road would know who to turn to in future when they couldn't start their car. But his was not THE THIRD VEHICLE.

If they didn't examine Joanna's car, how could the police eliminate her boyfriend so early on in the investigation, and so publicly? He was the only person to be publicly eliminated, until the landlord was released from bail, long after the dust had settled. The police claimed to have examined the boyfriend's computers, his mobile phone records, and his petrol station receipts, but they never mentioned whether they examined the car he used. Not only did he take it to Sheffield - he also brought it back to Clifton again. So how do you think the police could they eliminate him if they didn't examine the car? What do you think happened to it?
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2017, 01:45:54 PM
Yes, it is interesting---Joanna's car has never been mentioned anywhere, as far as I can see. Greg had taken it to Sheffield, so perhaps they did not think it needed to be examined, but it is strange that we have never even seen a photograph of it.

I believe the third car the police examined was that of Peter Stanley, another neighbour.

why would they need to examine Peter Stanleys car ??? he wasn't a suspect!

If they examined Peter Stanleys car early on, whats to say that they didn't have access to Dr Vincent Tabak's car before his arrest, at which point any DNA material could have been transferred..

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 01, 2017, 02:27:23 PM
why would they need to examine Peter Stanleys car ??? he wasn't a suspect!

If they examined Peter Stanleys car early on, whats to say that they didn't have access to Dr Vincent Tabak's car before his arrest, at which point any DNA material could have been transferred..

I remember reading that Peter Stanley drove his own car to the police station, at the same time as they took CJ's cars away. Whether they inspected it, I don't remember!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 01, 2017, 03:28:46 PM
I remember reading that Peter Stanley drove his own car to the police station, at the same time as they took CJ's cars away. Whether they inspected it, I don't remember!
I don't remember reading this, but it is fully consistent with the carnival atmosphere that seems to have prevailed in Canynge Road at this time - perhaps because so many officers, neighbours, students and dog-walkers had been drinking more than usual. One side of me cannot take seriously the impression that Peter Stanley would have been a suspect, since Greg Reardon wasn't a suspect, yet the irreproachible, unpractical Chris Jefferies was suspected for a period of about 3 months. If I took Operation Braid seriously - which I frankly confess that I don't - then I would have included these and many other persons whose names we know on the suspect list, ranking them geographically and socially in order of probability. I concede that the police had an obligation to fly some kites so as to deceive the perpetrator(s), but in this case they seem to have been holding a veritable kite party night after night. Nevertheless, I do think these is an argument to be made that the removal of the front door and all these cars was staged specifically to flush Vincent Tabak out and precipitate the telephone call from Holland. This may even have been the true reason for the seemingly dim-witted arrest of Christopher Jefferies.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 01, 2017, 03:41:14 PM
Trying to find you a link---the one I tried didn't work, but there is a Daily Telegraph report if you look up "Peter Stanley, Canynge Road, Car!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 01, 2017, 03:48:23 PM
www.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-examining-third-car-12799


This one seems to work!

I don't think Peter Stanley was ever a suspect.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2017, 04:09:04 PM
www.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-examining-third-car-12799


This one seems to work!

I don't think Peter Stanley was ever a suspect.

(http://swns.com/wp-content/themes/wp-clear/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://swns.com/images/stories/stanleycar/stanleycar1.jpg&w=450&h=283&zc=1)

If they searched that car, what about his Jeep????
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 02, 2017, 06:40:14 PM
There is not a lot know about exactly how the forensics where carried out in this case...

Longwood Lane.. where we have Andrew Mott with his Broom Handle trying to stop Joanna Yeates body from thawing..

A lane where a body apparently lay undiscovered for 8 days, which many local people have said they can't see possible..

When I look at the photographs that are available for Longwood Lane and the Police carrying out their searches I suddenly started to question it..

We have Photographs that I have attached, showing police officer searching... searching for what??  I'd of expected them to have plastic gloves on, but they haven't.. they are handling Forensic paper bags with bare hands..(3rd Picture) they have broom handles and rakes, but no one with them to photograph where possibly the evidence they recover has been recovered from??

I would have imagined that they would have used markers or flags to indicate where the evidence or any materials they come across lay, so someone whom is suited up can handle this important evidence..

What it reminds me of is when you have a team of searches looking for a missing person and not a team of Forensic scientists/ specialists collecting important evidence from in and around the second scene of crime..

The other really noticable thing is the LACK of SNOW......

What are they looking for???? or is it for the media????

I found a post where Mark Williams-Thomas makes comments with regards the collecting of Forensic Material:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370480#msg370480

So I will ask again, what were they looking for with all the rakes and broom handles?? Because they apparently didn't pick up all of the possible Forensic material at the second scene of crime...

The video is very interesting if short....

How many groups of Police men and woman went wandering off with broom handles????? They must have been looking for something!!!!

It also shows just how narrow the verge is!!!

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 02, 2017, 09:27:55 PM
www.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-examining-third-car-12799

This one seems to work!

I don't think Peter Stanley was ever a suspect.
I stand corrected. Well done mrswah. I didn't even know that Peter Stanley had a 1995 burgundy BMW 5 Series in addition to his Jeep. Presumably the BMW had secret compartments in which the police imagined someone might have concealed and transported a body while its owner was out Jeeping, and thereby incriminated his neighbour.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 03, 2017, 10:33:08 AM
Another thing of Interest is anything that relates to Joanna Yeates phone..

We do not know what type of phone she owned, it amazes me that the battery still worked on the Sunday evening after it hadn't had a recharge since the Friday morning..

This is from the opening speech from the defence:..
Quote
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend

What were the exact time of these phone calls and texts... which male friends did she phone???

And most importantly when she says she is "At Home On My Tod".... What time is that reply??????

Because it would give a more accurate timeline for her being at her own address... NOT the guessing everyone has been doing!!!




Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 05, 2017, 10:08:21 AM
I don't know the chain of command and how an Investigation is processed...

But as always something bothers me...

How are LGC Forensics collecting anything from Joanna Yeates body as it lies in situ???

You would have thought they would have waited.. There is something fundamentally wrong with this situation, I keep going over and over what was said at trial and in earlier and later interviews...

I cannot see why and how they would collect such material before Dr Delaney got to the scene!!!

Isn't it for the pathologist to see the body before ANYONE touches it???? Is that how the chain of command works??

I'm serious... something is slightly off, like a lot of this investigation I'm no expert but the jigsaw doesn't quite fit correctly, and I'm still looking for the piece...

Her body is taken from the scene at 4:45pm if I remember correctly and Dr Delaney doesn't get to see her till 6:00pm at the mortuary..

So is that normal for LGC Forensics to start taking samples from a FROZEN body????

Or (IMO) is that why Andrew Mott said that he had to stop a body from thawing, so it was even possible for anyone to take a sample...

Wouldn't the evidence be compromised in some way if:

(A): Many people where around her body

(B): she wasn't covered with a forensic tent

Someone explain the chain of command when it comes to forensically examining a body... I always believed nothing could be done until the PATHOLOGIST had seen it!!!!

I'm sure I remember one of them saying they removed her clothing.. if that was the case, how did they remove clothing from a frozen body that would have been frozen in the foetal position?????

Again Questions but NO Answers!!!!

EDIT...............

How did they take the DNA sample from the back of her jeans when she was frozen in the foetal position???? why not her waist band???

How many samples did they take from the jeans and where all these samples labelled from the areas that they were taken from?????
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 05, 2017, 11:52:55 AM
OMG... things are bouncing around my head...

How did and who identified Joanna Yeates body?????? The reason I say this is because had all her clothing been removed and he body been covered with a sheet by the time maybe her father identified her???

He wouldn't know what she had been wearing ...no one would have seen the clothes she wore the night she was killed....

Did these clothes come to court as evidence???? Because I will say again... the court drawing has her in different coloured jeans (BLUE) than to the ones she wore to work on Friday 17th December 2010 (BLACK)

And the clothing was never really mentioned until the court trial by which time they have a PLEA and NO-ONE is paying attention to detail!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 05, 2017, 12:51:27 PM
www.swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-police-examining-third-car-12799


This one seems to work!

I don't think P.... S....... was ever a suspect.

Not being funny... but why not???? he knew that Greg was away...  he helped start his car..
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 05, 2017, 12:56:16 PM
Who was Eliminated from the DNA on Joanna Yeates body???

(1): CJ

(2): Everyone on the national Data base

(3): One friend of Joanna Yeates don't know whether thats male or female

And who else?????? because we do not know.... they didn't test her work collegues or anyone one of her facebook friends which they were going to do...

I was always under the impression that a lot of Police work was a process of elimination.... so where is the ELIMINATION????

A partial DNA sample that would not fit anyone (IMO) so no need to eliminate people really and waste tax payers money..!!!!!!!!


So why go to Holland??? Thats another thread altogether!!

EDIT....

If they turned this sample around in 48 hours as Lyndsey Lennen brags in the guardian column, surely they should have had all her work collegues lined up for their DNA test first....... as they were aware she was alone at the weekend, unlike Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!

48 hours after they had found her body is 27th December 2010... WHY haven't they gone to her friends and work collegues first?????

Why the Landlord and The Tenant???? There was NOTHING to indicate Dr Vincent Tabak could have had anything to do with this crime, yet they take his DNA in Holland well before they test anyone whom is actually connected to Joanna Yeates..

It's convincing me more that the DNA sample was useless.... it couldn't tell you anything.. so they certainly couldn't connect Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna Yeates body as they have led us to believe (IMO)!!!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 05, 2017, 02:18:42 PM
How are LGC Forensics collecting anything from Joanna Yeates body as it lies in situ???
...
I cannot see why and how they would collect such material before Dr Delaney got to the scene!!!

Isn't it for the pathologist to see the body before ANYONE touches it?
...
Her body is taken from the scene at 4:45pm if I remember correctly and Dr Delaney doesn't get to see her till 6:00pm at the mortuary..

So is that normal for LGC Forensics to start taking samples from a FROZEN body????

Or (IMO) is that why Andrew Mott said that he had to stop a body from thawing, so it was even possible for anyone to take a sample...

I'm sure I remember one of them saying they removed her clothing.. if that was the case, how did they remove clothing from a frozen body that would have been frozen in the foetal position?????
How did they take the DNA sample from the back of her jeans when she was frozen in the foetal position???? why not her waist band???

How many samples did they take from the jeans and where all these samples labelled from the areas that they were taken from?????
Nobody except Andrew Mott and Dr Delaney claimed to have touched the body until long after it was in the mortuary. Dr Delaney testified that he began his post-mortem on Boxing day, which sounds reasonable to me. Presumably it had reached mortuary temperature by then, so it was not frozen. He also told the court that he washed her body in cold water. He said nothing about taking samples of surface fluids for DNA testing, but, if this were done, as is claimed, then there is no reason to believe it wasn't he who did it, even if the actual testing of the samples were done in LGC's laboratory.

It was Joanna's parents who identified her body.

There is nothing inconsistent in Lindsay Lennen's claims in interviews with journalists that a colleague of hers collected Joanna's clothes for analysis on Boxing day. Dr. Delaney would have had to remove these anyway so as to wash the body.

None of the testimony in court shows that Joanna was wearing the same clothes in the pub. On the contrary, there are lot of signs that she wasn't - and IMO this is very significant.

I don't believe anyone's DNA (not even Greg's) was taken until after the body was found, whatever CJ may have suggested in one of his many interviews. After the body was found, anyone known to have been in the flat who was readily available for swab-taking would have had their DNA taken, as matter of routine, without this even being reported.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 05, 2017, 02:22:40 PM
Another question I pose... Just looking for video to answer one of mrswah's questions and noticed the buses in and around The Ram Pub....

So what about CCTV that buses have on them.. surely many passed her on her route home!!!

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cctv_mounted_on_exterior_of_buse
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 05, 2017, 02:43:56 PM


There is nothing inconsistent in Lindsay Lennen's claims in interviews with journalists that a colleague of hers collected Joanna's clothes for analysis on Boxing day. Dr. Delaney would have had to remove these anyway so as to wash the body.



Where does it say on Boxing day that her colleague collected the clothing... because if I remember correctly she said her colleague was at the scene to supervise the removal of the clothing....

That's why I had a problem.........

Edit....

Quote
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

This statement suggests that it was at the scene and not the mortuary where you ould have thought that they just collected the clothing from Dr Delaney!!!


Double Edit:..... Yes extremely tricky to remove clothing and take samples from a body frozen in the foetal position!!!!!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 05, 2017, 04:19:34 PM
Where does it say on Boxing day that her colleague collected the clothing... because if I remember correctly she said her colleague was at the scene to supervise the removal of the clothing....

That's why I had a problem.........

Edit....

This statement suggests that it was at the scene and not the mortuary where you ould have thought that they just collected the clothing from Dr Delaney!!!


Double Edit:..... Yes extremely tricky to remove clothing and take samples from a body frozen in the foetal position!!!!!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
It was in "Police Magazine" that Lindsay Lennen told journalist Tina Orr Munro that Tania Nickson was the first scene-going scientist to attend the scene, and that she did so on Boxing day. I see no reason to believe that this person was not the colleague who she told the man from "The Guardian" (in the link you posted) collected Joanna's clothes for analysis.

However, I had forgotten that Lennen mentions in both these interviews that forensic tests had been carried out in Joanna's flat before her body was found, in an effort to identify any foreign DNA. I overlooked the obvious conclusion, that they would have had to obtain swabs from Greg, Jo's parents, and Chris Jefferies, at the same time, to eliminate them. So you and Chris Jefferies were right all along. However, they wouldn't have taken swabs from Vincent or Tanja at that stage.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 05, 2017, 10:44:57 PM
It was in "Police Magazine" that Lindsay Lennen told journalist Tina Orr Munro that Tania Nickson was the first scene-going scientist to attend the scene, and that she did so on Boxing day. I see no reason to believe that this person was not the colleague who she told the man from "The Guardian" (in the link you posted) collected Joanna's clothes for analysis.

However, I had forgotten that Lennen mentions in both these interviews that forensic tests had been carried out in Joanna's flat before her body was found, in an effort to identify any foreign DNA. I overlooked the obvious conclusion, that they would have had to obtain swabs from Greg, Jo's parents, and Chris Jefferies, at the same time, to eliminate them. So you and Chris Jefferies were right all along. However, they wouldn't have taken swabs from Vincent or Tanja at that stage.




If this is true, it does not tie up with what Chris Jefferies says in the Judge Rinder programme. He says that everybody in the flats gave DNA samples right at the beginning of the investigation-----and that nobody minded, because they had nothing to hide!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 06, 2017, 09:29:06 AM
If this is true, it does not tie up with what Chris Jefferies says in the Judge Rinder programme. He says that everybody in the flats gave DNA samples right at the beginning of the investigation-----and that nobody minded, because they had nothing to hide!
This remark lacks Chris Jefferies's customary precision. Obviously, not EVERYBODY in the flat gave DNA samples, because:

(1) Vincent Tabak didn't give one until he was interviewed at Schiphol on 31 December 2010

(2) At the time when he gave this interview, Christopher Jefferies believed that Vincent Tabak did have something to hide, as indeed the detective who interviewed him claimed his behaviour at Schiphol revealed in her testimony. So Christopher Jefferies was not including Vincent Tabak in those who had nothing to hide.

I expect the police told the landlord, "We are taking DNA from everyone in the flats" just to reassure him, even though they were not interested in those living on the upper floors, but were presumably interested in Joanna's parents and anyone else known to have been in her flat itself, even though they didn't actually live there.

On learning from Christopher Jefferies and Lindsay Lennen that the police were busy taking DNA before they knew that a crime had been committed, Judge Rinders ought to have asked himself why they were taking such an unusual step over a missing person.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 06, 2017, 04:19:53 PM
This remark lacks Chris Jefferies's customary precision. Obviously, not EVERYBODY in the flat gave DNA samples, because:

(1) Vincent Tabak didn't give one until he was interviewed at Schiphol on 31 December 2010



But how do we know for sure that Holland was the first time he gave a sample... unless CJ is a witness on the stand and can verify who in the Flat gave a sample... we just don't know!!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 06, 2017, 07:24:16 PM
But how do we know for sure that Holland was the first time he gave a sample... unless CJ is a witness on the stand and can verify who in the Flat gave a sample... we just don't know!!!
We don't need CJ in the stand for this one, because we have DC Karen Thomas in the stand, telling the court, under oath, that Vincent Tabak was reluctant to give a swab for DNA at Schiphol, and that his sister and girlfriend fussed over him. I don't see how she can have made it clearer to us that 31st December 2010 must have been the first time he had had been asked for a swab, otherwise he wouldn't have blanched and appealed to his women for their protection.

At the time when he gave his interview to "Judge Rinder", Christopher Jefferies knew very well that the TV viewers believed that Vincent Tabak did have something to hide at the time when Joanna was missing. So Christopher Jefferies was not including Vincent Tabak in those who had nothing to hide when he said "Everyone in the flats gave a sample".
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 06, 2017, 07:49:08 PM
We don't need CJ in the stand for this one, because we have DC Karen Thomas in the stand, telling the court, under oath, that Vincent Tabak was reluctant to give a swab for DNA at Schiphol, and that his sister and girlfriend fussed over him. I don't see how she can have made it clearer to us that 31st December 2010 must have been the first time he had had been asked for a swab, otherwise he wouldn't have blanched and appealed to his women for their protection.

At the time when he gave his interview to "Judge Rinder", Christopher Jefferies knew very well that the TV viewers believed that Vincent Tabak did have something to hide at the time when Joanna was missing. So Christopher Jefferies was not including Vincent Tabak in those who had nothing to hide when he said "Everyone in the flats gave a sample".

Think we need CJ to name those who gave DNA samples... Quote from Judge Rinder Crime story:At 13:18 of the video...

Quote
All the people who lived in 44 Canygne Road, were.. were interviewed and statements were taken.... So my statement was taken along with everyone elses, DNA samples were taken, Finger Prints were taken.... It was all entirely voluntary... But obviously nobody had anything to hide.. So nobody was in the least bit concerned about cooperating in that way

So.... who is telling an UNTRUTH ????  That statement by CJ is saying everyone in 44 Canygne Road,... he doesn't  leave Dr Vincent Tabak out of that statement... he could have said nearly everyone.... But he didn't...

Everyone... means everyone... well thats my interpretation of the word Everyone..

Leonora... why would CJ even mention the DNA samples?????


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ3GuwcEU6c&t=439s
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 06, 2017, 08:46:39 PM
Think we need CJ to name those who gave DNA samples... Quote from Judge Rinder Crime story:At 13:18 of the video...

So.... who is telling an UNTRUTH ????  That statement by CJ is saying everyone in 44 Canygne Road,... he doesn't  leave Dr Vincent Tabak out of that statement... he could have said nearly everyone.... But he didn't...

Everyone... means everyone... well thats my interpretation of the word Everyone..

Leonora... why would CJ even mention the DNA samples?????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ3GuwcEU6c&t=439s
According to your transcription, Christopher Jefferies said: "All the people who lived in 44 Canygne Road, were.. were interviewed and statements were taken.... So my statement was taken along with everyone elses, DNA samples were taken, Finger Prints were taken.... It was all entirely voluntary... But obviously nobody had anything to hide.. So nobody was in the least bit concerned about cooperating in that way" He did NOT actually say "All the people had DNA samples and Finger Prints taken". There is no contradiction nor untruth in his statement. We know that one statement was also taken from Vincent Tabak at this time, and that his and Tanja's flat was searched. But you are mistaken if you draw the conclusion that Christopher Jefferies was asserting that DNA and Finger Prints were taken from the same group of people as the group who were interviewed. The two groups overlap, so he himself, Greg Reardon and Joanna's parents were in both groups. However, Vincent Tabak  was only in the group who were interviewed. The landlord "knew" that VT had something to hide, so his use of the word "nobody" means "nobody in the group whose DNA and Finger Prints were taken".

I am sure that Joanna's DNA and Finger Prints were also obtained at this time from, e.g. her purse and toothbrush.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 09, 2017, 12:16:42 PM
Now I am even more confused.......

Quote
Mr Faithfull told the court how the forensic team had made efforts to prevent Miss Yeates frozen body from thawing out, in order to avoid losing any potentially significant evidence.

Quote
The jury was shown images of the snow-covered body as forensic officer, Martin Faithfull, described the operation to retrieve her body.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html


Quote
Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he
tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-killer-cries-in-dock-274852


Two Forensic Officers who both tried to stop a body from thawing out..... Now where either of these Officers asked what method they used to try and prevent a body from thawing out????

She was removed from the scene at 4:45 PM if memory serves me correctly and Dr Delaney didn't see her until 6:00pm

So for 9 hours she had left to thaw out.... 

I do not understand why 2 forensic officers say the same thing????  How many people were around the body of Joanna Yeates on a Narrow Verge.. where cross contamination and transfer could take place...

What would you use to stop a body from thawing??? Which brings us back to Lyndsey Lennen and when her team took samples....

Did they remove her clothes at the scene..... How FROZEN SOLID was Joanna Yeates??


Ok... this is puzzling me.... You have the people who found her.... they just make a statement that get read out at trial... yet they should have been at trial, they made the important discovery... They could have described the condition of Joanna Yeates when they found her...

Quote
Mr Birch said he had seen a lump in the snow piled up on the verge of Longwood Lane and noticed a piece of denim poking through.

So... he is describing the snow being piled up there... which gives a different look to the scene...

Therefore, the body would have to have been placed there well after it snowed to be able to make a pile of snow on a body!!!  (IMO)

It didn't snow till the Saturday... And whenever you look at pictures of Longwood lane, the snow is very sparse, if you look at the picture I have attached, the snow barely covers their shoes.... So going on the statement of the dog walker, someone piled the snow on top of Joanna Yeates body, to have sufficiant to cover it, he doesn't say anything about leaves covering her body he says SNOW!!!!

So... if they say Dr Vincent Tabak covered the body in leaves then snow hid it... it doesn't make sense... the leaf debris should be frozen to her entire body... followed by the snow... nothing should be visible.... But if it is just a snow pile... with some leaf debris amongst it, then with the snow melting you could see how part of her would be visible..

Which also goes to prove, she couldn't have been on Longwood Lane for that many days....

How are they taking samples from a frozen body????? They're Not... because it's not frozen to the degree they claimed in the begining... So the surface skin could have samples taken from it!!


Going back to the Forensic Officers... Shouldn't there just be one in charge of the immediate scene where Joanna Yeates body lay???


EDIT:.... just another thought... how could anyone take samples from Joanna Yeates, if all this leaf debris was frozen to her body????? The leaf debri should have been stuck all over her... But it doesn't sound like it was....



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 09, 2017, 05:34:29 PM
Going back to the marks on Joanna Yeates neck and chin:...

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-press-and-journal-aberdeen/20111015/283115655716704

Like I said on one of my other posts,, she could have been strangled from behind in a choke hold... Which the more I think about it the more  I believe it could be probable....

I'm trying to imaging what caused the marks on her chin.....  Buttons on a jacket ??? A bracelet ??? watch???

If it was a choke hold and and it was a watch/ bracelet etc...  I'm trying to work out if they are left handed??? Don't know....



Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 10, 2017, 01:47:05 PM
...
Two Forensic Officers who both tried to stop a body from thawing out..... Now where either of these Officers asked what method they used to try and prevent a body from thawing out????

She was removed from the scene at 4:45 PM if memory serves me correctly and Dr Delaney didn't see her until 6:00pm...
Home Office pathologist Dr. Russell Delaney made his first appearance in court to testify on the fifth day of the trial, Friday 14th October 2011. He told the court that he was on duty on 25th December 2010 when he was called out to Longwood Lane to examine a body, believed to be that of Joanna Yeates. He did not arrive until after mid-day. Dr. Delaney stated that she was lying on the ground in a “foetal” position, without any shoes on. There was no sock on her right foot. At his first sight of Joanna Yeates’s body, he could glimpse blood on her blonde hair, which was matted with snow and leaves...

Dr. Russell Delaney did not examine Joanna Yeates’s body closely until 6.00 p.m., on 25th December 2010, nine hours after it had been found.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on April 10, 2017, 02:00:27 PM
I don't know the chain of command and how an Investigation is processed...

But as always something bothers me...

How are LGC Forensics collecting anything from Joanna Yeates body as it lies in situ???

You would have thought they would have waited.. There is something fundamentally wrong with this situation, I keep going over and over what was said at trial and in earlier and later interviews...

I cannot see why and how they would collect such material before Dr Delaney got to the scene!!!

Isn't it for the pathologist to see the body before ANYONE touches it???? Is that how the chain of command works??

I'm serious... something is slightly off, like a lot of this investigation I'm no expert but the jigsaw doesn't quite fit correctly, and I'm still looking for the piece...

Her body is taken from the scene at 4:45pm if I remember correctly and Dr Delaney doesn't get to see her till 6:00pm at the mortuary..

So is that normal for LGC Forensics to start taking samples from a FROZEN body????

Or (IMO) is that why Andrew Mott said that he had to stop a body from thawing, so it was even possible for anyone to take a sample...

Wouldn't the evidence be compromised in some way if:

(A): Many people where around her body

(B): she wasn't covered with a forensic tent

Someone explain the chain of command when it comes to forensically examining a body... I always believed nothing could be done until the PATHOLOGIST had seen it!!!!

I'm sure I remember one of them saying they removed her clothing.. if that was the case, how did they remove clothing from a frozen body that would have been frozen in the foetal position?????

Again Questions but NO Answers!!!!

EDIT...............

How did they take the DNA sample from the back of her jeans when she was frozen in the foetal position???? why not her waist band???

How many samples did they take from the jeans and where all these samples labelled from the areas that they were taken from?????

It is the job of the CSI team to document all items found on or around the body as it lies in situ as these will be disturbed when the body is lifted into a body bag.  The pathologist can visit the scene if he or she so wishes.

When the body is in the mortuary it is then the responsibility of the pathologist to examine it and any clothing etc which will be labelled for further forensic analysis.  The police will also attend this examination.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on April 10, 2017, 02:32:08 PM
Two Forensic Officers who both tried to stop a body from thawing out..... Now where either of these Officers asked what method they used to try and prevent a body from thawing out????

She was removed from the scene at 4:45 PM if memory serves me correctly and Dr Delaney didn't see her until 6:00pm

So for 9 hours she had left to thaw out.... 

I do not understand why 2 forensic officers say the same thing????  How many people were around the body of Joanna Yeates on a Narrow Verge.. where cross contamination and transfer could take place...

What would you use to stop a body from thawing??? Which brings us back to Lyndsey Lennen and when her team took samples....

Did they remove her clothes at the scene..... How FROZEN SOLID was Joanna Yeates??


Ok... this is puzzling me.... You have the people who found her.... they just make a statement that get read out at trial... yet they should have been at trial, they made the important discovery... They could have described the condition of Joanna Yeates when they found her...

So... he is describing the snow being piled up there... which gives a different look to the scene...

Therefore, the body would have to have been placed there well after it snowed to be able to make a pile of snow on a body!!!  (IMO)

It didn't snow till the Saturday... And whenever you look at pictures of Longwood lane, the snow is very sparse, if you look at the picture I have attached, the snow barely covers their shoes.... So going on the statement of the dog walker, someone piled the snow on top of Joanna Yeates body, to have sufficiant to cover it, he doesn't say anything about leaves covering her body he says SNOW!!!!

So... if they say Dr Vincent Tabak covered the body in leaves then snow hid it... it doesn't make sense... the leaf debris should be frozen to her entire body... followed by the snow... nothing should be visible.... But if it is just a snow pile... with some leaf debris amongst it, then with the snow melting you could see how part of her would be visible..

Which also goes to prove, she couldn't have been on Longwood Lane for that many days....

How are they taking samples from a frozen body????? They're Not... because it's not frozen to the degree they claimed in the begining... So the surface skin could have samples taken from it!!

Vincent Tabak told the Court that he tried to lift Joanna's body over the stone wall but couldn't manage it.  He then laid it in a foetal position on the verge and covered it in leaves.  That is why passing motorists failed to notice the body.

The body would freeze pretty quickly overnight and the leaf material would stick to the body.  When it snowed that would again add to the camouflage masking the body from view.  The dog walker's dog probably found the body initially and drew its owners attention to the strange bump on the verge.  Closer inspection revealed it was a person.

Vincent Tabak not only gave a full explanation as to how he killed Joanna but explained fully how he moved her body, where he left it etc.  Not the sort of thing one is able to do if innocent?
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 10, 2017, 03:13:22 PM
Vincent Tabak told the Court that he tried to lift Joanna's body over the stone wall but couldn't manage it.  He then laid it in a foetal position on the verge and covered it in leaves.  That is why passing motorists failed to notice the body.

The body would freeze pretty quickly overnight and the leaf material would stick to the body.  When it snowed that would again add to the camouflage masking the body from view.  The dog walker's dog probably found the body initially and drew its owners attention to the strange bump on the verge.  Closer inspection revealed it was a person.

Vincent Tabak not only gave a full explanation as to how he killed Joanna but explained fully how he moved her body, where he left it etc.  Not the sort of thing one is able to do if innocent?

Yes but the sort of explantation if you have been told what to say!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 22, 2017, 03:49:27 PM

If they didn't examine Joanna's car, how could the police eliminate her boyfriend so early on in the investigation, and so publicly? He was the only person to be publicly eliminated, until the landlord was released from bail, long after the dust had settled.

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!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 22, 2017, 11:14:33 PM
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!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 23, 2017, 07:49:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 23, 2017, 08:01:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 23, 2017, 10:05:29 AM
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..

Quote
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/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 23, 2017, 10:31:51 AM
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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 23, 2017, 10:43:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 23, 2017, 10:56:22 AM
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..

Quote
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
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 23, 2017, 01:54:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 23, 2017, 02:47:58 PM
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...
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 27, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
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???




Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 27, 2017, 10:43:59 AM
                                     The Inquest......

Quote
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????

Quote
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??

Quote
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 ???

Quote
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 ????

Quote
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????

Quote
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 ??


Quote
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
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 28, 2017, 01:32:44 PM
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]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 28, 2017, 04:38:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 28, 2017, 06:02:38 PM

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?????
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 28, 2017, 08:31:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on April 28, 2017, 11:12:48 PM
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.

Yes, Lindsey Lennen's comment says it all.  If someone says they did it, nobody needs to test anything! They don't need to question the guilty plea either. This approach might work some of the time, but it is hardly satisfactory-----IMO, of course.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 29, 2017, 08:05:15 AM
One question I have been trying to find the answer too is:

How long does it take to properly thaw a body?? 

I'm sure you can't do it quickly, I've have tried to find this out without much success... I did find a book someone was writing and they had , had advice about the length of time from a professional, but I could hardly use that info...

She was found on the 25th Dec and the results of the post Mortem were on the 28th Dec... Is 3 days long enough for a body that has been outside for 8 days frozen solid to thaw suficiantly as to do a post mortem?? (no even 3 full days )..

I wonder... We have Andrew Mott and we have Martin Faithfull  Officers who's qualifications as forensic Officers are not fore coming.. both testifying that they had to stop Joanna Yeates body from thawing... ?

Is that the reason they both make this statement... she could have been thawing... but wouldn't that lend to her being there for far less time....

Dr Delaney doesn't get to see her till 6:00pm on the 25th December 2010.... 


Quote
12:14PM GMT 28 Dec 2010

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones of Avon and Somerset Police revealed the results of a post mortem examination as he declared that her death was now officially being treated as a murder investigation.
He said Joanna, who disappeared on Friday, December 17, had died as a result of compression of the neck.
.

This is the earliest report I have found so far in regards to the conclusion of strangulation...

6:00pm 25th December 2010 to:..  12:07  28th December 2010 = 66 hours.. (if this is PM)

Is 66 hours long enough for a body to thaw out thoroughly?? The whole body would have to be at the same temperature and thawed out so that the post mortem could even start..

I'm changing Time Frame to 54 hours max after DCI Phil Jones said it was the night before that the Autopsy was completed..


And for someone who has been outside for so long it doesn't seem long enough for the body to thaw.... I believe it would have to be kept at a steady temperature so tissue doesn't start to deteriorate at a different rate to the rest ....

Would the core of the body be fully defrosted ?? I don't know .... And another problem which I forget when visulizing  an autopsy is that the body was in the foetal position... So would that make it take even longer to thaw???

Foetal Position:
One Arm across her body:
One Arm around her head :

Within this 66 hour time frame... not only does he have to thaw the body.. but he needs to un-pose it... remove the clothing, wash the body and then start the autopsy...

I am no medical expert but I don't believe it's long enough... so that would lean to her not being as frozen as they say... which in turn means that she was NOT on Longwood Lane for 8 days , which I never believed she was ...


Does anyone know how many days it would take to thaw out a body in the foetal position that is frozen solid being outside for 8 day in terrible temperatures??

And at what temperature do you start the thawing process so that it defrosts at an even temerature??



( I've added attachment incase the article changes or goes walkabout.. It shows the date and time ..)


Quote
BYMIRROR.CO.UK
12:07, 28 DEC 2010UPDATED09:47, 27 JAN 2012


This doesn't say AM or PM... I suppose it's PM.... But??

Edit:.... Does the post Mortem examination time include toxicology tests??

These were sent to Scotland... So how can you have the FULL results of the post Mortem if it doesn't include the Toxicology Results...

They would have had to be sent to Scotland ASAP.... Did they get the Results immediately???


Double Edit:.... On The 28th December at 12:14pm DCI Phil Jones says that the pathologist completed his examination last night...

Begs questions... we have now to take 12 hours off... so we only have 54 hours at the very most.... we do not know what time he completed his examination of a FROZEN BODY...

I'll pop a link in to my next post on early reports about the case:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg401461#msg401461

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-was-strangled-post-mortem-271813

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8228069/Murder-investigation-launched-as-post-mortem-reveals-Joanna-Yeates-was-strangled.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on April 29, 2017, 09:28:47 AM
...
Edit:.... Does the post Mortem examination time include toxicology tests??

These were sent to Scotland... So how can you have the FULL results of the post Mortem if it doesn't include the Toxicology Results...

They would have had to be sent to Scotland ASAP.... Did they get the Results immediately???
...
No toxicology results have ever been reported. The prosecutor stated a figure for Joanna's blood alcohol content, but this cannot be trusted, since no one testified to it.

The gastroarchaeologist who analysed the contents of Joanna's stomach, and who testified briefly, Dr Jennifer Miller, told the court that she was from Northlight Heritage, which is in Glasgow. We cannot know for certain whether Dr Miller carried out the analysis in her own lab, though it seems most likely. We don't know whether she also analysed the contents of the the intestines as well, but this seems likely. We don't know whether she received only the contents, or the organs themselves. We don't know when she performed her analysis, but it seems likely that it was carried out between 17th and 19th January 2011. Dr Delaney told the court that he had observed a subsequent examination of Joanna's body by a certain Dr White on 17th January 2011. He gave no reason for this, but it seems likely that Dr. White's task was to remove what Dr Miller needed. Two days later, the news media carried brief unattributed reports that Joanna had not eaten the pizza. The next day, Vincent Tabak was arrested.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 29, 2017, 10:11:41 AM
No toxicology results have ever been reported. The prosecutor stated a figure for Joanna's blood alcohol content, but this cannot be trusted, since no one testified to it.

The gastroarchaeologist who analysed the contents of Joanna's stomach, and who testified briefly, Dr Jennifer Miller, told the court that she was from Northlight Heritage, which is in Glasgow. We cannot know for certain whether Dr Miller carried out the analysis in her own lab, though it seems most likely. We don't know whether she also analysed the contents of the the intestines as well, but this seems likely. We don't know whether she received only the contents, or the organs themselves. We don't know when she performed her analysis, but it seems likely that it was carried out between 17th and 19th January 2011. Dr Delaney told the court that he had observed a subsequent examination of Joanna's body by a certain Dr White on 17th January 2011. He gave no reason for this, but it seems likely that Dr. White's task was to remove what Dr Miller needed. Two days later, the news media carried brief unattributed reports that Joanna had not eaten the pizza. The next day, Vincent Tabak was arrested.

so.... How can you have a conclusion of a Post Mortem without these ????  You would need to bring in all possible factors to have a conclusion.... So that you can rule out that she had been DRUGGED for instance...

That no other toxic substances were attributed to her death....

17th to the 19th January is far too late for results... how could the post mortem be complete?? ...(IMO)

How do you know that was probable it happened then???

I don't understand how he came to his conclusion so quickly....

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on May 01, 2017, 07:09:32 PM
so.... How can you have a conclusion of a Post Mortem without these ????  You would need to bring in all possible factors to have a conclusion.... So that you can rule out that she had been DRUGGED for instance...

That no other toxic substances were attributed to her death....

17th to the 19th January is far too late for results... how could the post mortem be complete?? ...(IMO)

How do you know that was probable it happened then???

I don't understand how he came to his conclusion so quickly....
I don't understand your question. Dr Delaney said he "glimpsed" the body on Christmas day, and then made two post-mortem examinations at the mortuary before DCI Phil Jones met the press. Much later, a mysterious Dr White "examined" the body in the presence of Dr Delaney. The timings of this examination, the press release stating that Joanna had not eaten the pizza, and the arrest of Vincent Tabak, have every appearance of being co-ordinated, and of being intended to prevent anyone else from examining the stomach contents.

I agree with you that the lack of any toxicology evidence is suspicious, but absence of evidence is not as useful as evidence of absence. It is particularly annoying that the press has been totally silent about the very existence of the inquest, instead of reporting that it had been opened and adjourned. That suggests to me that the press have been compromised.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 02, 2017, 05:47:06 AM
I don't understand your question. Dr Delaney said he "glimpsed" the body on Christmas day, and then made two post-mortem examinations at the mortuary before DCI Phil Jones met the press. Much later, a mysterious Dr White "examined" the body in the presence of Dr Delaney. The timings of this examination, the press release stating that Joanna had not eaten the pizza, and the arrest of Vincent Tabak, have every appearance of being co-ordinated, and of being intended to prevent anyone else from examining the stomach contents.

I agree with you that the lack of any toxicology evidence is suspicious, but absence of evidence is not as useful as evidence of absence. It is particularly annoying that the press has been totally silent about the very existence of the inquest, instead of reporting that it had been opened and adjourned. That suggests to me that the press have been compromised.

Even more confusing... How can you have 2 post mortem examinations in such a short space of time??? Shouldn't it just be the one ???

Who is Dr White???? and why were they not in court??/ I don't remember them making an appearance ...

It's a shame we can't have dates and timings of these examnation... toxicology included!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on May 02, 2017, 07:54:55 AM
Even more confusing... How can you have 2 post mortem examinations in such a short space of time??? Shouldn't it just be the one ???

Who is Dr White???? and why were they not in court??/ I don't remember them making an appearance ...

It's a shame we can't have dates and timings of these examnation... toxicology included!!
Please don't shoot the messenger! I am not accountable for all the procedural failures in this case.

Dr Delaney carried out his first post-mortem examination proper at 6 p.m. on Christmas day 2010. Joanna's body was still at least partly frozen.

Her parents saw her during the morning of boxing day.

Dr Delaney continued with his post-mortem examination during the afternoon of boxing day.

The following day, DCI Phil Jones held a press conference. He told them that Joanna had been strangled, but nothing about evidence of rape. That came out more than a week later.

I have only just noticed that Dr Delaney carried out a further post-mortem examination on 31st December 2010. That was also the day of the Schiphol interview.

During cross-examination by defence counsel, the court was told how long food takes to digest. It is not clear whether it was Mr Clegg or Dr Delaney who did the telling. In any event, the pathologist did tell the court that he was not able to give a timescale as to when Joanna had died.

I have posted all I know about the involvement of Dr White (which was made public only at the trial). I can't be held accountable for the absence of any explanation for this. However, its timing suggests that it was part of the strategy of disinformation leading up to and including VT's arrest. Was Dr J...... M..... from G........ the "crying girl"? Two day's after Dr White's involvement, a brief unattributed statement was made in at least two news media that Joanna had not eaten the pizza.

This may, strictly speaking, be true, especially if the CCTV from Tesco Express was captured on a different day entirely - perhaps even AFTER Joanna was supposed to have been killed by Vincent Tabak. She may have put it in the freezer, and it may be the pizza her boyfriend ate after his return from Sheffield. He may have mistaken it for an Asda pizza.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on May 02, 2017, 09:50:36 AM
Good post, Leonora------except that I don't believe Greg ate the Tesco pizza, otherwise the packaging would have been found in the bins at No 44. Even if the police didn't get around to looking for it immediately, Jo's parents would have done.

I have never been able to find any reference to the mysterious Dr White.

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on May 02, 2017, 10:13:49 AM
Good post, Leonora------except that I don't believe Greg ate the Tesco pizza, otherwise the packaging would have been found in the bins at No 44. Even if the police didn't get around to looking for it immediately, Jo's parents would have done.

I have never been able to find any reference to the mysterious Dr White.
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on May 02, 2017, 12:48:16 PM
Here are the tweets that include the reference to Dr White:

#Vincenttabak has his head bowed and buried in his hands as Dr Delaney describes the many injuries found.

3:43 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney is describing the deep bruising to #Joannayeates' neck muscles

3:52 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

3:56 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
10 minute break #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

4:12 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 02, 2017, 05:28:05 PM
Here are the tweets that include the reference to Dr White:

#Vincenttabak has his head bowed and buried in his hands as Dr Delaney describes the many injuries found.

3:43 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney is describing the deep bruising to #Joannayeates' neck muscles

3:52 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

3:56 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
10 minute break #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

4:12 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky


If Dr White was for the Defence... How could that be possible????

Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't arrested until the 20th January 2011.....

So who is Dr White ?????
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on May 02, 2017, 07:47:22 PM

If Dr White was for the Defence... How could that be possible????

Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't arrested until the 20th January 2011.....

So who is Dr White ?????
Only you have suggested that Dr White was for the Defence, and you have also immediately scotched that theory, by pointing out that several days were to elapse before there was a defendant with a lawyer who needed to appoint an independent pathologist.

In any case, we don't know if Dr White is actually an accredited pathologist. The timing leads me to believe that his role was as Dr Jennifer Miller's go-between. In that capacity, he could vouch to her for the integrity of the evidence taken the cadaver which he delivered to her in Glasgow, and Dr Delaney could vouch for Dr White. The prosecution had this evidence sent out of the country to a different jurisdiction, most probably to make it harder for Vincent Tabak's lawyers to requisition it for their own independent gastroarchaeologist to examine.

It's enough to make the mind boggle and the stomach to turn over.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on May 02, 2017, 07:55:35 PM
Only you have suggested that Dr White was for the Defence, and you have also immediately scotched that theory, by pointing out that several days were to elapse before there was a defendant with a lawyer who needed to appoint an independent pathologist.

In any case, we don't know if Dr White is actually an accredited pathologist. The timing leads me to believe that his role was as Dr Jennifer Miller's go-between. In that capacity, he could vouch to her for the integrity of the evidence taken the cadaver which he delivered to her in Glasgow, and Dr Delaney could vouch for Dr White. The prosecution had this evidence sent out of the country to a different jurisdiction, most probably to make it harder for Vincent Tabak's lawyers to requisition it for their own independent gastroarchaeologist to examine.

It's enough to make the mind boggle and the stomach to turn over.

Yes, dirty tricks are a phenomena of many cases, I myself have just discovered some in my own case just today.  That said however, let's not jump to any conclusion in this case until further facts are discovered.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 02, 2017, 08:29:54 PM
Only you have suggested that Dr White was for the Defence, and you have also immediately scotched that theory, by pointing out that several days were to elapse before there was a defendant with a lawyer who needed to appoint an independent pathologist.

In any case, we don't know if Dr White is actually an accredited pathologist. The timing leads me to believe that his role was as Dr Jennifer Miller's go-between. In that capacity, he could vouch to her for the integrity of the evidence taken the cadaver which he delivered to her in Glasgow, and Dr Delaney could vouch for Dr White. The prosecution had this evidence sent out of the country to a different jurisdiction, most probably to make it harder for Vincent Tabak's lawyers to requisition it for their own independent gastroarchaeologist to examine.

It's enough to make the mind boggle and the stomach to turn over.


Do we know Dr Whites name??
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 03, 2017, 10:13:33 AM
I thought I check wiki out... anyway here's a quote regarding Rigor Mortis:


Quote
Application in forensic pathology

The degree of rigor mortis may be used in forensic pathology, to determine the approximate time of death. A dead body holds its position as rigor mortis sets in. If the body is moved after death, but before rigor mortis begins, forensic techniques such as livor mortis can be applied. If the position in which a body is found does not match the location where it is found (for example, if it is flat on its back with one arm sticking straight up), that could mean someone moved it.

Several factors also affect the progression of rigor mortis, and investigators take these into account when estimating the time of death. One such factor is the ambient temperature. When conditions are warm, the onset and pace of rigor mortis are sped up by providing a conducive environment for the metabolic processes that cause decay. Low temperatures, however, slow them down. Therefore, for a person who dies outside in frozen conditions rigor mortis may last several days more than normal, so investigators may have to abandon it as a tool for determining time of death.[8][9]

So if she's dumped within a short space of time ... Rigor Mortis Hasn't taken place immediatley then:

Quote
Therefore, for a person who dies outside in frozen conditions rigor mortis may last several days more than normal, so investigators may have to abandon it as a tool for determining time of death.

Why was it even POSSIBLE to complete a POST MORTUM EXAMINATION within 56 hours???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis

EDIT:...........

Quote
Temperature is an important factor in determining the time of onset of rigor. In normal circumstances and at room temperature rigor is complete in about three to six hours. If the temperature is higher the onset is more rapid — perhaps no more than an hour in tropical temperatures. Conversely, the onset of rigor is delayed at low temperatures. In cases of drowning in cold water, for example, rigor may not appear until the body has been removed from the water, even after several days of immersion. The onset of rigor is hastened if there has been intense physical activity shortly before death. Thus, in forensic medical practice, the presence of rigor is a poor determinant of the time of death. Once established, the duration of rigor ranges from 18 to 36 hours.


So did Rigor Mortis Occur after Joanna Yeates was defrosted??

If Dr Delaney did the autopsy within 56 Hours he had to wait for her to thaw, then possibly would then have to contend with Rigor Mortis..

So... Does that mean that Joanna Yeates had been kept elsewhere before she was dumped on Longwood Lane for Rigor Mortis to have taken it's natural course???

Which then enable Dr Delaney to complete his autopsy in such a short space of time???


http://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/diseases-and-conditions/pathology/rigor-mortis

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 03, 2017, 10:22:06 AM
Where there any signs of Lividity???

Did Lividity show that the body had been moved???

The Lividity that would have been on Joanna Yeates body, should have revealed if the body had been moved?? whether she had been placed on her back in the bedroom..

Whether she had lain in a different position in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat and whether or not her position had changed when taken out of the car boot...

If Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to put Joanna Yeates over the wall what position was she in???

Did he just drop her on the verge?? did she land the same way around that she had been placed in the boot of the Car??

There should have been several sites to show the body had been moved... where these visible in the Autopsy photographs??

Quote
  LIVIDITY

The term lividity refers to an unnatural color of the skin. Lividity can be a useful reaction in determining the position of a body at the time of death and even whether a body was moved within the first few hours after death.
There are various forms of lividity. In a living person, a blow can result in the localized rupturing of cells and the pooling of blood . When the blood cells begin to decompose, the release of the blood forms a bluish-purple bruise.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/crime-and-law-enforcement/lividity
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 03, 2017, 10:57:08 AM
Just thinking about the position in which Joanna Yeates body was found in....

She was in a Foetal Position with one hand around her head and the other hand around her body...

Was her body Posed???

The position makes it sound like she had been in a bicycle bag and put in a car boot... But is that so???

If Rigor Mortis had already started then her position would not have changed??

If her top being lifted up to expose her chest area would surely have happened before if Rigor had started??

So this would not have happened trying to place a body over a wall... You would have thought that if there was NO Rigor and Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to show that this was an accidental death ...

When he was covering the body with leaves he would have made sure to pull her Pink Flower Patterned Top back down to make her look like nothing sexual had happened whatsoever!!!

So therefore... Did she have Rigor Mortis when she was placed on Longwood Lane and was that why her arms were in the position she was in???

If... Rigor Mortis had set in the again.. why doesn't the Defence or Prosecution mention this....

It wasn't questioned that her Top had been pulled up in the flat???

And again.. surely Dr Vincent tabak would have pulled this Top back down so it indeed looked like it was a possible accident???

(1): Had Rigor Mortis already set in when she was brought to Longwood Lane

(2): Had her body been posed??

No real probing questions were made in relation to how Dr Vincent Tabak tried to lift her body over the wall??

Which way was she facing?? did he have her standing up and him supporting the weight??

Did he put her waist on the wall and try and lever her over... Or was she in the foetal position already??

If she was in the foetal Position when he arrived at Longwood lane, then how did the blood transfer???

Her arm was raised above her head... surely her arm would have come into contact with the wall first??

Blood doesn't drip from a dead body... so where did the blood come from???

Why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak questioned on whether or not he had posed Joanna Yeates body into the foetal position in an attempt to hide her body???

Did someone pose the body exposing her chest to suggest that this was indeed a sexually motivated attack??






Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 04, 2017, 11:14:44 AM
Only you have suggested that Dr White was for the Defence, and you have also immediately scotched that theory, by pointing out that several days were to elapse before there was a defendant with a lawyer who needed to appoint an independent pathologist.

In any case, we don't know if Dr White is actually an accredited pathologist. The timing leads me to believe that his role was as Dr Jennifer Miller's go-between. In that capacity, he could vouch to her for the integrity of the evidence taken the cadaver which he delivered to her in Glasgow, and Dr Delaney could vouch for Dr White. The prosecution had this evidence sent out of the country to a different jurisdiction, most probably to make it harder for Vincent Tabak's lawyers to requisition it for their own independent gastroarchaeologist to examine.

It's enough to make the mind boggle and the stomach to turn over.

I've been trying to find Dr White....  and I came up with this person.... might NOT be correct, but it brought and Idea that hadn't been looked at...

Quote
Qualifications: BMSC (First Class Honours), BDS with Honours, MFDS RCPSGlasg, PhD, FRCPath

I qualified in dentistry at Dundee Dental School in 1996 and completed General Professional Training prior to working in general practice. Following SHO and clinical research posts, I was awarded a MRC Clinical Research Training Fellowship and obtained a PhD in Human Genetics. After specialist training in Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology in Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, I was appointed Senior Lecturer/Honorary Consultant in Oral Pathology, University of Dundee.

Nobody has ever questioned what Joanna Yeates mouth condition was like ....  did they take imppressions incase she bit her assailant???

Or was there something else about Joanna Yeates mouth that they may have need an Oral Proffesional....

Obviously that is me just wondering... because I don't know if it's the Correct Dr White!! But she also is in Scotland...

http://dentistry.dundee.ac.uk/staff-member/dr-sharon-j-white
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on May 04, 2017, 12:09:20 PM
Low temperature can affect the onset of rigor mortis drastically.  Taken to an extreme it can delay or stop it altogether.  Once a cadaver is thawed, rigor mortis will continue at room temperature.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 04, 2017, 12:19:46 PM
Low temperature can affect the onset of rigor mortis drastically.  Taken to an extreme it can delay or stop it altogether.  Once a cadaver is thawed, rigor mortis will continue at room temperature.

That's my question John.... If she had been dumped outside on the 17th December 2010 in Freezing conditions and had been dead for approx 2 hours by this time...  Rigor Mortis could have just about started...


So she has to be thawed and examined after thawing... So Once thawed Rigor Mortis would have continued...

How then could Dr Delaney complete his autopsy on a body in full Rigor????

He did this in less than 56 hours... How is that possible???

The only other explanation is that she was either alive later than the 17th December 2010 or was dumped on Longwood Lane later,.... which Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have done!!!!

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on May 04, 2017, 12:21:54 PM
That's my question John.... If she had been dumped outside on the 17th December 2010 in Freezing conditions and had been dead for approx 2 hours by this time...  Rigor Mortis could have just about started...


So she has to be thawed and examined after thawing... So Once thawed Rigor Mortis would have continued...

How then could Dr Delaney complete his autopsy on a body in full Rigor????

He did this in less than 56 hours... How is that possible???

The only other explanation is that she was either alive later than the 17th December 2010 or was dumped on Longwood Lane later,.... which Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have done!!!!

Why couldn't a pathologist undertake an autopsy while rigor mortis continues?
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 04, 2017, 12:31:19 PM
Why couldn't a pathologist undertake an autopsy while rigor mortis continues?

(IMO).......
Rigor Mortis is usually used to estimate the time of death in an autopsy.... As they had indicated they had NO idea as to the time of death of Joanna Yeates, then this would be of NO value to the examination...

Dr Delaney would need the body too be flaccid so he could conduct his autopsy... with the body being in the foetal position he would not be able to complete this task......

And with all the muscles contracting they could not give a clear indication as to the cause of death....

But Im sure you probably already knew or had researched that John..... ?{)(**

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on May 04, 2017, 01:00:08 PM
(IMO).......
Rigor Mortis is usually used to estimate the time of death in an autopsy.... As they had indicated they had NO idea as to the time of death of Joanna Yeates, then this would be of NO value to the examination...

Dr Delaney would need the body too be flaccid so he could conduct his autopsy... with the body being in the foetal position he would not be able to complete this task......

And with all the muscles contracting they could not give a clear indication as to the cause of death....

But Im sure you probably already knew or had researched that John..... ?{)(**

That's probably why more than one examination took place.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 04, 2017, 01:06:57 PM
That's probably why more than one examination took place.

(1):So who did the Examinations?

(2):How Long does it take a Body to Thaw?

(3): After Thawing how long will it take Rigor mortis to end?

(4): Have you got enough time to complete this in less than 56 hours ?

I'll add them to the hundred questions...!!!

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on May 04, 2017, 01:57:43 PM
Did the missing sock ever turn up?
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on May 04, 2017, 05:03:19 PM
Did the missing sock ever turn up?
No, though DCI Phil Jones must have hunted high and low hoping to find it in Vincent Tabak's trophy store. Vincent Tabak himself told the court that he took the sock and the pizza "because he wasn't thinking straight", and disposed of them in a rubbish bin. This didn't stop DCI Phil Jones from repeating his self-defeating trophy theory in interviews he gave after the trial.

In my opinion, the sock was never where it ought to have been in the first place.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 05, 2017, 09:09:04 PM
Question.........

Why two Forensic Tents at Longwood Lane.. ??

They say Joanna Yeates wasn't in them.....   Any one else missing at the time ???

When Rebecca Scott says something about her friends being dead.... it made me wonder .... she makes a slip and corrects herself on the video of her ...
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 05, 2017, 10:16:37 PM


Just another thought........

Quite often when autopsy happen a Police Officer can be in attendance... I'm surprised we haven't heard that there was.... being such a big case...
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 05, 2017, 10:56:06 PM
I don't understand your question. Dr Delaney said he "glimpsed" the body on Christmas day, and then made two post-mortem examinations at the mortuary before DCI Phil Jones met the press. Much later, a mysterious Dr White "examined" the body in the presence of Dr Delaney. The timings of this examination, the press release stating that Joanna had not eaten the pizza, and the arrest of Vincent Tabak, have every appearance of being co-ordinated, and of being intended to prevent anyone else from examining the stomach contents.

I agree with you that the lack of any toxicology evidence is suspicious, but absence of evidence is not as useful as evidence of absence. It is particularly annoying that the press has been totally silent about the very existence of the inquest, instead of reporting that it had been opened and adjourned. That suggests to me that the press have been compromised.

I found another Dr White leonora.... he's in Bristol...   Bristol CardioVascular


http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cardiovascular/people/steve-j-white/index.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 08, 2017, 02:26:26 AM
 How is it that I keep finding oddities with this case ??

The guy that hands the Sock into the police... seems to hand it in twice...  I've attached some photo's of him handing in the sock.. Yet, I have now discovered a small video from Getty... and he approaches the gate whilst it is closed and pops the article into a forensics bag... Why do they allow him to put anything into a Forensic bag??

He cannot hand the Sock over twice... we also have images of him walking down the drive with a Police officer... Why is he in the drive of Canygne Road??  Why have they allowed this random member of the public to be on the premises of Canygne Road??   He shouldn't be ??

Then continues to walk along the front of Canygne Road past Joanna Yeates gate...  Thought he had turned up from the opposite direction ?

When did he hand the sock in??? The article is 5th January 2011 ... which is the exact day they released the Police Conference about the Sock missing... WEIRD!


Why is the The PCSO Officer dealing with such an Important piece of possible evidence ???... She is handling the Forensic bag with no gloves !!

What training has the PCSO Office done in Protecting the Scene of Crime ??

On the Getty Video clip.... how have they managed to get in so close to the member of the public who hands the sock in??
On the image... we see the sock being handed in... but on the video you cannot see the sock clearly... He puts it in the bag himself on the video... Yet on the still image the WHOLE SOCK is visible....how is that possible...?


Has anybody seen these Getty video's before ??

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/exterior-shots-man-handing-a-police-officer-grey-sock-man-news-footage/456732193

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344276/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Strangled-sock.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/thousands-of-untrained-police-community-support-officers-putting-lives-and-evidence-at-risk-a6900256.html

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 08, 2017, 02:42:13 AM
Why is this guy  searching two properties ??

I thought each scene was kept seperate with different forensic teams??

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/exterior-shots-police-officers-forensic-officers-outside-news-footage/456732171

http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/video/police-forensic-officers-in-white-overalls-along-with-news-footage/659101782

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 15, 2017, 03:00:31 AM
Joanna Yeates cops: We'll only DNA test Jo's boy pals

Quote
Detectives believe they could have the killer’s DNA in a sample of saliva discovered on Jo’s body, which was found dumped at the roadside three miles from her home in Bristol on Christmas Day. But it does not match anyone on the national DNA database.

This always got me.... why they would test it against the national data base, when they hadn't really looked at anyone else...

I don't think they did test it in that way.....

I discovered that when they come to identify a person who is dead and needs identifying, part of the procedure to do this is putting there DNA into the National DNA data base....

Quote
DNA
DNA must be obtained and submitted to the force Forensic Service Provider (FSP) for
comparison against the National DNA Database and National Missing Persons DNA
Database.

I believe this is the reason that Joanna Yeates DNA was put through the National DNA database... it wasn't to test against Known Offenders it was a procedural testing that is done to identify the person in the mortuary....

I think they have used procedure which was away to keep the public informed, and in doing so it created an idea that they were doing everything to find Joanna Yeates killer... by testing her DNA against the national data base....But I do not believe that was the case (IMO)

If we look at how the information is possibily given to the media and had been leaked on many occasions, all someone in the police force would need to do is say that they put Joanna Yeates DNA through The National Database... That in turn is the start of the story that the media take up and decide that her sample was tested AGAINST Known Offenders .. When in reality I do not believe that was what took place...

If the Police didn't make an Offical statement that they tested Joanna Yeates DNA against Known Offenders then you only have the media's interpretation of.... "Joanna Yeates DNA through the national data base"... means...

The heading in the paper actually gives us more of a clue than we realise....
Joanna Yeates cops: We'll only DNA test Jo's boy pals  So... they hadn't checked her DNA against Known Offenders the headline is telling us that.. But we read the story in such a way we believe that, that is exactly what they did... (IMO)

I believe like a lot of the stories in the media ... the Police released just enough information that the media ran with what they thought it meant.. Again the Police were not lying when they said that Joanna Yeates DNA had been run through the National Data Base... It was just NOT THE REASON WE ALL BELIEVED  (IMO)

The fact that it doesn't match anyone on the National Data base is.... Joanna Yeates DNA was never in The National Data Base.... So that wasn't an untrue... They were not looking at Known Offenders they were looking at Joanna Yeates herself... (IMO)..
Quote
They plan to test only people known to the 25-year-old landscape architect, including many of Jo’s 200 Facebook friends.
So again we are being told that they PLAN TO TEST.... NOT that they have tested !!

Quote
One of her pals who lives 100 miles away has already had a cheek swab.

I always wondered who that could be.... Might be female... I think that is female (IMO) why else would the heading say "Joanna Yeates cops: We'll only DNA test Jo's boy pals"... because they tested a female and after that only needed to test males (IMO)...

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPREF/NCA-MPB-Identification-Process-Good-Practice.PDF

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/172046/Joanna-Yeates-cops-We-ll-only-DNA-test-Jo-s-boy-pals 

EDiT.....  Another reason I do not believe they tested the partial profile against The National Data Base is.. I believe it was only 1000/1 a match to Dr Vincent Tabak.... So if they had tested the DNA against The National Database we would have had many more suspects who would have been a possible match to such a weak DNA sample... (IMO)... And the newspaper article tells us it DIDN'T match anyone in The National Data Base.. When in reality if it was tested against Known Offenders... There would have plenty of possible matches... (IMO)..

Double EDIT...  (IMO) We have been made to think that this DNA sample was Cross Referenced against all the criminals in the country and anyone who may be in The National Data Base.... Law Enforcement etc....

By thinking that so many people have been tested... It gives more weight to people believing that this partial DNA sample belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak,... because people come to the conclusion that they had already ruled out thousands of possible suspects... (Including suspected serial killers for instance )!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on May 15, 2017, 11:06:06 AM
QUOTE:
Police are convinced Jo knew her killer who struck after she returned home from the pub after drinking with colleagues on December 17. Police confirmed tests were not being carried out on her work colleagues unless they also knew her via Facebook or had swapped emails and texts outside the office. Neighbours living near the basement flat Jo had rented with architect boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, have not yet been asked for DNA samples either. One said: “It’s mad. We would welcome the tests. We’ve nothing to hide.” A police source said: “A DNA trawl is not seen as necessary at this stage.”

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/172046/Joanna-Yeates-cops-We-ll-only-DNA-test-Jo-s-boy-pals

This article ASSERTS that neighbours were NOT asked for their DNA. "Neighbours" includes VT and TM.

Apart from that, your analysis of the Daily Star article is a great exercise in the exposure of false news. It not only shows how the police exaggerated the signficance of the alleged DNA profile match to VT's, but also how they actually avoided searching for matches among profiles on file where they were most likely to have found them - DNA profiles from other crimes scenes.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 15, 2017, 12:22:10 PM
I think leonora had mentioned before about the forensic team going in twice.... and indeed they did, I couldn't quite remember when this was, but Have discovered that they went in at least by the 24th December 2010 and again on the 22nd January 2011...

It seems a little early for the forensic's to go into the property on the 24th December 2010.. but usually in a "missing Persons Enquiry"... They would collect samples of the possible Victim if the turn up dead.. and it gives a means to identify them...

Quote
Forensics
Early consideration must be given to obtaining identification material as required by the Code of Practice. Acquiring this in a timely manner ensures that:

opportunities to obtain it are not lost
families do not have to be revisited at a later date, which may cause additional distress
individuals can be promptly eliminated or matched to any unidentified remains which may be found.

Joanna Yeates was a "Missing Person"... and with all intense and purposes, the Police obviously treated this case as a "Murder Inquiry"...
They had the opportunity to seal the Flat and come back at a latter date if they needed too...

Quote
Timescales for collecting samples
The timescales for taking samples reflect the need for proportionality against the perceived risk to the missing person. Failure to collect the samples reasonably quickly reduces the opportunity for gathering them. The following timescales have been derived as a result of professional expertise.

High-risk missing person ‒ samples to be obtained within 24 hours.
Medium and low-risk missing person ‒ samples to be obtained within 7 days of the report being made.

When a missing person case is escalated from absent-no apparent risk consideration should be given to obtaining samples.

This I believe is "Consideration" to the family...

Quote
Timescales for collecting samples
The timescales for taking samples reflect the need for proportionality against the perceived risk to the missing person. Failure to collect the samples reasonably quickly reduces the opportunity for gathering them. The following timescales have been derived as a result of professional expertise.

The image below from the 24th December 2010 shows "Forensics" taking finger print samples ... which seems too soon for a "Missing Persons Enquiry".. The policy procedure gives me the impression that they need samples for identification.... There was nothing to say that a crime had taken place at this point.... And the Polices Press Conferences were not done in a manor as a possible


 And people have wandered off before with what I believe is called a
"Fugue State".. As it hadn't been established a crime had taken place it seems them collecting finger prints from windows so early on a odd approach indeed.. (IMO)

The Police had obviously decided that some harm had come to Joanna yeates within a small window of time..


https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/missing-persons/missing-person-investigations/#first-line-supervision



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 15, 2017, 01:52:23 PM
I have just started a new thread waiting for approval... OMG I think I've hit on something... I really hope that it gets approved ..... 8)-))) 8)-))) 8)-)))
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 15, 2017, 02:29:35 PM
OMG.... Another Eureka Moment has happened with the National DNA Data base.....

If they originally went in to Flat 1 looking at it as "A Missing Person Enquiry" or as we believe a "Murder Enquiry... The Forensic teams should have taken DNA sample of Joanna Yeates from the Flat she shared with Greg Reardon...

These sample should come from her Hairbrush or Tooth brush for instance....
Because as A "missing Person Or a "murdered person, they would have no idea how long it may take to find her or her body and would need samples of her DNA to match against the National data Base for an Identification of her remains...

So they never tested these items (IMO)... Because when as I have come to believe they did their Initial DNA Data Base scan there was No Match.... This must mean they never put in her DNA from the item that they had collected from Flat 1.... In the early part of the Investigation...

So... what did they assume or know so early on in this Investigation, not to even bother entering her samples into the DNA data Base as a "Missing Person's Enquiry....

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 15, 2017, 03:17:23 PM

Why if the Police are running a Twin Track Investigation did they not take DNA samples from Joanna Yeates work Colleagues and Friends???

In the early post I made when it is revealed that they tested one of Joanna Yeates friend who lives 100 miles away , that this was a smoke screen (IMO)...

I do not believe they tested anyone... and the only reason for this would be the extemely week quality of the DNA sample they say they tested.. (IMO)

So if they didn't do testing what enquiries were made in relation to all of these facebook friends and work collegues of Joanna Yeates??

If the twin track Investigation is happening at the same time  , which the Polices behaviour indicates is so... Did the "Murder Inquiry Team... just concentrate on that Building and That Building only,... without  eliminating more likely suspects as it appears to be someone who Actually Knew Joanna Yeates would have her trust to be allowed to enter her home at Flat 1...






Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 18, 2017, 12:11:32 PM
With "The Judge Rinder program" and DCI Phil Jones stating:..

Quote
So there was something just not quite right about him.... And the Officer erm..decided...erm.. following the policy we had taken with all our witness's... to ask him for a voluntary DNA swab, which he agreed to do.....

I thought I'd compile my list of witness's that I can remember who gave statements... not only the witness's that either appeared in court or had statements read out in court... But witness's we are aware of who the police obviously followed according to DCI phil Jones says.."Following the policy we had taken with all our witness's"...  As he states above.... I thought I would put this to the test!!


* Dr Vincent Tabak

* Christopher Jefferies

* Tanja Morson

* Geoffrey Hardyman

* Peter Stanley

* Laurence Penny

* Rebecca Scott

* Daniel Birch

* Rebecca Birch

* Denise Spence

* Kingdom

* Samuel Ashcroft

* Peter Rinsdell

* Matthew Wood

* Darragh Bellew

* Michael Brown,

* Sarah Maddock

* Andrew Lillie

* Elisabeth Chandle

* Zoe Lehman

* Florian Lehman

* Harry Walker

* Linda Marland

* Greg Reardon

* Father George Henwood

* Matthew Philips

* Warren Sweet

* Louise Apthorpe

* Peter Brown

* Marie Brown

* Glen O’Hare

* Other Tenants of 44 Canygne Road

* Marilyn Stevens ( who saw the man in a beanie hat on Longwood Lane)

* Mr Layman

* Mrs Layman  who had both walked the same route as Joanna Yeates to attend the party

* The groundsman  who thought he heard a body being dumped ... And passed on his information to the Police

* Landlord Alex Major... who recieved "The Pizza and Note"

* The old man whom handed in "The Missing Sock"

I'm sure I can go on and try and track down every person who gave "The Police a Witness Statement" and I can say with confidences that all of these people Did Not Give A DNA Sample.....following the policy we had taken with all our witness's as DCI Phil Jones Stated... as to make us believe that they had only ever treated Dr Vincent tabak as a "Witness" and Not "A Suspect" As the posts I have made can prove...

I would like to see the Date and Time of all the collection of these DNA samples... When they were introduced into "The National Data Base" and if after "The Polices extensive diligent sampling of all of these individual... When the DNA Samples of all these Individulas was in fact removed from the  "The National Data Base"....

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 18, 2017, 07:10:44 PM

Dr Delaney .... These are tweets again... Dr Delaney agree there appeared to be "Blood stains In Joanna Yeates hair"...

Appeared to be Blood Stain...... Not actual "Blood then"!!

Were's the blood  come from that was in Dr Vincent Tabak's Car Boot????? Because the more I read ... Joanna Yeates was "NOT".. bleeding!!!

Dr Delaney did a further examination on the 31st December 2010.....  I am like wooow....

Why after so long is Dr Delaney still examining Joanna Yeates....?? 

Why is Dr White carrying out an examination on 17th January 2011... Is this all part of the planned arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak?

How could Dr Delaney give a cause of Death within 44 hours after he had first seen Joanna Yeates... Yet he is still examining her on the 31st December 2010...

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 18, 2017, 07:59:53 PM
Had to come back to Lyndsey Lennen..... The tweets helped with that:...

I never Knew that Joanna Yeates Chest was Blood stained... According to Lyndsey Lennen it was .....  see images

This has to be the best quote from Lyndsey Lennen...

Quote
It was a million times more likely DNA was from Joanna Yeates and Tabak, than from Joanna Yeates and another person..

So with that Lyndsey Lennen "NEVER " says Dr Vincent Tabak was a match at 1 million to 1....

The Million to 1.. part of the statement she is making is refering to Joanna Yeates DNA..."NOT" Dr Vincent Tabaks....

The wording is always important...

Its like say It was a "Million times more likely DNA was from Joanna Yeates and a Chimpanze, than from Joanna Yeates and another Monkey....


The third image is interesting.... What other profile did they manage to Identify???
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=0


Edit:....
Is it me.... Or is it only the Forensics and Police that talk about blood as if it actually existed... because I don't remember Dr Delaney mentioning Blood!! Or Dr Cary for that matter!




Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 18, 2017, 09:40:08 PM
 Why is there A Forensic tent to the Right Of Logwood Lane as you look up it...

Also Visible is The one at the entrance to the Quarry...

What is under these tents ???

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 18, 2017, 11:09:31 PM
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...

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 19, 2017, 01:08:00 PM
I was just looking at some tweets again.... And Andrew Mott, who I now believe has donned a Forensic suit at the crime scene... Describes to the Jury what happened...

The following was from People copying the tweets of each day of trial...

Quote
rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
Because of the conditions Mott says the recovery of the body was "always going to be problematic"
1 minute ago
................................................................
juliareidsky Julia Reid
Mott says the body and ground were frozen. Defence asks about a broom handle used to help feed straps under the body.
2 minutes ago

Jo's parents are not in court at the moment
1 minute ago
.............................................................
juliareidsky Julia Reid
Mr Mott says contamination of the frozen body with the broom handle was minimised. #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates
41 seconds ago
....................................................................
rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
Def "you can't eliminate the real possibility there may have been contact" between broom and body? Mott agrees
26 seconds ago



Now I find the tweet from Julia Reid revealing.... Andrew Mott says:

Quote
Mott says the body and ground were frozen

Which is perfect..... He describes each aspect as seperate..... "The Body" was Frozen and "The Ground" was Frozen... Not that the body was "Frozen to the ground"!!.... A subtle but important difference....

This should indicate to The Police That Joanna Yeates  had "NOT" been on Longwood Lane for the full 8 days .....

This is also the reason I believe in early reports they couldn't state how long she had been there for... Several days was Initially reported.... (IMO)..

If Joanna Yeates had been on Longwood Lane for the full 8 days in the appauling freezing snowy conditions that they have made us aware of... why is she not "Frozen To The Ground"....

That was the image I originally had in my head , that she was "Frozen Solid to the Ground"..... That was also why my original comprehension of the appearance of The Fire Service didn't throw up any questions.... Because I like most of you assumed she was stuck fast to the Ground... I had also seen The aerial views of The quarry and assumed that she was on a hard surface.... I didn't know at that time she was a a grass verge...

So I happily took on board how it would be possible for The Fire Service to be in Attendance..... I assumed with body fluids she would have been stuck fast.... And some how the Experience and equipment that The Fire Service have , they would be in the best Position to assist the Police.....

But that is not true..... Andrew Mott freely admits he has to stop Joanna Yeates from Thawing..... Why would that bother him???

So back to his testimony... The Ground was Frozen... And Joanna Yeates was Frozen... But not together not attached,.....

This is also proven because they only use Straps and "Broom sticks" to retrieve Joanna Yeates .... Which if she was Frozen TOO The Ground would NOT have been possible....

Quote
rupertevelyn Rupert Evelyn
Because of the conditions Mott says the recovery of the body was "always going to be problematic"
1 minute ago

What conditions is Andrew Mott referring too???  Why would it be "Problematic" to recover a Frozen body That is "Thawing" that is "Not" "Frozen " To The "Ground" from a grass verge at the side of the road on "Longwood Lane"...

Were's the "Problem".... Suits are Donned... every protocol Followed... Fire Service Have Provided The Straps.... So what is "Problematic about this situation?????

And without really thinking about this....... If Joanna Yeates Is "Not" Frozen To the "Ground"... why did they not just Pick her up and place her onto a clean surface....???? Surely they have Plastic Gloves on to prevent Cross Contamination....

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)

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 19, 2017, 01:36:33 PM
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!!!


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on May 19, 2017, 02:35:37 PM
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???


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] 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....


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] 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)





[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] 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
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora 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?
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora 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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora 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!"?
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora 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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora 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 1½ 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.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Admin 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 1½ 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?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/13/article-2048247-0E58221600000578-858_634x420.jpg)
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora 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?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/13/article-2048247-0E58221600000578-858_634x420.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] 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
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah 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!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] 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


Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] 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
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah 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!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on June 07, 2017, 03:28:06 PM
CJ said that he heard and saw people on his front path when he was parking his car at around 9pm on Friday 17th December, having been to the gym.

I know "The Lost Honour" is partly fictional, but it shows CJ at the gym---there is no reason to suspect he was not a gym goer. I will investigate further! 
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 12, 2017, 09:35:13 AM
Two Forensic Officers... or so they would have us believe ....(IMO).. Coming out of Canygne Road carrying Forensic bags... Neither officer is wearing "Protective Gloves"... The Officer in front is actually hiding her hands within her suit... (IMO)..

(https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/720/media/images/50615000/jpg/_50615999_50615998.jpg)

Is this yet another "media" exercise ???  These items are supposed to be from Joanna Yeates Flat...  I'd of expected a little more care and 'Protocol"... personally!!!



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 15, 2017, 01:05:50 PM
How Can a "Post Mortem" be carried out as early as "Boxing Day"... Reports state that the "Post mortem was started on "Boxing Day"...

Saturday 25 December 2010 21.21 GMT
Quote
Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford said that a postmortem examination would be conducted on Sunday.

That quote is from "The 26th December 2010" How frozen was she ????

This quote is "Fasinating".....


Steven Morris
@stevenmorris20
Sunday 26 December 2010 22.11 GMT First published on Sunday 26 December 2010 22.11 GMT
Quote
Police are expected to formally launch a murder hunt tomorrow after officers said that the body of a young woman found on a roadside verge on Christmas morning was that of Joanna Yeates, the missing landscape architect.

How if it was not "POSSIBLE" to conduct a "POST MORTEM"  can the "POLICE" tell the media that they were going to "LAUNCH" A Murder Enquiry ??????

They would have to know that she was murdered before hand !!!! They would have "NO" Evidence ....(IMO)... To beable to even suggest that it had been a death caused by "Foul Play"....

This Case gets weirder..... i was actually looking for how long it to to "THAW A BODY" and how long it would take before a "Post Mortem' could be carried out.... I came across this "French Chef" in 2010....

Quote
Mr Poinard's body was hidden in a chest freezer in the foetal position and covered with plastic bags.
A police spokesman said: "An initial examination suggests it could have been there for up to two years.
"A full post mortem examination will be carried out to discover the precise cause of death."


By the 16th August 2010... "The Post Mortem still hasn't been carried out ...

Quote
For if the autopsy report found a broken rib probably resulting from a blow received at the plexus, he also reported the victim's cardiac impairment. Several experts have to look at the personality of this woman who c

So I'll ask again.... "How did they do "Joanna Yeates Autopsy" so quickly... If she was as Frozen as they have lead us to believe !!!

And how did they manage to exclaim that it was "A MURDER ENQUIRY"as early as "BOXING DAY!!!!!!

How could they possibiliy say THIS:....  Police are expected to formally launch a murder hunt tomorrow after officers said that the body of a young woman found on a roadside verge on Christmas morning was that of Joanna Yeates,



http://www.leprogres.fr/faits-divers/2011/08/16/l-ex-restaurateur-avait-ete-retrouve-congele-chez-sa-concubine

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/body-of-famous-french-chef-found-1066922

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/25/joanna-yeates-a-body-found
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 15, 2017, 02:19:58 PM
Quote
Post-mortem examination pictures showed her lying on her right side with her jeans still intact but her pink top pulled up over her head, exposing her navel and her grey bra.
A picture of her right foot with the sock removed was also shown.

Notice it doesn't say exposing her "Breast" !!!

How was this T shirt pulled up over her head ???

How did they identify her so early on if she had her Pink Top Pulled up over her head ???

Was it the bottom of the t -shirt pulled up over her head ???


Was if possible to see Joanna Yeates Face??

I'm sat here pulling my T-shirt up over my head ....  And it brought a thought to me.... I believe it is extremely important as to how this Pink T- shirt was pulled up over Joanna Yeates head ...

If Joanna Yeates head was inside the T-shirt ..That could suggest her being attacked when she was getting dressed ... But I don't think that's the was it  ... It has to be the bottom of the T-shirt coming over the head of Joanna Yeates ...(IMO)...

As just by lifting Joanna Yeates over the wall wouldn't make the "TOP" of her T-Shirt cover her head... the troubling thing is "The Court Drawing"... it doesn't show the T-Shirt over her head ... So I don't know at what stage that picture is from.... But until I re-read this article... Her T-shirt coming over her head hadn't even been in my mind!!!!

Which brings me to another idea.... (IMO).. If her face has been covered up... it is more likely to be someone that Joanna Yeates Knew Who killed her that Dr Vincent Tabak....

It is known that people who know the victim often cover the victims face...

I'm thinking that her face had to be covered up as her T-shirt being pulled up exposed her Bra and Navel... I also think it must have been from the bottom of the T-shirt....  Or else her whole head would have been inside the T-shirt... And if pulled up from the back... Her Bra and Navel wouldn't be exposed ...(IMO)...

Quote
Her right arm was bent around her head while her left was resting straight across her body.

Her right arm was placed there (IMO)... I believe it was placed there to stop the T-shirt from falling down... Again suggesting (IMO).. It had to be someone who knew Joanna yeates who had killed her .... !!!!!

Why was a photo taken of Joanna Yeates right foot with the "sock removed"???? surely the sock should still be in place ???

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html

EDIT........ Were the Jury ever shown images of Joanna Yeates with the "T-shirt" pulled up over her head ??

Because if "NOT" why "NOT!!....  Did anyone in court ever see any images of Joanna Yeates with her T-shirt pulled up over her head ???

Were these images of the T-shirt over Joanna Yeates head left out of the Court proceedings ??

If the Independant Newspaper  hadn't twice brought to my attention relevant information in this case ..I don't think anyone would be any the wiser...

An extremely Important detail..... left out of Dr Vincent Tabak's statement...


Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 15, 2017, 04:13:15 PM
Quote
A picture of her right foot with the sock removed was also shown.

Were there ever any pictures taken of Joanna Yeates with the sock in place....??

I find it perplexing that the Defence never brought this "Missing Sock" "Missing" from Joanna Yeates Picture to the attention of the Jury.....

Quote
Close-up shots of her face from post-mortem examinations showed her with blood-stained short blonde hair.


See... The images of her face are when she's in the mortuary... and not when she is found !!!

Why has this detail never really been mentioned before ????

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on June 16, 2017, 08:13:53 AM
Joanna Yeates was identified partly as a result of  the "distinctive" watch and necklace she was wearing when she was found, I believe.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on June 18, 2017, 01:38:55 PM
If Joanna Yeates head was inside the T-shirt ..That could suggest her being attacked when she was getting dressed ... But I don't think that's the was it  ... It has to be the bottom of the T-shirt coming over the head of Joanna Yeates ...(IMO)...

As just by lifting Joanna Yeates over the wall wouldn't make the "TOP" of her T-Shirt cover her head... the troubling thing is "The Court Drawing"... it doesn't show the T-Shirt over her head ... So I don't know at what stage that picture is from.... But until I re-read this article... Her T-shirt coming over her head hadn't even been in my mind!!!!

Which brings me to another idea.... (IMO).. If her face has been covered up... it is more likely to be someone that Joanna Yeates Knew Who killed her that Dr Vincent Tabak....

It is known that people who know the victim often cover the victims face...

I'm thinking that her face had to be covered up as her T-shirt being pulled up exposed her Bra and Navel... I also think it must have been from the bottom of the T-shirt....  Or else her whole head would have been inside the T-shirt... And if pulled up from the back... Her Bra and Navel wouldn't be exposed ...(IMO)...

Her right arm was placed there (IMO)... I believe it was placed there to stop the T-shirt from falling down... Again suggesting (IMO).. It had to be someone who knew Joanna yeates who had killed her .... !!!!!

Why was a photo taken of Joanna Yeates right foot with the "sock removed"???? surely the sock should still be in place ???

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html

EDIT........ Were the Jury ever shown images of Joanna Yeates with the "T-shirt" pulled up over her head ??

Because if "NOT" why "NOT!!....  Did anyone in court ever see any images of Joanna Yeates with her T-shirt pulled up over her head ???

Were these images of the T-shirt over Joanna Yeates head left out of the Court proceedings ??

If the Independant Newspaper  hadn't twice brought to my attention relevant information in this case ..I don't think anyone would be any the wiser...

An extremely Important detail..... left out of Dr Vincent Tabak's statement...
It was journalist Tom Morgan, writing in The Independent newspaper, who used the word "removed" in connection with Joanna's right sock. He made the freudian assumption, unsupported by any actually testimony, that a sock matching the one actually found on Joanna's left foot had been removed in the course of the events leading up to her death. It is only guesswork that she ever had such a sock on her right foot - especially as one newspaper at the time suggested that the grey sock that was found on her left foot actually belonged to Greg Reardon. In between her wearing tights, stockings or ankle socks for her evening in the Ram pub, the only justified assumption is that she had had two bare feet before putting on the one grey sock that was found.

That she herself most probably pulled her pink T-shirt up or down over her own head in the presence of someone she knew well is an important conclusion from the description of the photo shown to the court.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 27, 2017, 12:25:21 AM
 You know when you keep on finding descriptions of 'Joanna Yeates ' clothing she was wearing on the night of the 17th December and her Clothing change....

Well I appear to have found another description of what Joanna Yeates was wearing in 'The Ram Pub"...

Quote
Footage of Miss Yeates at The Bristol Ram showed her in a long-sleeved pink top and jeans, with a white watch

OMG... what is going on..... 

Is the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates in... "The Bristol Ram" that we have come to rely upon... taken from Friday 17th December 2010?

Or is it different footage of Joanna Yeates... and the footage that was shown to the Jury the correct footage of Joanna Yeates in 'The Bristol Ram" on 17th December 2010 wearing a Long-Sleeved Pink top ????

If journalist whom I am under the impression are in court at the time of the showing of this CCTV clip describe her top as Long Sleeved.. Then we have more evidence that "Joanna Yeates " ...changed her clothes ...

From... A long sleeved Pink Top with grey jeans.... To a short sleeved pink flower patterned top with blue jeans.....

I think someone really needs to look at the original CCTV footage for the dates in questions.... Things just don't add up (IMO)...


Edit.... I have attached two images from 'The Bristol Ram footage that we all know.... her arms are clearly bare !!!

So what was "SHOWN" to the JURY????


https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-press-and-journal-aberdeenshire/20111011/281930244737718

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on June 27, 2017, 02:43:58 PM
And how did they manage to exclaim that it was "A MURDER ENQUIRY"as early as "BOXING DAY!!!!!!

How could they possibility say THIS:....  Police are expected to formally launch a murder hunt tomorrow after officers said that the body of a young woman found on a roadside verge on Christmas morning was that of Joanna Yeates,

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/25/joanna-yeates-a-body-found

A young woman disappears from her flat in suspicious circumstances leaving her personal effect behind.  She is found a week later in a dishevelled state lying on a roadside verge and you wonder why police immediately announce a murder investigation? 
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on June 27, 2017, 03:00:52 PM
You know when you keep on finding descriptions of 'Joanna Yeates ' clothing she was wearing on the night of the 17th December and her Clothing change....

Well I appear to have found another description of what Joanna Yeates was wearing in 'The Ram Pub"...

OMG... what is going on..... 

Is the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates in... "The Bristol Ram" that we have come to rely upon... taken from Friday 17th December 2010?

Or is it different footage of Joanna Yeates... and the footage that was shown to the Jury the correct footage of Joanna Yeates in 'The Bristol Ram" on 17th December 2010 wearing a Long-Sleeved Pink top ????

If journalist whom I am under the impression are in court at the time of the showing of this CCTV clip describe her top as Long Sleeved.. Then we have more evidence that "Joanna Yeates " ...changed her clothes ...

From... A long sleeved Pink Top with grey jeans.... To a short sleeved pink flower patterned top with blue jeans.....

I think someone really needs to look at the original CCTV footage for the dates in questions.... Things just don't add up (IMO)...


Edit.... I have attached two images from 'The Bristol Ram footage that we all know.... her arms are clearly bare !!!

So what was "SHOWN" to the JURY????


https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-press-and-journal-aberdeenshire/20111011/281930244737718


Well spotted, she did have a short sleeved pink top on so the report is inaccurate.

Image below taken from the Ram Pub video shows the victim at bottom wearing short sleeved pink top and white watch.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 27, 2017, 03:33:12 PM
Well spotted, she did have a short sleeved pink top on so the report is inaccurate.

Image below taken from the Ram Pub video shows the victim at bottom wearing short sleeved pink top and white watch.

Agreed John... but I was wondering if the report was accurate... was the footage from a different date other than the 17th Decmber 2010
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on June 27, 2017, 04:04:56 PM
Agreed John... but I was wondering if the report was accurate... was the footage from a different date other than the 17th Decmber 2010

I suppose it could have been.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: AerialHunter on June 27, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
Agreed John... but I was wondering if the report was accurate... was the footage from a different date other than the 17th Decmber 2010

I think the colleagues she was with would be too much of a risk if you tried to pull the wool with a video clip from another day, they would easily verify this video.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on June 27, 2017, 09:31:02 PM
I think the colleagues she was with would be too much of a risk if you tried to pull the wool with a video clip from another day, they would easily verify this video.
Although witness statements from several of those colleagues were read out in court, only one of them - Darragh Bellew - testified in person. He  testified that Joanna had bought him a pint that evening. He was cross-examined briefly by junior prosecuting counsel Nicholas Rowland: “Did she leave before the other drinkers?”

Darragh Bellew explained: “She would always leave before most of us – when we would go on drinking she would go to be with Greg (her boyfriend) really.”

Nicholas Rowland: “Was she drunk?”

Darragh Bellew: “Not at all, just jovial – her usual self.” He told the court that he had asked her what she had planned for the weekend, and gathered that she was going to bake some cakes and bread “– because Greg was away”. She had joked and said she was going to bring them in to the office on the Monday morning. Darragh Bellew told the court how he first began to fear something might have happened to Jo when Greg called him at midnight on the Sunday 19th December 2010. He said: “Greg said he had got back to the flat and found it strange that all Jo’s belongings were there.” He was subsequently called by the police at 3.00 a.m. on Monday 20th December 2010.

He was not asked about the clothes she was wearing.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 28, 2017, 12:02:01 PM
I think the colleagues she was with would be too much of a risk if you tried to pull the wool with a video clip from another day, they would easily verify this video.

There is "NO" Risk AH.... where's the Risk????

Darragh Bewell is the only physical presence in court out of all the people sat at "The Table" in "The Bristol Ram Pub".. out of the 7 people sat at the table along with Joanna Yeates ... That is 6 men and 1 woman did all these people give witness statements ??

Three i can find: Darragh Bewell
                        Elizabeth Chandler
                        Micheal Brow

A few things first.... I cannot imagine anyone of Joanna Yeates friends or associates sitting through a trial and looking at pictures of her which are shown to the jury, of her dead.... No-one is going to attend court..

No-one who gave a witness statement of her friends/ associates is going to be sat in the public gallery.
Everyone whom she worked with would be at work when this trial took place....

Which leaves you with one person and one person only, who may be able to shed light on the CCTV footage at "The Bristol Ram"..


Here is where the wool can be pulled over anyones eyes....

The only person who could verify what Joanna Yeates was wearing in "The Bristol Ram" on Friday 17th December 2010 is Darragh Bewell..

Greg Reardon also would have been aware of what clothing Joanna Yeates was wearing on Friday 17th December 2010.. But we do not know at what point he definatley knew that the clothes she was discovered in differed from the clothes she wore on Friday 17th December 2010..

The only hint I have read that Greg could have known the clothes were different is when he says he was looking and tidying up to se what her plans may have been....

Quote
There were clothing, boots and shoes and general paraphernalia.' He
told jurors he paced around the flat, tidying as he went, and trying to piece together what
may have happened’. There were clothing, boots and shoes and general paraphernalia. I
was wandering about. I didn't really think there was a big problem. I thought she may well
have gone away visiting friends.

That suggests the clothes she wore at on Friday 17th December 2010 where still in the flat.... if she was in the same clothes he would have panicked a lot sooner.... (IMO)...

But also... Greg didn't give his witness statement in court until the 17th October 2011... he did not identify Joanna Yeates body at the mortuary... He would not be aware of what clothes she was found in until court or after maybe not at all... He may not have seen the photographs that were shown to the court...

The Pathology photographs were shown on Friday the 14th October 2011
Tanja Nickson shows her photographs on the 18th October 2011

Was Greg Reardon in Court on the 18th October 2011??  as a witness or sat with the family??

So literally no-one who gave evidence could say what Joanna Yeates was wearing when she was found  other than Dr Delaney...

Witness's do not sit in the court whilst the trial is taking place until after they have been called as you are aware AH... So looking at the dates of these events we can see how it was possible for a different CCTV Footage of Joanna Yeates in "The Bristol Ram Pub" to be shown to the jury... And Greg or Darragh not seeing this CCTV footage...

(1): 11th October 2011.. Is when the Jury view the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates in "The Bristol Ram Pub" wearing
       a "Long Sleeved Pink Top" as described in The Press reader Article dated 11th October 2011

(2): Darragh Bewell is called to give evidence on the on the 13th October 2011

(3): Greg Reardon is called to give evidence on the 17th October 2011

So I have found an article that suggests that this footage could have been shown again... but is this the case ???

Quote
5:33PM BST 13 Oct 2011
The CCTV footage shows Joanna Yeates sitting and chatting with work colleagues before putting her coat on and leaving the Ram pub.
Friends of Miss Yeates who were also at the pub on December 17 2010 have given evidence to the court.
Darragh Bellew, a landscape architect colleague of Miss Yeates, said she bought him a pint during post-work festive drinks.

Do we know for sure that the prosecution played the CCTV Footage again for Darragh Bewell to comfirm that they were all sat having a drink on Friday 17th December 2010??

I don't personally think that it matters.....
If by magic Darragh Bewell had seen the CCTV Footage from The Ram before he went to court... would he be 100% sure that the particular footage was from Friday 17th December 2010... without thinking about it.... he'd have no real reason to question the footage (IMO)....


Was he only shown a clip of them sat around a table ??? we don't know ... The Footage we know is in three sections...

(1): Joanna Yeates exiting the toilet

(2): Joanna Yeates sitting with friends around a table

(3): Joanna Yeates leaving "The Bristol Ram Pub"..

No questions were put forward as to whether Joanna Yeates used the bathroom on that evening...  No clarification of who was sat at the table that evening was put forward...

Simple question were posed as to Joanna Yeates mood and what she had planned for that evening.... If everyone of Joanna Yeates friends and family believe that the man who has admitted manslaughter is guilty of her death... They're not suddenly going to be questioning any CCTV Footage put in front of them at all..... (IMO)...

It really is quite easy to confuse with the CCTV Footage.... we all believed that the Tesco's CCTV that we see on the internet is shown in court with that ridiculous massive writing across it... So why not Confuse with "The Bristol Ram" CCTV Footage ???

Who normally can remember what a person wore the last time they saw them.... I can't... I wouldn't remeber what my husband wore yesterday if you asked me... I could hazzard a guess.. but I wouldn't know for sure... and if the CCTV footage isn't available for viewing till possibly 10 months later, I don't believe anyone could remember what she wore... or what they wore for that matter... (IMO).. (10 Days Later would be just as difficult)..(IMO)

When was this footage of Joanna Yeates at "The Bristol Ram first released ???

If it's at court then you are talking 10 months before Darragh Bewell was at the Ram with Joanna Yeates and you are expecting that he would remember what all the people around the table wore that evening... Also who was around the table that evening.... Darragh Bewell was only at court to clarify he was in "The Bristol Ram" on Friday 17th December 2010 and the conversation he had with Joanna Yeates on the 17th December 2010... and no other reason....

Which makes it plausable that the CCTV Footage shown to the Jury of "The Bristol Ram Pub" was with Joanna Yeates wearing a Long Sleeved Top... And The Footage that we are used to seeing is from a different time altogether as these people regularly visited "The Bristol Ram Pub" for drinks after work... (IMO)....

It's also possible the only CCTV evidence Darragh Bewell saw in court is of him and Joanna Yeates going to the ATM.... You really need someone who attended court on the day Darragh Bewell gave evidence to clarify what CCTV Footage was shown to Darragh Bewell...


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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8825277/Court-shown-Joanna-Yeates-bar-CCTV.html

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on June 28, 2017, 02:53:42 PM
Would Darragh Bewell even remember what Jo was wearing that evening? Ten months later? From my own experience,  men are hopeless at such things!!!! I bet my hubby can't remember what I was wearing yesterday.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: AerialHunter on June 28, 2017, 03:54:44 PM
There is "NO" Risk AH.... where's the Risk????

Darragh Bewell is the only physical presence in court out of all the people sat at "The Table" in "The Bristol Ram Pub".. out of the 7 people sat at the table along with Joanna Yeates ... That is 6 men and 1 woman did all these people give witness statements ??

Three i can find: Darragh Bewell
                        Elizabeth Chandler
                        Micheal Brow

A few things first.... I cannot imagine anyone of Joanna Yeates friends or associates sitting through a trial and looking at pictures of her which are shown to the jury, of her dead.... No-one is going to attend court..

No-one who gave a witness statement of her friends/ associates is going to be sat in the public gallery.
Everyone whom she worked with would be at work when this trial took place....

Which leaves you with one person and one person only, who may be able to shed light on the CCTV footage at "The Bristol Ram"..


Here is where the wool can be pulled over anyones eyes....

The only person who could verify what Joanna Yeates was wearing in "The Bristol Ram" on Friday 17th December 2010 is Darragh Bewell..

Greg Reardon also would have been aware of what clothing Joanna Yeates was wearing on Friday 17th December 2010.. But we do not know at what point he definatley knew that the clothes she was discovered in differed from the clothes she wore on Friday 17th December 2010..

The only hint I have read that Greg could have known the clothes were different is when he says he was looking and tidying up to se what her plans may have been....

That suggests the clothes she wore at on Friday 17th December 2010 where still in the flat.... if she was in the same clothes he would have panicked a lot sooner.... (IMO)...

But also... Greg didn't give his witness statement in court until the 17th October 2011... he did not identify Joanna Yeates body at the mortuary... He would not be aware of what clothes she was found in until court or after maybe not at all... He may not have seen the photographs that were shown to the court...

The Pathology photographs were shown on Friday the 14th October 2011
Tanja Nickson shows her photographs on the 18th October 2011

Was Greg Reardon in Court on the 18th October 2011??  as a witness or sat with the family??

So literally no-one who gave evidence could say what Joanna Yeates was wearing when she was found  other than Dr Delaney...

Witness's do not sit in the court whilst the trial is taking place until after they have been called as you are aware AH... So looking at the dates of these events we can see how it was possible for a different CCTV Footage of Joanna Yeates in "The Bristol Ram Pub" to be shown to the jury... And Greg or Darragh not seeing this CCTV footage...

(1): 11th October 2011.. Is when the Jury view the CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates in "The Bristol Ram Pub" wearing
       a "Long Sleeved Pink Top" as described in The Press reader Article dated 11th October 2011

(2): Darragh Bewell is called to give evidence on the on the 13th October 2011

(3): Greg Reardon is called to give evidence on the 17th October 2011

So I have found an article that suggests that this footage could have been shown again... but is this the case ???

Do we know for sure that the prosecution played the CCTV Footage again for Darragh Bewell to comfirm that they were all sat having a drink on Friday 17th December 2010??

I don't personally think that it matters.....
If by magic Darragh Bewell had seen the CCTV Footage from The Ram before he went to court... would he be 100% sure that the particular footage was from Friday 17th December 2010... without thinking about it.... he'd have no real reason to question the footage (IMO)....


Was he only shown a clip of them sat around a table ??? we don't know ... The Footage we know is in three sections...

(1): Joanna Yeates exiting the toilet

(2): Joanna Yeates sitting with friends around a table

(3): Joanna Yeates leaving "The Bristol Ram Pub"..

No questions were put forward as to whether Joanna Yeates used the bathroom on that evening...  No clarification of who was sat at the table that evening was put forward...

Simple question were posed as to Joanna Yeates mood and what she had planned for that evening.... If everyone of Joanna Yeates friends and family believe that the man who has admitted manslaughter is guilty of her death... They're not suddenly going to be questioning any CCTV Footage put in front of them at all..... (IMO)...

It really is quite easy to confuse with the CCTV Footage.... we all believed that the Tesco's CCTV that we see on the internet is shown in court with that ridiculous massive writing across it... So why not Confuse with "The Bristol Ram" CCTV Footage ???

Who normally can remember what a person wore the last time they saw them.... I can't... I wouldn't remeber what my husband wore yesterday if you asked me... I could hazzard a guess.. but I wouldn't know for sure... and if the CCTV footage isn't available for viewing till possibly 10 months later, I don't believe anyone could remember what she wore... or what they wore for that matter... (IMO).. (10 Days Later would be just as difficult)..(IMO)

When was this footage of Joanna Yeates at "The Bristol Ram first released ???

If it's at court then you are talking 10 months before Darragh Bewell was at the Ram with Joanna Yeates and you are expecting that he would remember what all the people around the table wore that evening... Also who was around the table that evening.... Darragh Bewell was only at court to clarify he was in "The Bristol Ram" on Friday 17th December 2010 and the conversation he had with Joanna Yeates on the 17th December 2010... and no other reason....

Which makes it plausable that the CCTV Footage shown to the Jury of "The Bristol Ram Pub" was with Joanna Yeates wearing a Long Sleeved Top... And The Footage that we are used to seeing is from a different time altogether as these people regularly visited "The Bristol Ram Pub" for drinks after work... (IMO)....

It's also possible the only CCTV evidence Darragh Bewell saw in court is of him and Joanna Yeates going to the ATM.... You really need someone who attended court on the day Darragh Bewell gave evidence to clarify what CCTV Footage was shown to Darragh Bewell...


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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8825277/Court-shown-Joanna-Yeates-bar-CCTV.html

You do have a coherent argument, to a point. As Mrs Wah points out recollection of what she was wearing might be difficult but because of the dreadful outcome I'm sure the people present will recollect if the video around the table is the correct one. Perhaps we are going to have to track them down and see if one of them might speak to us directl!

AH
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 28, 2017, 09:47:06 PM
You do have a coherent argument, to a point. As Mrs Wah points out recollection of what she was wearing might be difficult but because of the dreadful outcome I'm sure the people present will recollect if the video around the table is the correct one. Perhaps we are going to have to track them down and see if one of them might speak to us directl!

AH

I hope you do AH..... This whole case is WRONG... And My hands are still waving ... I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is INNOCENT... 

There was never any real test to the evidence that was brought to trial.... everyone lay down like a new pup waiting for its tummy to be tickled... and then just rolled over...

Somebody needs to test the evidence... (IMO)....

And I have now more than 1000 questions that need answering.....  8)-)))
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on June 29, 2017, 11:40:27 AM
You do have a coherent argument, to a point. As Mrs Wah points out recollection of what she was wearing might be difficult but because of the dreadful outcome I'm sure the people present will recollect if the video around the table is the correct one. Perhaps we are going to have to track them down and see if one of them might speak to us directl!

AH


(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/13/article-2048622-0E5C1E7600000578-968_634x438.jpg)

 
I have enhanced the image which I have attached there appears to be possibly 9 people sat around the table.... Even though it's possible to make out the people in the original image from "The Mail"....

(1) Coloured Green .... Appears to be a young adult sat in the corner.... I say this because she/he .. I think she...  Is not involved in the conversation and The adult woman sat next to her has her back to her..... There is another option which I'll come back too...

(9): Looks Like a bald headed man with what appears to be a womans arm around him....


Now when you play the video of 'The Bristol Ram... you hardly notice the young adult/child in the corner.... not only that you cannot see what appears to be a balding man (9)....

Has this CCTV image been over layed on top of another CCTV Footage... bleeding through 2 EXTRA people sat at the table ???

The young adult is in the corner always... Are children allowed in "The Bristol Ram" in the Evening????

Yesterday.... I thought that there were 7 people sat at the table.... But looking at what I have uncovered today... There appears to be 9 people sat at the table.... Did they all give witness statements ?????


Who is actually sat at the table on Friday 17th December 2010 as depicted in The Official Police CCTV Footage released from The Bristol Ram ????


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 04, 2017, 04:43:56 PM
We know that Joanna Yeates had a Handbag with her.... Yet NO MENTION of this HANDBAG is ever stated in court.... We hear of the "Rucksack" but not the Handbag.....

Then I was looking for something about a TV program I saw "Luther"... But I didn't find what I was looking for.. But came across this.... Which peeked my Interest....

It has always been claimed by the Police that Joanna Yeates Murder was a Sexually Motivated Murder.... And even Mark Wiilliams Thomas found that an odd statement that the Police had not ruled out a 'Sexual Motive" when no sexual assault had taken place.......

Well I'm going to give you one....

Quote
Having presented us with a ‘killer of the week' formula so far, the fourth instalment of BBC One's Luther introduces us to this episode's rouge, a middle-aged serial killer with a fetish for sniffing women's handbags. I'm being serious.

Apparently, the act of sniffing a dead woman's handbag acts as an aphrodisiac of sorts for the otherwise incontinent chap.

Now in a way.. this is interesting and could make sense....

(A): Was Glenis Caruthers Handbag Missing?? or any other item belonging to Glenis Caruthers?

(B): Joanna Yeates was Missing A sock which could be the trophy,... But where is her handbag??

(C): Was Melanie Hall's handbag Missing ??

If Ann Reddrop behaves in a way that she 100% believes that Joanna Yeates was "Murdered" then was Ann Reddrop Head of The Complex Crime Unit.. looking into a 'Serial Killer'???? A Serial Killer who doesn't sexually assault his victims.... Yet gets his Sexual Thrills from a different act altogether...


I never understood 'WHY" The Police never mention Joanna Yeates Handbag.... Or on Their website.... Glenis Caruthers Handbag...

Ok... I'm just looking for an Article on whether or not Melanie Hall had her handbag Missing... And I find this Interview.....  It's an OMG....

I'll come back to the handbags.......


Why is it that all the Police Officer Have similar names??? And these Police Officers are in charge of Similar cases??

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/melanie-hall-unsolved-murder-bath-103519

DSI Andy Bevan...  Transcript from the video....

Quote
My Name Is Detective Superintendent Andy Bevan and I am leading the investigation in to The Murder Of Melanie Hall

Gareth Bevan was the DCI Investigating The Murder of Melanie Hall... This is really weird... Remember the linkedIn photo I showed you all of DCI Phil Jones Retiring from Avon and Somerset Police... And The Photo looked nothing like the DCI Phil Jones we all know... Well... whats with all the confusion surrounding the murders of all these woman?????

( I'm sure the link will disappear...)

Ok Handbags...... I'm attaching an image of DSI Andrew Bevan holding a poster of Melanie Hall... And yes... her Handbag is missing.... !!!!!


Question.... Where is Joanna Yeates handbag that she goes into to get her money when she is at Bargain Booze.... A Handbag that is not too disimilar to Melanie Halls Handbag that is also Missing!!!!! which I have again attached an Image of Melanie Hall's bag... being 'A Long Strapped" Black Bag'... Just like The Image I have posted of Joanna Yeates In "Stuttgard wearing he Long Strapped Black Bag....

The same 'Long Strapped Black bag" that is NOT MENTIONED at all at trial..... "WHY Is that...... Was it "Missing"????

Did Glenis Caruthurs have a Long Strapped Handbag ??

So.... were Avon and Somerset Police ...actually looking for "A Serial Killer" with 'A Handbag" fetish when there twin track investigation was taking place ?????

It's not out of the realms of Impossiblity... More Probable than DCI Phil Jones Doing a a Full Investigation into Dr Vincent Tabak's Involvement with the death of Joanna Yeates in 6 hours.... And using a Tardis to time travel.... (IMO)..


AH... You know what to look for  8((()*/

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/melanie-hall-unsolved-murder-bath-103519

http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/luther/9825/luther-episode-4-review


Edit... If you haven't been following all that has been said about Ann Redropp and her 100% belief that Joanna Yeates was "Murdered"... read this...

 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.255


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 04, 2017, 05:30:34 PM
Just to prove a point..... Claudia Lawerence....

Quote
However her GHD hair straighteners are missing from her home. Det Supt Malyn said it was unlikely Claudia would have had them with her in her blue and grey Karrimor bag, which is yet to be found.


Yet the last image they show of Claudia walking home is of her with A Handbag!!!!!

https://www.yorkmix.com/news/crime/claudia-lawrence-disappearance-police-reveal-fresh-clues-five-years-on/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on July 10, 2017, 11:33:03 AM
Just to prove a point..... Claudia Lawerence....

Yet the last image they show of Claudia walking home is of her with A Handbag!!!!!

https://www.yorkmix.com/news/crime/claudia-lawrence-disappearance-police-reveal-fresh-clues-five-years-on/
"Detective Superintendent Dai Malyn, Head of the Major Crime Unit, said: “A primary focus in any suspected homicide investigation is that of the lifestyle of the victim concerned."

A Karrimor bag is a lifestyle accessory. What do we know about Joanna Yeates's accessories? Precious little, it seems to me. Certainly not the brand of her handbag, nor her "purse". The message that has been rammed down our throats has been that Joanna's murder was in no way connected to her lifestyle. That the person convicted of killing her, Vincent Tabak, worked in the same professional line as Joanna, the architectural line, could have been interpreted as a lifestyle connection - but no one ever made this connection. Right from the outset, Bristol Detectives seemed uninterested in lifestyle clues to her fate, and concentrated instead on (1) her landlord, and (2) her neighbour.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on July 10, 2017, 02:16:26 PM
Given the amount of thread cleaning which has been required recently, posters should ensure that their comments are relevant to the thread they intend to post on.  A single comment can take a thread off at a tangent so please bear this in mind.

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 11, 2017, 09:17:58 AM
Whilst still trying to establish the height of the kitchen window in Joanna Yeates kitchen... I saw something that I don't know quite how I managed to over look....

I have sort of mentioned the kitchen Window before... But this time I have zoomed in and circled the offending part of the picture....


I have attached the image from The estate agents... which clearly show the blind down....

So... we need to go back to where it's mentioned at trial that the Blind was "Broken"!!!

Quote
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.


Now that quote you can take one of two ways.... The clear statement that the blind was broken...... oR it was broken and always stayed up...
Now did Greg confirm only that the blind was broken.... Or did he confirm that the blind was not only broken but stayed  up all the time....


It is possible the blind was broken and it was 'Down all the time... And I believe the  2 images support this....

Image 1... which I have circled... Shows the strings to the blind wrapped around the wooden strap which would normally cover the metal working.. But It appear to be assisting the blind in being held in an upright position and maybe tided centrally at the top of the window casing....!!!! (IMO)..

Image 2... The original Estate Agent photo of the blind being down.... Now i believe that this is it's broken position..... (IMO)...

Image 1 clearly circled can indicate nothing other than the blind beling tampered with....(IMO)..


Edit.... looking at circled image whilst checking this post... It looks like there are two hooks holding up the Kitchen Blind... The strings go either side of what appears to be 2 hooks... And the strings are not in a natural position for what essentially should be a broken blind!!!... (IMO)


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 11, 2017, 11:09:19 AM
Trying to establish the heigh of the kitchen Flat 1 44 Canygne Road...

Now with a little bit of maths ... we can approximate the height..

(1): Kitchen cupboards height normally 600mm= 60cm add 10cm for feet and kick board = 70cm

(2): Individual tiles 100mm = 10 cm x 5 tiles high = 50cm

(3): Boiler height... giving it a max of 800mm = 80 cm

(4) Boiler outlet pipe ??


The boiler doesn't look particulary large for such a small flat... it's height could well be smaller ...

So to the top of the boiler you have a maximum height of 2000mm = 2 meteres  and that in old money = 6 foot 7 inches... The kitchen could well be smaller... i need to work out the make of the boiler....

It is possible that the actual room height is 2:meters high .....

I think the boiler is smaller than 800mm because the flat doesn't need a big boiler as there are so few radiators... The property is tiny...

If I go with the boiler being 600mm =60cm  then the whole room height changes dramatically...

(A) 70cm.. to top of units

(B): 5 tile high at 10cm = 50cm

(C) Boiler being 600mm = 60cm

Giving a total of 180 cm.... then a 20 cm gap to the roof... in old money again... 5 foot 11 inches to the top of the boiler.... Meaning Dr Vincent Tabak would be too tall to see into this window... (IMO)..




Now you can see the relevance of the blinds position changing.... Dr Vincent Tabak being 6 foot 4 inches tall would not have noticed Joanna Yeates as he passed by... he would have needed to bend down to gain eye contact with her... which them being stranger seems highly unlikely.... (IMO)..




Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 11, 2017, 02:29:17 PM
Where is Joanna Yeates bag???

A simple question... I have attached 2 images of her at her Graduation... her Dad is holding one image... Both these images show that Joanna Yeates Carried a Shoulder Bag....

Yet this shoulder Bag is Missing " From all Police inquires... And is not mentioned at court...

Did they ever ask Dr Vincent Tabak about the bag??? NO!!!! Because they wanted evryone to believe that all Joanna Yeates carried was her "Rucksack"... But we all know she goes into her Bag at Bargain Booze.... It's underneath Her coat...

Seems that Joanna Yeates always has that bag with her!!.... So where is it???? !!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on July 11, 2017, 02:42:47 PM
Whilst still trying to establish the height of the kitchen window in Joanna Yeates kitchen... I saw something that I don't know quite how I managed to over look....

I have sort of mentioned the kitchen Window before... But this time I have zoomed in and circled the offending part of the picture....

I have attached the image from The estate agents... which clearly show the blind down....

So... we need to go back to where it's mentioned at trial that the Blind was "Broken"!!!

Now that quote you can take one of two ways.... The clear statement that the blind was broken...... oR it was broken and always stayed up...
Now did Greg confirm only that the blind was broken.... Or did he confirm that the blind was not only broken but stayed  up all the time....

It is possible the blind was broken and it was 'Down all the time... And I believe the  2 images support this....

Image 1... which I have circled... Shows the strings to the blind wrapped around the wooden strap which would normally cover the metal working.. But It appear to be assisting the blind in being held in an upright position and maybe tided centrally at the top of the window casing....!!!! (IMO)..

Image 2... The original Estate Agent photo of the blind being down.... Now i believe that this is it's broken position..... (IMO)...

Image 1 clearly circled can indicate nothing other than the blind beling tampered with....(IMO)..

Edit.... looking at circled image whilst checking this post... It looks like there are two hooks holding up the Kitchen Blind... The strings go either side of what appears to be 2 hooks... And the strings are not in a natural position for what essentially should be a broken blind!!!... (IMO)

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Counsel for the Defence, in his opening speech, is our only source for the allegation that Greg Reardon confirmed that the blind was broken and that it was always up. This confirmation doesn't appear in any account I have seen of Greg Reardon's own testimony. He did mention having seen Vincent and Tanja pass his window, but this could have occurred during daylight, when a blind, broken or not, would normally be up.

The two pictures show a blind that appears to have been "broken", but this could have occurred during after the police had taken over the flat, in the course of their search for clues. The broken blind suited Mr Clegg's defence scenario, but he was not himself under oath, so anything he said is hearsay, unless backed up by a witness who was under oath. He had certainly been given photos of the crime scene. The jury did not believe the defence's account of events, so I am sceptical about the alleged condition of this blind at the time of the events leading to Joanna's death.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on July 11, 2017, 03:08:50 PM
Trying to establish the heigh of the kitchen Flat 1 44 Canygne Road...

Now with a little bit of maths ... we can approximate the height..

(1): Kitchen cupboards height normally 600mm= 60cm add 10cm for feet and kick board = 70cm

(2): Individual tiles 100mm = 10 cm x 5 tiles high = 50cm

(3): Boiler height... giving it a max of 800mm = 80 cm

(4) Boiler outlet pipe ??

The boiler doesn't look particulary large for such a small flat... it's height could well be smaller ...

So to the top of the boiler you have a maximum height of 2000mm = 2 meteres  and that in old money = 6 foot 7 inches... The kitchen could well be smaller... i need to work out the make of the boiler....

It is possible that the actual room height is 2:meters high .....

I think the boiler is smaller than 800mm because the flat doesn't need a big boiler as there are so few radiators... The property is tiny...

If I go with the boiler being 600mm =60cm  then the whole room height changes dramatically...

(A) 70cm.. to top of units

(B): 5 tile high at 10cm = 50cm

(C) Boiler being 600mm = 60cm

Giving a total of 180 cm.... then a 20 cm gap to the roof... in old money again... 5 foot 11 inches to the top of the boiler.... Meaning Dr Vincent Tabak would be too tall to see into this window... (IMO)..

Now you can see the relevance of the blinds position changing.... Dr Vincent Tabak being 6 foot 4 inches tall would not have noticed Joanna Yeates as he passed by... he would have needed to bend down to gain eye contact with her... which them being stranger seems highly unlikely.... (IMO)..
I can't see a boiler in the picture, nor would I expect to see one in such a small kitchen. Surely a house like that would have a single boiler to heat all the flats and also to heat up the water in common storage tank to supply hot water to all the flats?

Even if Vincent had to stoop to go through the front door of her flat, he wouldn't have had to stoop to make eye contact with Joanna, as her stature was diminutive and he would have been in the middle of the path, rather than pressed up against the window with his forehead touching the lintel. Instead of being presented with solid forensic evidence placing him in her flat, the jury were taken on a guided tour of it, to help them believe the creative versions of events compiled by the lawyers, including, would you believe, his theft of a sock and a pizza.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 11, 2017, 03:12:24 PM
I can't see a boiler in the picture, nor would I expect to see one in such a small kitchen. Surely a house like that would have a single boiler to heat all the flats and also to heat up the water in common storage tank to supply hot water to all the flats?

Even if Vincent had to stoop to go through the front door of her flat, he wouldn't have had to stoop to make eye contact with Joanna, as her stature was diminutive and he would have been in the middle of the path, rather than pressed up against the window with his forehead touching the lintel. Instead of being presented with solid forensic evidence placing him in her flat, the jury were taken on a guided tour of it, to help them believe the creative versions of events compiled by the lawyers, including, would you believe, his theft of a sock and a pizza.

It's situated above the little Fire extinguisher... It's white...
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on July 11, 2017, 08:01:26 PM
It's situated above the little Fire extinguisher... It's white...
That's a boiler? Surely it's a compact refrigerator, presumably with an ice cream compartment big enough to hold a pizza? I concede that refrigerators are normally situated at floor level, and boilers are normally mounted on the wall, but the landlord did have a reputation for being eccentric.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 11, 2017, 09:06:56 PM
That's a boiler? Surely it's a compact refrigerator, presumably with an ice cream compartment big enough to hold a pizza? I concede that refrigerators are normally situated at floor level, and boilers are normally mounted on the wall, but the landlord did have a reputation for being eccentric.


I concede that something isn't quite right on this forum...  Have never been able to put my finger on it....
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on July 12, 2017, 02:49:48 AM
That's a boiler? Surely it's a compact refrigerator, presumably with an ice cream compartment big enough to hold a pizza? I concede that refrigerators are normally situated at floor level, and boilers are normally mounted on the wall, but the landlord did have a reputation for being eccentric.

Both my refrigerator and my boiler are at floor level!!!

I have seen wall mounted boilers (even had one in my last house), but have never seen a wall mounted refrigerator!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 10:55:38 AM
What other Evidence do we have to suggest that Joanna Yeates died at the hands of A Another..

The descriptions of Dr Delaney and joanna Yeates Flower Patterned Top suggest two possible options..

(A): She arrived home and changed her clothes herself..

(B): Someone redressed her...

I get the distinct impression that her body was clean....  There has been no talk of body fluids... Dr Delaney was not even asked about body fluids at court...

The drawings of her clothing she is found in look clean... There is NO staining... which her Jeans in particular should have been very stained...

Why didn't the Birches notice any staining... They apparently noticed her white knickers coming over her jeans... Which I believe should have been stained...

Another possible reason I believe that the Police were also of the impression that she had been cleaned and re-dressed... is the massive attention given to the shower area of Joanna Yeates home... The Forensic powder or whatever they use... Completely saturates the showers area and bath....  Where as The kitchen is apparently virtually free of this power...

Was the surrounding area that Joanna Yeates was found contaminated with body fluids?? There is No sampling that ever says that it was Joanna Yeates body fluids amongst the leaves/snow and debris...

Does this not tell us that she must have died at a different time or at least by a different hand...

Or what the police have always believed by 2 killers.... Because she would have needed to be cleaned and redressed....  To me suggesting someone she knew.... (IMO)..





Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 11:49:07 AM
This report says Dr Delaney was at the scene earlier than I was aware.. i always thought he didn't see Joanna Yeates until he saw her at the Mortuary....

Quote
Forensic pathologist Dr Russell Delaney said he was summoned to the scene just
after midday and stayed for four hours until Jo’s body was removed in a
painstaking operation.


Coming across this Newspaper Article... which I have probably read before but didn't realise it's significance until now...

Notice he says ...Painstaking Now an operation could only be Painstaking If it was difficult to access... And NO other reason.... (IMO)..  It cannot be Painstaking lifting a body from a grass verge onto a stretcher on the road nest to her !!!!

Quote
Dr Delaney said care was taken to minimise any disruption to potential
evidence as her body was lifted. Two yellow webbing straps were fed under
her calves and lower back — using a broom handle to get them underneath.

I hadn't realised Dr Delaney saw the body being moved...

But this next part brings weird visions... I am trying to imagine this....

Quote
She was then lifted by one officer, supported by a second behind him, and
placed on an open white body bag atop an orange stretcher by the roadside.

Is this actually telling us that she is NOT already on the road????...

Why would you have an officer behind another officer ??? You wouldn't if she was being picked up from the verge as they say she was on....

Lets really look at that those statements... because i believe it is the answer !!!!!

Quote
Dr Delaney said care was taken to minimise any disruption to potential
evidence as her body was lifted.

Looking at this part first.....  It is screaming out that her body is not on the verge...... (IMO).... It is telling us she is over the wall more than likely..... (IMO)... I'll tell you why i have come to that conclusion...

When Dr Delaney has arrived... If Joanna Yeates is on the verge as they have stated... Then they would collect the evidence around her and on her before they even attempt to move her body.... even if that took all day... The Evidence is always collected first before the body gets removed...

So i am saying as they are winching her with the fire truck... they want to make sure no evidence drops from her body.... (IMO)...

Quote
Two yellow webbing straps were fed under
her calves and lower back — using a broom handle to get them underneath.

That is a weird vision.... Why would they need to fed any straps under her body to lift her from the verge ??? Two Forensic Officers could have done that with NO straps... The Position of the straps is odd.... What supported her head ??? What supported her shoulders....???

This next part of the quotes explain...

Quote
She was then lifted by one officer, supported by a second behind him, and
placed on an open white body bag atop an orange stretcher by the roadside.

So we have as I can see it... her being lifted from behind the wall... One Officer in front supporting her head and shoulders and one Officer behind helping to guide her till they can place her on the road.....

She was never on the verge...(IMO).... The Fire Officer whom we saw in his Rope Access Gear clearly indicates that he was need to access somewhere very difficult... The use of the winch I believe was to lift Joanna Yeates from where she was found and the description of where the straps were actually around Joanna Yeates body indicates that they were not lifting her from a grass verge...

Also having one officer behind the other suggest that to me also.....


Quote
Two yellow webbing straps were fed under
her calves and lower back —
Can you envisage that??? who's supporting the rest of her ...??

Quote
using a broom handle to get them underneath.

Ok... The only reason I believe they used the "Broom Handles"....  was because of the vegetation that was over the wall... I believe that there isn't a real reason to use broom handles....  I believe that they used "Broom Handles because they couldn't access her easily.. and needed to get the straps underneath her so that they could then winch her up and Officer supported her body...

The possibly found it easier to get around her calves... Then her lower back... You have to ask why these straps were never supporting her shoulders... It's almost like that was the easiest place they could attach something to be able to remove her....

This description we have been given from this report  is the closest so far to explaining how Joanna Yeates was removed from the area...

Again..
Quote
She was then lifted by one officer, supported by a second behind him, and
placed on an open white body bag atop an orange stretcher by the roadside.

Now if Joanna Yeates was lying on a grass verge.. The two Officers could have simply picked her up and placed her on the stretcher on the road...  Why the need for the straps...??? And if she was on the grass verge then I am sure that the positioning of the straps would have been far more supportive than they have been described ....

Joanna Yeates wasn't frozen to the ground.... Andrew Mott clearly tells us this in his testimony... He clearly states that seperately that ..Joanna Yeates was frozen and The ground was Frozen.. Not that Joanna Yeates was Frozen to the ground.... 

Asking the question why the need for "Straps" what did the straps actually look like.... ?? i think we envisage these straps as long straps... But maybe the aren't ... maybe they are loops that are like a harness...

I've attached an image of firemen using straps to drag people.. whom may be in buildings... (They are practicing)...

But the image shows us the straps do not need to go to the shoulder.... Joanna Yeates arms were not free.. one was wrapped around her body and one over her head...

Now if she was on a grass verge ... they wouldn't have needed to use the straps... The only reason they need to use straps would be to extract her from a position that she wasn't easily accessible.... meaning that she was  Never on The Grass Verge of Longwood lane

also meaning Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill her..... IMO !!




Edit.... An Officer ... Doesn't have to mean "Police Officer.. Forensics Officer... Could mean Fire Officer !!!!

Why didn't Dr Delaney say Forensic's Officer ??? or Forensic examiner ??

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/840925/jury-see-photos-of-jo-yeates-body/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 12:53:41 PM
Re reading my above post..... 

Quote
She was then lifted by one officer, supported by a second behind him, and
placed on an open white body bag atop an orange stretcher by the roadside.

Dr Delaney is telling us that it is the Officer who places her on The Grass Verge...

What is by "The Road Side" ???? The Grass Verge It's the only other area by "The Road Side" !!!!

He doesn't say places her on the road.... why remove her from The Verge to place her on the Verge ??? Doesn't make sense ...

The Officers are the ones who place her on The Grass Verge (IMO).. as Described by Dr Delaney

Blowing apart the STORY that was given as an explanation in court.... Why have they hidden where she was found ????

Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill Joanna Yeates... I have never believed he did!!!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 01:19:36 PM
Quote
Two yellow webbing straps were fed under
her calves and lower back — using a broom handle to get them underneath.

Joanna Yeates upper body is only supported i believe by the Officer

Now it is just as easy for this Officer To have raised her top as he struggles to take control of a body that is being winched....

There are apparently.. "NO".. Picture taken when the straps are put under neath Joanna Yeates....  Yet plenty when she is the on The Grass Verge

Quote
Tabak's QC, William Clegg, questioned why photographs were not taken of a broom being used to arrange straps underneath the body so her body could be taken away.

"I can't comment on why that was the case," Mr Mott said.


No-one would have been able to access the area that she was found in to take photographs... There really should be no reason for them NOT to have photographs of Joanna Yeates.... Andrew Mott cannot comment because he's probably been told not to comment on that (IMO)....

Ever time you put together bits of information from the trial you get a clearer picture.... Joanna Yeates was NOT found on The Grass Verge between them all they make that abundantly clear ...(IMO)...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 01:58:56 PM
OMG...... Skimming and NOT taking the Information in again.... I have missed this so many times.... Partly my own fault I believe... when I have envisaged Andrew Mott and his trusty "Broom Handle"... wielding it about....

MY Fault!!... Well not really... I have mis-read the information...

Andrew Mott never actually says that it is He who used the Broom Handles... In the descriptions he only says:

Quote
"The straps that we used are hooked around the broom so it would have to be the straps that come into contact with the body."

He doesn't say The Straps that "I" used...  He didn't remove Joanna Yeates !!!

Couple that quote with this quote

Quote
She was then lifted by one officer, supported by a second behind him, and
placed on an open white body bag atop an orange stretcher by the roadside.

The Officer Is a Fire Officer... there's no two ways about it... (IMO)... Andrew Mott Is not involved in the placing of The Straps or any Broom Handles whatsoever !!! There are "NO" photographs of anyone in a Forensic suit using Broom Handles And as the Forensic Officer I would say that he would have a Forensic Suit on to stop Cross Contamination....

Quote
Two yellow webbing straps were fed under
her calves and lower back — using a broom handle to get them underneath.

Andrew Mott maybe sees what takes place .... but maybe not!!!... The straps were not the Polices equipment they were The Fire Services Equipment as they list on the PDF...

With the descriptions from both Andrew Mott and Dr Delaney we know that Joanna Yeates had to be elsewhere than the Grass Verge and Andrew Mott doesn't ever say that he helps to Recover Joanna Yeates... when if she was on the Grass Verge he should have .... There should be photographs of him and his unwieldly Broom Handle.... But they are NOT ANY... That's because it was The Fire Officer... whom attached the straps with broom handles and helped lift her from "Over The Wall"... Possibly depositing the blood there at the same time as the lifted her over the wall...as she was thawing

Another thought I have just had.......

The Fire Officers that obviously helped to recover Joanna Yeates from over the WALL were.. perspiring... as we can see one wiping his brow....

This Operation is difficult.... Is The other 'Profile " that they find on the body of Joanna Yeates attributed to One of the Fire Service personel?????



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 02:16:24 PM
I'd like to look at this quote again....

Quote
The straps that we used are hooked around the broom so it would have to be the straps that come into contact with the body."

Now this reminds me of what The Fire Officer would have said.... Did the Fire Service give Avon and Somerset Police a report as to how they extracted Joanna Yeates from over the wall???

Is there a written explanation somewhere from the Fire Service on which explains the  extract of Joanna Yeates ???

It's like Andrew Mott is repeating something that he has read.... Not actually what he did!!!! ...(IMO)...

The Fire Services role in this highly publicised Case... is played right down when it comes to trial... In fact i am not sure if there are any Fire Service statements read out in court.... But I bet there are  Fire Service statements made (IMO)...

EDIT.......  OMG.... "The Straps That We used Are Hooked Around The Broom!!!!"....

That says a lot more than I first thought...  Remember this ...

Quote
Two yellow webbing straps were fed under
her calves and lower back — using a broom handle to get them underneath.

I just envisaged them poking the straps under her body with the Broom Handles and missed them actually using the handles to hold together the straps....

The straps are hooked around the Broom.... How does that happen???  I believe that the description of how they removed Joanna Yeates was not complete...

I just asked my hubby to envisage the straps hooked around broom handles.... And Bless him he came up with the answer .....

They had to use Metal Carabiners to connect the two straps for extraction... I'll again explain... My hubby can be helpful on this if I don't cabbage his head with it....

How can a couple of Broom Handles support the weight of a dead adult????? They were only used to place the straps underneath Joanna Yeates and to get the too loops of the straps together.... So they can then use the Carabiner to secure the loops together... Then winching her up over the wall.... (IMO)....


 I've attached an image of some plain straps.... And a quote as to their use...

Quote
Why You Need a Rescue Strap

All firefighters should consider carrying a Cearley Rescue Strap in their turnout because of its many applications to quickly secure a downed firefighter who must be dragged, lifted, or lowered. It can also be used as a hasty chest harness to pluck victims from above-ground windows or during swiftw..er operations, or even as an emergency harness for self-rescue from upper floors. It has proven itself with our department when lives depend on quick and simple securing of victims for evacuation. — Battalion Chief Larry Collins, Los Angeles Country Fire Department, Urban Search & Rescue Company



http://www.cmcrescue.com/equipment/cearley-rescue-strap/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 03:10:25 PM
Just to be really clear on this.... I know I repeat myself... But these things have been skimmed over so many time....

Dr Delaney says:

Quote
She was then lifted by one officer, supported by a second behind him, and
placed on an open white body bag atop an orange stretcher by the roadside.

I have to use Good Old Wiki for my definition.......

Quote
Roadside
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Look up roadside in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Roadside is a term synonymous with road verge or shoulder (road).

It may also refer to:

Roadside, Caithness, Scotland, a village
"Roadside", a song from The Sufferer & the Witness by Rise Against
"Roadside", a 2014 song by Char Avell.

Roadside is a term synonymous with road verge or shoulder

They placed her on "The Verge"..... They being The Officers Not Dr Vincent Tabak Dr Delaney witnessed this and says this in court!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 03:35:16 PM
I knew I had read somewhere about Joanna Yeates being Redressed

Quote
Detectives had previously said there was no clear sign that Joanna, whose snow-covered body was found dumped at the roadside on Christmas Day, had been sexually assaulted. They did stress, however, that there could be a sexual motive for her killing.


Then...
Quote
The discovery of the saliva samples on her skin will add further weight to fears she was targeted by a killer who may have tried to sexually assault her before clumsily redressing her and dumping her body.

Clumsily redressing her This accounts for her Flower Patterned pink Top been raised up.... (IMO)..

Why would the paper even mention her being redressed if it she had the same clothes on as at The Ram???? Someone must have given them that information... They wouldn't have just magiced it up out of thin air!!!!!

She must have been found in different clothes and Redressed.... This is mentioned by Dr Carey..

Quote
skynewsgatherer

Dr Carey says it is very difficult to redress a dead body.


Suggesting that

(A): She was Redressed

(B): More than one person did this !!!!

Meaning that Dr Vincent Tabak did not Kill Joanna Yeates ....(IMO)....

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/224635/Joanna-Yeates-DNA-is-vital-clue

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=2


The sky link takes a while to load... be patient please....
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 05:05:49 PM
How did Dr Carey go from this diagnosis..

Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
In an initial report by Dr Carey he thought that Joanna may have had her nose damaged by being "forced into a soft furnishing" like a sofa.


To This.... ?????

Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
He now thinks it could have been caused by a hand over her mouth - or a fall to the ground.

How have we gone from soft furnishing to a hard surface ??????
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 06:02:13 PM
Another quote to ponder:..

Quote
"The physical signs of neck compression indicate she did not die instantaneously.

 Now what does that mean???? 

Quote
"The forceful application of pressure to her neck would have been uncomfortable.



"She would have experienced difficulty in breathing and I would have expected her at some point to be in pain.

Not forgetting

Quote
Referring to the 20 seconds, Dr Delaney said: “That period would have been
sufficient to cause the signs of injury and in my opinion would be long
enough to result in her death.” Mr Clegg asked whether it would have been
impossible for Jo to scream as her neck was being squeezed.

Dr Delaney tells us exactly what has happened again..... For the marks to appear around Joanna yeates neck... 20 seconds is sufficant for this to occur...

But for death to happen you need:... I'll let good old wiki explain ...

Quote
Strangling is compression of the neck that may lead to unconsciousness or death by causing an increasingly hypoxic state in the brain.[1] Fatal strangling typically occurs in cases of violence, accidents, and is one of two main ways that hanging may cause death (alongside breaking the victim's neck).

Strangling does not have to be fatal; limited or interrupted strangling is practised in erotic asphyxia, in the choking game, and is an important technique in many combat sports and self-defence systems. Strangling can be divided into three general types according to the mechanism used:[2]

Another quote: 
Quote
As in all cases of strangulation, the rapidity of death can be affected by the susceptibility to carotid sinus stimulation.[4] Carotid sinus reflex death is sometimes considered a mechanism of death in cases of strangulation, but it remains highly disputed.[3][8] The reported time from application to unconsciousness varies from 7–14 seconds if effectively applied [9] to one minute in other cases, with death occurring minutes after unconsciousness.[3]

Joanna Yeates wasn't dead in 20 seconds... she would have been unconscious.. and would die minutes later if aid wasn't given...

Suggesting that it was someone who was aware of this technique that used it on Joanna Yeates to subdue her as there were no signs of a struggle...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangling

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/845725/he-held-jo-yeates-throat-for-20-seconds-to-stop-her-screaming/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 06:09:22 PM
Just another little comparison for us to make sure that Dr Delaney means That the Officers left Joanna Yeates on the Verge:

Quote
She was then lifted by one officer, supported by a second behind him, and
placed on an open white body bag atop an orange stretcher by the roadside.

Now Cleggs description of what Dr Vincent Tabak did:

Quote
He tried to put the body over the wall.
It was too heavy and so he left it by the roadside

Again proving "The Roadside"... means Grass Verge meaning it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who put her there but the "Officers as Dr Delaney had sworn too.... (IMO)..

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

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/840925/jury-see-photos-of-jo-yeates-body/

Edit..... That's why the only image of Joanna Yeates by the roadside in the snow I couldn't understand why the drawing... showing the snow being so clean.... It's not her on the snow but on the white open bag.... (IMO)...
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on July 15, 2017, 07:18:00 PM
www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90832

According to the above, the police were examining an area of Providence Lane as well as Longwood Lane. This was reported in the Mirror. If you follow the above link, you can access the Mirror report from it. Otherwise, the link to the Mirror report does not work!!!

Has anyone heard about this before? I wonder why the police would have been looking at another area---it isn't far away from Longwood Lane: looks as if it is the continuation road on the other side of crossroads.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on July 15, 2017, 07:34:21 PM
I imagine it would have been the Fire and Rescue personnel who retrieved the body: they would have had the necessary equipment and the necessary expertise.

I know I have previously said this, but I find it very strange that Mr and Mrs Birch did not testify in court in person.

I read somewhere that Dr Delaney washed the body before conducting the post mortem:  I imagine that is normal practice. As for the body being washed before it was dumped, and/or being re-dressed, I have no idea, although it does make one wonder why the bathroom at Joanna's flat appeared to have been so thoroughly examined forensically, while the kitchen appeared not to have been.

If Vincent Tabak committed the murder and then dumped the body, he would have been filthy afterwards, particularly if he did lift the body over the wall (and it seems within the realms of possibility that somebody put it over the wall).  He would have needed to shower and wash all his clothes before setting out to meet Tanja. Did Tanja come home to find a machine load of washing, or was Vincent cunning enough to take it all to the nearest launderette?  If he killed Jo on that Friday night, he would have had to do one or the other, but this has never been mentioned.

Whether or not Vincent changed his clothes is , in my opinion, as important as whether or not Joanna changed hers.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 07:42:27 PM
www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90832

According to the above, the police were examining an area of Providence Lane as well as Longwood Lane. This was reported in the Mirror. If you follow the above link, you can access the Mirror report from it. Otherwise, the link to the Mirror report does not work!!!

Has anyone heard about this before? I wonder why the police would have been looking at another area---it isn't far away from Longwood Lane: looks as if it is the continuation road on the other side of crossroads.


This is the working link and very Interesting it is too mrswah...... Yes I had read before that they searched a second area... But I hadn't read this little gem at the bottom of the article....

Quote
But detectives believe Jo’s killer is still in Britain.

One said: “We have not made inquiries abroad.”

Ok..... What are they saying there already on the 15th January 2011???  The Killer is still in Britain... Oh coincidentally he'll turn out to be Dutch....(IMO).... And what's with them denying making any inquiries abroad???? ...They Interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak In Holland on the 31st December 2010!!!! 

And why make these denial's/claims anyway??????

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-stop-shielding-104460#ixzz1B4I4vhfP
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on July 15, 2017, 08:42:40 PM
They had made no enquiries abroad-------yes, a bit of a fib, that one, is it not?
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 15, 2017, 09:40:49 PM
They had made no enquiries abroad-------yes, a bit of a fib, that one, is it not?

Well mrswah.... we only have Their word that they did.... And what is that actually worth ????

They can't possibly be telling an untruth... They don't tell untruths do they ??? (sarcastic tone applied)!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 16, 2017, 01:32:33 AM
A slight puzzler here....

Quote
Dr Delaney said he conducted a second post mortem on Boxing Day afternoon once
Jo’s body had been thawed overnight in a fridge.

Isn't A Post Mortem... Just that......

How did he conduct his First Post Mortem??? And that must have been on Christmas Day.... Now did Dr Delaney mention thawing?

Doing a second Post Mortem seems odd.... unless he is not happy with his first Post Mortem and is looking for something?? So I cannot see how she was frozen!!


The second post Mortem is normally done by The Defence !!!

Quote
A second independent post mortem conducted by one of our Home Office registered pathologists could reveal new information or lead to a different interpretation regarding:

* The estimated time of death.

* Alternative medical cause(s) of death.

* Determine whether any competing explanations for the death are consistent with the findings.

* An understanding of the, or provision of an alternative, mechanism(s) of death.

* Contribution of any underlying natural disease(s).

* Assessment of other unusual findings such as positive toxicological results.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/840925/jury-see-photos-of-jo-yeates-body/

http://www.forensicequity.com/second-independent-post-mortem-l2-51.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on July 16, 2017, 10:31:25 AM
What other Evidence do we have to suggest that Joanna Yeates died at the hands of A Another..

The descriptions of Dr Delaney and joanna Yeates Flower Patterned Top suggest two possible options..

(A): She arrived home and changed her clothes herself..

(B): Someone redressed her...

I get the distinct impression that her body was clean....  There has been no talk of body fluids... Dr Delaney was not even asked about body fluids at court...

The drawings of her clothing she is found in look clean... There is NO staining... which her Jeans in particular should have been very stained...

Why didn't the Birches notice any staining... They apparently noticed her white knickers coming over her jeans... Which I believe should have been stained...

Another possible reason I believe that the Police were also of the impression that she had been cleaned and re-dressed... is the massive attention given to the shower area of Joanna Yeates home... The Forensic powder or whatever they use... Completely saturates the showers area and bath....  Where as The kitchen is apparently virtually free of this power...

Was the surrounding area that Joanna Yeates was found contaminated with body fluids?? There is No sampling that ever says that it was Joanna Yeates body fluids amongst the leaves/snow and debris...

Does this not tell us that she must have died at a different time or at least by a different hand...

Or what the police have always believed by 2 killers.... Because she would have needed to be cleaned and redressed....  To me suggesting someone she knew.... (IMO)..
The public were told day after day of the massive "forensic investigation" at 44 Canynge Road, and the jury were taken to see Joanna's flat, with its heavily stained bathroom tiles, yet (as mrswah remarked in her very first post on this forum) the court did not hear from any witness describing this forensic investigation, nor the results obtained. This is of IMMENSE significance. It could mean:

(1) No forensic evidence was found other than what would have been expected;

(2) Forensic evidence was found that suited neither the prosecution's nor the defence's cases; or

(3) The entire "forensic investigation" of the house was a psychological operation aimed at the public and the jury, possibly

(4) To cover the systematic eradication of any possible evidence that could implicate other perpetrators.

If Joanna had arrived home, changed clothes herself, and then been killed during Vincent Tabak's window of opportunity, there would have been no need for the court to be subject to a black & white version of the CCTV footage from the Ram pub, which can have no other purpose than to conceal the colour of the clothes she was wearing. Therefore she changed her clothes herself, probably more than once, as she was still alive on the Saturday, and possibly on the Sunday too.

The suppression of Chris Jefferies's 2nd witness statement reinforces this. If he saw persons of no importance on her front path 1 hour after she left the Ram pub, then he would have been called to testify, as a much more important witness than e.g. the Catholic priest. That we STILL don't know what he told the police proves that what he told them was NOT very very very very vague, that the persons he saw were not unimportant, and that what or whom he saw is evidence that she was not dead when she was supposed to have been killed.

We know that Dr Delaney was not asked the questions that would cause him to tell "the whole truth" - including the more obvious questions relevant to the body of a murder victim. So your conclusion that her killer cleaned Joanna's body is unsupported speculation.

But yes, it is almost certain that more than one person was involved, though probably only one of them wanted to kill her.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 22, 2017, 11:32:22 AM
                                       The Computer Searches as Evidence

This is the crux of the case... I don't believe that they are Dr Vincent Tabak's searches personally which I have explained why on numerous occasions... But I wanted to look at them as "EVIDENCE".. in themselves.

Quote
Guidance

Information obtained from a computer, whether printed out or read from a display, may be divided into three categories. For more detail see <Archbold 9-11 9-13>.

The first is where the computer has been used simply as a calculator to process information.

The second is information the computer has been programmed to record.

The third category is information recorded and processed by the computer which has been entered by a person, whether directly or indirectly. It is only information from a computer in this third category which is hearsay: to be admissible, it must be brought within one of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay.

Where the statement in a document produced by a computer contains hearsay evidence, it is also necessary to comply with the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 especially sections 127 and 129 see <Archbold 11-45 to 11-59>

Well I would say that the searches come under "Hearsay" evidence... therefore should not have been allowed...

They have used The Second exception to validate the use of the searches , which (IMO) is not what the intent of this Guidance was intended for ....

Lets look at The Second....  You could basically say that everything on a computer comes under this massive umbrella.. But is that correct...

All computers are programmed to record.... But record what is the question..... How do you define two different records as being accurate... I'll explain... Every program records information differently... And if two programs are not completely compatable, there will be annomolies....

Yes.. Search engines like Google are made to work on different Operating Systems, but do they display in exactly the same way on all??

So... If I was running a Windows Operating System and did a search... Would the Windows Operating system record the Search acuratley once I had put the information into Google?

Is it going to be 100% accurate? A bit like using Google Translater... You put the Information in... But the answer is not always accurate.... So the recording of the Information will not be accurate ..... So how can the searches be deemed as accurate??

We have a Dutch national doing searches on Google... Google who cannot correctly translate foreign languages and therefore the recording of such information cannot be accurate... being used in a court of law, which basically ahould have come under Hearsay Evidence as far as I can see...

The recording of the information on a computer needs to be accurate, as to be able  to be used in Evidence.... Not a rough guess...

I have attached two images that show how the translator either misses words or changes those words...

I put into google in English "Rudolph the red nosed Reindeer had an eppy"....

The "Dutch Translating it gave me was : "Rudolph de rode neusrendeier had en eppy ..I then put the Google Dutch translation into the translator... to translate it back into English and this is what it said ... Rudolph the red nostrils had an eppy proving that The Searches cannot be trusted....

This also got me thinking on how the word "Definition" was Missing... It actually made me laugh.... It is almost like someone did exactly what I had done  and put the searches into google first in English then translated them and then translated them again.... As I have demonstrated...

And I will say that is what I think they did....(IMO) because how would they know that the word Definition was Missing form the search if the word doesn't show up in the translation... They would only know that the word was Missing" if they had put the information in themselves .... (IMO)

Looking at Google.... I've scratched my head about whether you could class this as a program... Well it's not a "Built In" Program... You have to use your computer to access google... It's a Search Engine... And therefore is not a program as part of your computer.... And it does not accuratley record information one has entered ....

How were these searches ever allowed into evidence ... when they were surely many many searches A Dutchman did written in the Dutch Language... And therefore... pieces of information will always be Missing" which also changes the context of any search that had been done upon any computer ....

Once again... I'll show how the translator changes and doesn't record accuratley... I put again into the Translator.. Which are images 3 and 4 .....

Rudolph the red nosed reindeer had an eppy The Dutch translation has changed to... Rudolph de rode, geruite, reindier had an eppy... Putting the Dutch translation back into google... The English Translation from Dutch it now gives me .... Rudolph the red checkered reindeer had an eppy

Proving conclusively that it is all in The Translation and if the translation cannot accuratley describe what someone has searched for ... how can those searches then be proof of 'Intent" ???? And used as Evidence against The Placid Dutchman... (IMO)????


Edit.... It was never determined whether or not some searches could have been Tanja Morsons... If searches are in English.. would you class them as Tanja Morsons??? If searches are in Dutch would you say that they are Dr Vincent Tabak's?? And what about a combination of the two???

Well Dutch you would say Dr Vincent Tabak... But english could have been anyone ...(IMO)

If Lyndsey Farmery is admitting to the fact that the searches are done in two different languages as the word "Doodslag" suggests how did she prove who did what searches without a 'Timeline" of Tanja Morsons activities... yes I know the 1300 page Document says it has a Timeline for all 4 people... But that will only be up and tol a point ..(IMO)... I bet the timeline doesn't say that Tanja Morson was doing her washing.. for instance ... Or loads of CCTV following Tanja Morson around to check where she was 24/7 ...So how can they prove who used the computer, even if one person signed /logged into said computer?

Just like today when my daughter wanted to check something out... She just popped onto my computer which is logged in.. in my name... Well I  didn't search for cycling tickets ....!!!




http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/computer_records_evidence/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 22, 2017, 12:27:06 PM
Lyndsey Farmery is A:..

Quote
Criminal Intelligence Analyst Lyndsey Farmery

This is what a Criminal Intelligence Anaylst does:
Quote
If you enjoy analysing and assessing information you could work for the secret or armed services as an intelligence analyst

As an intelligence analyst, you'll be involved in the acquisition, evaluation, analysis and assessment of secret intelligence. Intelligence analysts work primarily for the UK's three intelligence and security agencies and are also employed by the armed forces and the police.

Intelligence analysts, also known as officers, are employed in a variety of operational roles by the:

Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)
Security Service (MI5)



For instance a job with the Scottish Police
Quote
Criminal Intelligence Analyst
Scottish Crime Campus, Gartcosh
Band D: £21,243 to £24,690
Ref No: R121/16
A Criminal Intelligence Analyst post exists within the Financial Investigation Unit
(FIU) of the Organised Crime and Counter Terrorism Unit (OCCTU). The post holder
will be required to undertake high quality analysis of a wide range of data,
information and intelligence in

We are back to Organised Crime and Terrorism...

Another example :

Quote
Criminal Intelligence analysis

Criminal intelligence analysis is an essential component of effective policing, at both the operational and strategic levels.
Analysts study data related to criminals, crime suspects, incidents, issues and trends. By collecting and assessing this data, they can identify relationships or connections between different crimes in different places.
The analysis is then used to provide insights that can drive or support law enforcement investigations, operations and strategy, as well as influencing government policy and decisions.
Main objectives

The central tasks of criminal intelligence analysis are to:
Help officials – senior law enforcers, policy makers and decision makers – deal more effectively with uncertainty and new challenges;
Provide timely warning of threats;
Support operational activities and complex investigations.

By collecting and assessing this data, they can identify relationships or connections between different crimes in different places.
She is supposed to be correlating different crimes... Not checking if One Crime Fits All..

How does collecting information on Internet searches class as identifying relationships between different crimes and different places.... At no point does the Role of "Criminal Intelligence Analyst", qualify a person as an IT EXPERT... It's her interpretation of these searches that is the key issue... She decides whether they are relevant.... Did she click on theses searches to find out if they actually lead anywhere ??


Quote
At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
Tabak’s research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location’

This is Lyndsey Farmery defining the searches... This is how she will present the searches in her power point pointing performance... Forgetting to include "Wiki" into her list of catergories ...

Saying Lyndsey Farmery is an IT Expert, who can retrieve information from anyones computer, then translate said information and present this information in a court of Law... Is like saying I am a Law expert.... which is absoulte "Tosh"... (IMO)...

It's all about The Complex Case Unit Still! and Organised crime... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't come under those headings....


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

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabaks-internet-use-analysed-2372832.html

http://slidegur.com/doc/5830427/presentation

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/job-profiles/intelligence-analyst

http://www.scotland.police.uk/assets/pdf/vacancies/388242/r121advert?view=Standard

https://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Criminal-Intelligence-analysis
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 23, 2017, 06:33:35 AM
Something about The flats layout is bugging me .....  And I mean both flats......

Joanna Yeates Bathroom....  I'm questioning if it is really where the bathroom is... I know it sounds a bit crazy.. But bare with me ...

Those images of Joanna Yeates bathroom and all of the blackening of the Bath and shower area have to be for a reason... And i don't think it's anything we have come up with so far....

Lets look at this logically.... Why would someone put a bathroom in the middle of a house with no outside wall ????

Where would the soil pipes go.... Honestly your not going to want that to back up... and you are going to need access to drains etc.... I'm going to have to use images for this....

Image 1:.. shows a layout of the two flats that we are used to seeing..... And I have never questioned this until the other day when I thought that their should be steps from Dr Vincent Tabaks flat to the main house....

Why in those basement flats would the Toilet be in the middle of the building ????? It shouldn't be .... (IMO)

We'll go with Image 2:.... To the right of Dr Vincent Tabak's door I have circled , what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's spare room....  Now I'm not sure it is..... I think it's the bathroom!! Look at the Soil pipes that run down the building next to it....

Next question... whose Bathroom????  I''l explain by using image 3

Option 1 :...
Image 3 puts Joanna Yeates bed on the other wall..... Making access to that Room which I have circle... being like an on- suite bathroom.. and not Dr Vincent Tabak's spare bedroom....

The room that we know as Joanna Yeates bathroom I believe was a laundry come store room... Where else would she keep the fridge that they shoved in the front room in the Forensic Photo's and have a washing Machine ??? Where else did Greg keep his ski's and bicycle ??

Option 2: It's actually Dr Vincent Tabak's bathroom..... and Joanna Yeates bathroom and pipe work would go through Dr Vincent Tabaks's bathroom... But I don't think so...

I may be wrong on this ... But I cannot see why and how a building like that would have access to the soil pipes. From inside the building ??????

Going back to image 2... all the flats have their bathroom at the back of the building...(IMO)...  so why would you shove two bathroom in the middle of the basement at different points where there is No access to the soil pipes ...

Image 4.... Where it says that this is Dr Vincent Tabak's bathroom I don't believe it is.... See where it's positioned in the building.... how would you access the soil pipes ??

I think that the wall possibly isn't there and it's more of an open plan kitchen come living room....  Then you would come through the hall straight through the door of the Open Plan Kitchen living room..... (IMO)

I believe that the room marked Kitchen on Dr Vincent Tabaks flat is His bathroom..... Which would then be on an outside wall.... With part of the bathroom going underground and the Soil pipes are therefore hiding from view but are on the outside drainage system... There is also a window on that area of the building which you would really need for a bathroom... (IMO)....

Image 5... I have circled the window to the side of Dr Vincent Tabak's basement flat??? This is where I believe Dr Vincent Tabak's bathroom is ...

Image 6: The area I have marked I think is where possibly the stairs are to the communal hallway..

So If I am correct on this ... Both those basement flat only have one Bedroom....

And if both those flats have only one bedroom... How could Dr Vincent Tabak put Joanna Yeates on the bed in his spare room???? If he hasn't got one ????

We have been told how these flats are laid out... We have the video tour of Joanna Yeates flat... WHY??

As I say... I believe that the bathrooms for both flats have to have an outside wall for the soil pipes.... Which can only mean that both flats are one bedroomed....

I say .. I could be wrong... But where would the soil pipes go internally in a building, meaning that it all runs under the floor and you would not know for a very long time if you had a leak...

The media told us what the flat layout was.. we don't know if that is true... And we know that information was deliberately leaked to the media... Why should we take that information as gospel??


I think we need to know the real layout of those flats... (IMO)..




[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: AerialHunter on July 23, 2017, 05:35:59 PM
nine..again,

LOL. Your assessment of Lyndsey Farmery's abilities are spot on. Unfortunately for a lot of people who find themselves subject to this make believe the consequences are serious. A lack of ability permeates the system but disguises it with fancy titles that make people appear more competent than they are.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on July 23, 2017, 08:29:15 PM
"Ms Farmery only spoke to confirm the images displayed as the jury was shown dozens of internet pages said to have been viewed by Tabak."

In other words, Lyndsey Farmery never perjured herself. She NEVER told the jury under oath that Vincent Tabak viewed this or that page, or made this or that search. She NEVER claimed under oath that she was an IT expert, nor that she had been anywhere near the defendant's computers. Nor did what she actually did in court demand any more skill than the ability to turn on a computer and use an internet browser.

"Prosecution barrister Nigel Lickley QC said Tabak researched average sentence rates for both murder and manslaughter before looking up the Wikipedia definitions for both."

Was Nigel Lickley under oath? Of course he wasn't. It is just possible that the court usher said, "Call the IT expert Lyndsey Farmery" - but he/she wasn't under oath either. The journalists and the jury were taken in. Did they not have before them a 1300 page document that they were invited to correct just as Lyndsey Farmery took the stand? Some people would call it auto-suggestion. I would call it a criminal conspiracy.

Lyndsey Farmery deceived the jury by failing to reveal that she is a criminal intelligence officer. For all we know, she could be a very competent one. For all we know, she is proficient in Dutch. If anyone from the police ever really analysed VT's computers, then it was certainly someone who could read Dutch. But the jury was not told.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: AerialHunter on July 24, 2017, 07:28:28 AM
So what exactly bestows expertise upon Farmery? She's no better at her job that anyone else would be. The simple fact is that you need to have corruption within the judicial system at every level for Tabak to have been set up. Clegg was appalling in his opening speech, Farmery is a nobody, all possible moves to cloud the defence were taken, and someone, somehow convinced a weakened isolated Dutch national to give the most unconvincing explanation of his guilt. Tabak must have feared something greater than his incarceration. I think Avon's self congratulating clowns should stick to traffic management.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 24, 2017, 05:08:56 PM
Found these images of a rather Senior looking Police Officer collecting Evidence at Joanna Yeates Flat... anyone know who he is ????

The images are taken the time around when CJ is arrested... There on google images but when you click the link they have been removed ...



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on July 24, 2017, 05:13:06 PM
And heres a different Police officer..  All these images have no links anymore...??

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on August 11, 2017, 02:25:53 PM
One of the most prominent arguments against the conviction of Vincent Tabak is his DNA and Joanna's blood at 44 Canynge Road. We point out time and again that NONE WAS FOUND. This is of course compounded by our knowledge, acquired from the media, of the huge traffic in scene of crime officers and technical specialists at the address where she lived.

Since the jury DID hear evidence from forensic science witnesses about the body, Longwood Lane and the vehicle they were told had been used to transport the body, we are bound to infer that the jury would have heard of evidence placing Vincent Tabak in Joanna's flat, if any had been found, and forensic evidence that the killing took place there, if any had been found. Why would the prosecution withhold such evidence?

So we confidently assert that NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AT 44 CANYNGE ROAD.

However, this is a serious understatement. Not only was no evidence found, but THE JURY WAS NOT TOLD. The jury was transported under armed guard to Clifton and forced to confront the alleged scene of the crime, with all its coded messages, but they never heard anyone in court describe the forensic investigation there, nor its results. Instead of asking this obvious question, Counsel for the Defence distracted the jury by emphasising the importance to the jury of the screams and whether they could have been heard.

Nobody in court even mentioned DNA or blood in the flats. Yet everyone knows that any activity in the flats would certainly have left forensic traces.

"The curious behaviour of the dog in the night" was an iconic piece of evidence in a well known Sherlock Holmes case. Everyone knew that the dog had not barked when the crime was perpetrated, but only Holmes reasoned that the absence of a bark was evidence that the criminal was known to the dog.

The number of dogs who failed to bark during the Joanna Yeates case is legion, but in this instance it is we sceptics who need to change the character of our bark. Instead of growling, "No forensics were found in the flats", we should be barking, "The jury was not told anything about the forensic examination of 44 Canynge Road at all. It was not even mentioned in court".
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on August 11, 2017, 06:19:29 PM
If I had been on that jury, I certainly would have questioned the lack of forensic evidence at the two flats, so why didn't any of those jurors do so?

Or did they?  I suppose it is possible that one of them tried----------.

The screams seem somewhat irrelevant to me, seeing that it was a Friday night close to Christmas, and there were parties in the area. I can't understand why so much attention was given to them. Nor can I understand the apparent big deal about VT typing "crisis" for "crisps"------I make mistakes like that all the time. Talk about clutching at straws.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on August 11, 2017, 08:23:26 PM
If I had been on that jury, I certainly would have questioned the lack of forensic evidence at the two flats, so why didn't any of those jurors do so?

Or did they?  I suppose it is possible that one of them tried----------.

The screams seem somewhat irrelevant to me, seeing that it was a Friday night close to Christmas, and there were parties in the area. I can't understand why so much attention was given to them. Nor can I understand the apparent big deal about VT typing "crisis" for "crisps"------I make mistakes like that all the time. Talk about clutching at straws.
If you or I had been on the jury, we would have remembered the judge's strict instructions, to base our verdict only on the evidence we had heard, and nothing else. We heard no evidence about DNA or blood at 44 Canynge Road!

Nor were the jury asked to decide whether Vincent Tabak killed Joanna or not. Our task was to establish intent. Whatever doubts we might have had were settled by Mr Clegg, who suggested that his client would not win a popularity contest as there was probably nothing likeable about him.

Mr Lickley set GREAT store by the screams, and called several witnesses who heard them. So they must have been important. Mr Clegg told the jury to stand outside no. 53 and try to imagine whether it would have been possible for the witnesses to have heard the screams - but he let slip the golden opportunity of telling the jury to assign one of their female members to enter Joanna's flat and scream, in contrast to the investigators in Agatha Christie's "Murder in Mesopotamia".

Did Tanja testify that she received that text about shopping for "crisis"? Of course she didn't. It was probably invented to spice up the evidence.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on August 12, 2017, 09:05:34 AM
Being me, I would have set great store by the evidence that we should have heard, but didn't.  I would say it stinks of "reasonable doubt".

I agree that it is surprising that Mr Clegg (apparently) didn't ask a female juror to scream from inside number 44-----by far the simplest way to settle the matter.

I tend to believe VT really did send that text to Tanja, who probably received it and thought nothing of it.   It is much, much easier to make a spelling mistake on a smartphone than to invent one, IMO!!!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 18, 2017, 10:33:38 AM
Ninhydrin..

Quote
The Daily Express was told that chemicals, and use of specialist lasers, is common practice in seeking minute fingerprint traces in areas which have been hyper-cleaned.

CSI officers often use a chemical known as Ninhydrin when testing for fingerprints. It is used in liquid form when applied to porous surfaces like wallpaper and as a powder on wooden floors.


The Forensics in this case have always been of concern... and the images that we see of Forensic examinations being done in Flat 1, have always left me wondering...

The bathroom... why is it Black???

The have painted a solution all over this bathroom and it doesn't make sense.... The same solution used on the windows outside....

But where is all the protective gear that These Forensic Officers should be wearing???

When they paint what I believe to be Ninhydrin on the Bay Window.. They have no protective equipment....

And using it in it's liquid form seems pointless.... as the article points out... That is used for "Paper" and not solid objects....


Quote
Protective gear should be worn when using Ninhydrin. Latex gloves are not adequate protection against Ninhydrin solutions. Latex allows some chemicals to pass through and can actually dissolve in other chemicals. Nitrile gloves are recommended as they are more resistant to chemicals, thus offering better protection. Chemical resistant gloves, goggles, breathing mask, and a lab coat should be worn whenever working with Ninhydrin solutions.

The painting would do no good as we can see in 'The Bathroom...."  They should have used "Powder" (IMO)....

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PXT8rSiLWQ8/VAYi5ByD-OI/AAAAAAAAAp0/kxHjYBgRKEM/s1600/bathroom%2BGetty.jpg)

Just like "Bob The Builder" (DRA Maintenance) Not being a Forensic Officer I am being to wonder if the young women we see going in and out of Flat 1 performing various tasks and removing various articles are indeed Forensic Offficers... because I do not believe that they are..... (IMO)... We have been fooled before into believing certain so called facts.....

Would Avon and Somerset Police ignore Health and Safety practices ????? Would they put these Young woman at risk???? So what is the "Black Paint: that they use on The windows and The bathroom????


Is this display for someone who knows about FORENSICS????? Because In no way are they behaving as Forensic Officers.... (IMO)


And the state of that BATHROOM.... It wouldn't yield anything in the way in which it appear that the Ninhydrin was used..... So what is Painting the BATHROOM Black.... supposed to represent????

As it had No Evidentiary Value Whatsoever......(IMO)

So... could Avon and Somerset Police set the record straight as to why Joanna Yeates BATHROOM was painted BLACK.... making it impossible to recover any Forensics Whatsoever?????





http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655541630

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/221187/Joanna-Yeates-Crucial-work-of-forensic-teams

http://crimeandclues.com/2013/02/28/ninhydrin-processing/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 18, 2017, 10:39:55 AM
Are these really Forensic Officers???

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/12/29/1293638138225/29-December-Police-forens-024.jpg?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=22404dc6931e790bb50221ea3ce9bac4)

Or Just Police women in white suits..... Maybe there just "Plastic Police" in white suits ??


https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/plastic-police
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on September 18, 2017, 10:57:35 AM
I find the black stuff in the bathroom rather strange too, also the removal of the front door, and the examination of windows.

It has never been suggested that Joanna died in the bathroom, or that her killer spent any time in there, so why have they concentrated on the bathroom?

I would like to know whether they found VT's fingerprints on the television remote control and on the oven, as, apparently he admitted to having turned both off. And, nobody ever said what was actually found on that front door.

In fact, I would like to know if they found ANY forensic evidence pointing to VT having been in Joanna's flat, or any evidence of Joanna having been in his flat. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and virtually the whole world believes in his plea, but after the plea came his story:  that he killed Joanna in her flat, and then took the body to his flat, also that he returned to her flat and turned off the oven and the TV.  If he was telling the truth, there would have been oodles of forensic evidence all over both flats. It is clear, from Greg's testimony in court, that the flat was not cleaned up: he said he came home and found a mess.

If VT killed Joanna and then dumped her body, he and his clothes would have been filthy, and full of forensic evidence. His enhanced statement did not mention that he took a shower and changed his clothes. Why not? 

When he went to meet Tanja, was he wearing different clothes than the ones he wore to ASDA? Was he wearing a different coat?  Did he put the washing machine on? Was his coat mucky?  Did he visit the dry cleaner the following day? Tanja could have testified and given the court the answers, but she was never asked. Why not?  These seem to be the obvious questions to ask.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: AerialHunter on September 18, 2017, 08:52:03 PM
Looks like they have used the scene for a training exercise. Any SOCO up to speed is never going to plaster a room out like that in case they hide something else? If you look, the haven't even touched the tiles over the toilet. Training exercise over, that's what that says to me. If that's not a demo for some new kid on the block, I'm a Dutchman. (Not exactly PC, given the circumstances, I agree, but sentiment is but sentiment, ''tis all). SOCOS are not the brightest people you are ever going to meet, not by a long way. What they do is not very different to a parkie scraping a dog turd off his prized grass after it's been trod on. Same qualifications needed, same techniques employed, and the same reaction to the outcomes from them in charge, they'd rather not have to bother with the evidence.

AH
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on September 18, 2017, 10:35:46 PM
AND-----, by the way, just in case anyone else doesn't understand AH's abbreviations, a SOCO is a Scene of Crime Officer!  Just looked it up , having returned from my evening dog turd duty!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 21, 2017, 09:52:26 AM
Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful...

It's taken a while but i think I am there... On discovering Andrew Mott is a Civilian Investigating Officer, I want to put forward what I believe his role in The Joanna Yeates Case actually was !!

I'll go back to the sky tweets...

Quote
10:16 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Birch's wife joined him and he called the police. He showed officers where it was. #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

Quote
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Officer Martin Faithfull statement. He was shown the body and caught a glimpse of denim. He closed the road.

Quote
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Andrew Mott called by the prosecution. #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

Quote
10:23 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Mr Mott is a forensic co-ordinator. He describes arriving at the scene on Christmas Day #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

Quote
10:26 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
Isabel Webster
@SkyNewsWebster
#vincenttabak sitting with eyes covered and head in hands as pathologist, Andrew Mott gives evidence about recovering #joannayeates body

Quote
10:28 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Andrew Mott, wearing protective clothing, went to the body. The snow was undisturbed around it. There was apparent blood staining on a wall.

Quote
10:37 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Court sees pictures of the snow covered body as Andrew Mott describes how it was moved from the scene.

Quote
10:42 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Mott says the body and ground were frozen. Defence asks about a broom handle used to help feed straps under the body.

Quote
10:49 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Mr Mott says contamination of the frozen body with the broom handle was minimised. #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

I'll also go back to this quote:
Quote
Civilian Investigation Officers (CIOs)
CIOs are trained in the techniques of criminal prosecutions, in particular PACE and PEACE, and a range of investigation techniques. They work alongside detectives gathering evidence and taking statements. This frees up sworn officers and plain clothes detectives to focus on front-line or other investigative priorities. CIOs primarily conduct initial investigations of low level cases, which can be either over the telephone or house-to-house. CIOs can also be responsible for recovering and documenting exhibits and obtaining statements. While these powers are still not full police powers, they do cover most of the territory required to investigate crimes, including powers of seizure and search.

The answer to what Andrew Mott was doing on Longwood Lane is hidden in the tweets but not hidden in the above quote...

Also in the tweet it does give it away...

Quote
Birch's wife joined him and he called the police. He showed officers where it was. #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

It's saying that the Birches are showing PC Martin Faithful and Andrew Mott what they have discovered... (IMO)...

Quote
CIOs can also be responsible for recovering and documenting exhibits and obtaining statements.


I believe that Andrew Mott's role was to take "The Birches Statement" from them when he was at the scene.. That was it... pure and simple... No Forensics involved... No great police career... But a simple Civilian aiding the Police in their Investigations.... By taking "A statement " from witness's!

Andrew Mott was there at the same time as PC Martin Faithful... They probably arrived soon after the Birches called... That was why I believe he states he tried to stop a body from thawing he was waiting for Th Real Detectives to arrive at the scene.... and nothing more ..... (IMO).....

He didn't have a clue about Forensics....


The bigger question has to be ...... Why did the Prosecution put Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful on the stand to testify to Joanna Yeates body condition on her being discovered ?????

Where were The actual "Forensic Officers" at Longwood Lane"  in court?? Because we know that Martinfaithful and Andrew Mott were there to talk to "The Birches"....!!!




https://www.bluelinejobs.co.uk/roles/police#cios

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 22, 2017, 06:25:02 AM
Quote
The police deny they were slow in getting to Tabak, saying he left the Bristol area before Yeates' body was found. Officers also revealed that it was "early January" when they had an "interesting development" regarding Tabak's DNA sample and possible links to Yeates' body. Confirmation took more time.


How does that work???   What is that actually saying??

There's either a match or they isn't.... what confirmation were they waiting for ???

So in early January they had a possible unconfirmed link... And they spent the rest of the time building a case against him...

This tells me that there was "NO" match...  Yet they used the DNA not only to arrest him but convict him!!



Quote
Avon and Somerset police may now have some questions to answer. Why did they not look into Yeates's next-door neighbour more closely until he contacted them with supposed information about Christopher Jefferies? Did they preserve the scene of the crime properly in the early days? Why did it still take three weeks for them to arrest Tabak after he gave his DNA sample?

Because they didn't have any evidence whatsoever!! The DNA didn't match it was low copy... The other profile they ignored..  The crime scene was walked over by Bob the builder... If indeed she was killed at home... And yes... he was supposed to have called them, but no phone call was played in court of this conversation.. No phone records of Dr Vincent Tabak's about this phone call were presented in court either....


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 22, 2017, 07:20:53 AM
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8057.0;attach=10893;image)


If Andrew Mott is supposed to be 'The Forensic Coordinator" why is he on site at "Longwood Lane" ??? In his words... To stop a body from thawing"... ??

He talks about Dr Vincent Tabak's car on CrimeWatch,.....

Quote
In the boot of the car we were able to find ,erm, minute traces of of blood, that was a match back to Joanna Yeates


Which "Crime Scene was he coordinating.... If he was Coordinating the entire 'Forensic's ... surely he wouldn't have been at both sites... surely he would have given instructions from a distance....

Seeing as he's a Civilian" why is he Coordinating both scenes???


I believe he is definitely a "Civilian"...  That is why they have given him the Title Forensic Coordinator and not DCI Andrew Mott Forensic Coordinator....

So why is this Civilian appearing on "Crime Watch"?????!!!

He doesn't mention a body thawing on that program....

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 22, 2017, 04:22:39 PM
A little more on "Bob The Builder" otherwise known as D.R.A maintenance...

Looking at the video clip... He's busying away working with his finger bare as his gloves have ripped....

Where is the "Protocol"?????

The Forensics never existed....  They don't know where Joanna Yeates died... they never did... But their lack of "Protocol at A potential Crime Scene.. tells me that she never made it home  ....(IMO)..
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 22, 2017, 05:07:40 PM
Quote
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’


Why was Dr Vincent Tabak apparently looking for "Police Footage " of The SUSPENSION BRIDGE... when there wasn't any footage of this whatsoever !!!!
He's supposed to be following the news !!!


And if he avoided the Suspension Bridge as was suggested at trial... why would he look for footage of it at all!!!!

I told you I do not believe that these searches are even Dr Vincent Tabaks...... (IMO)...

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 26, 2017, 08:08:11 PM
Rigor Mortis

Quote
Approximate times for algor and rigor mortis in temperate regions

Body temperature   Body stiffness   Time since death

warm                   not stiff           dead not more than three hours

warm                   stiff                 dead 3 to 8 hours

cold                     stiff                 dead 8 to 36 hours

cold                     not stiff          dead more than 36 hours

SOURCE: Stærkeby, M. "What Happens after Death?" In the University of Oslo Forensic Entomology [web site]. Available from http://folk.uio.no/mostarke/forens_ent/afterdeath.shtml.


Read more: http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html#ixzz4toSS0F00

Looking at the table it brought questions to mind ....

Why was Joanna Yeates in the foetal position???

If Dr Vincent Tabak had taken her from the boot why would he put her in that position??

One arm across her head and one across her body....


Rigor Mortis would not have set in by the time Dr Vincent Tabak apparently left her on Longwood Lane ... If he was just dumping her there he wouldn't be trying to make her look tidy!!!

And then I thought about the image at the Mortuary... The court drawing... That image has Joanna Yeates in The foetal position...

Going with the abduction idea... had she been abducted and kept somewhere ??

Was she on Longwood Lane for less than 36 hours and her body was in Rigor rather than been frozen solid as they say ...

And my other major issue... There is never any talk of body fluids ... Why???

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 26, 2017, 08:43:54 PM
Before Dr Delaney takes the stand 'Civilian Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful tell the jury how they tried to stop Joanna Yeates body from thawing... Notice in Dr Delaneys testimony he never mentions the frozen state of Joanna Yeates body.....

Dr Delaney via sky tweets

Quote
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Russell Delaney takes the stand #Vincenttabak
ReplyRetweetFavorite 

Quote
11:33 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney is a forensic pathologist.

Quote
11:36 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney was on call on Christmas Day last year. He was called to longwood lane

Quote
11:42 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Joanna's body was lying in a 'foetal' position facing the wall. There were no shoes.

Quote
11:49 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney is describing how the body was removed from the scene. There was no sock on the right foot #Joannayeates

Quote
11:55 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Delaney agrees there appeared to be blood stains in the hair of #Joannayeates'.

Quote
11:55 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney carried out an initial postmortem.


Quote
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Court is shown images of #Joannayeates' body. #Vincenttabak covers his eyes with his hand

Quote
12:09 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
#Joannayeates' parents are not in court today

Quote
12:22 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney carried out a further postmortem the following day.

Quote
12:38 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney describing bruises and grazes on #Joannayeates' body

Quote
12:47 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
#Joannayeates had injuries 'consistent with force being applied', says Delaney

Quote
12:49 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Delaney says the injuries to her neck were consistent with force being applied #Joannayeates

Quote
12:50 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Break to 1245 #Vincenttabak

Quote
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney is continuing his evidence #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates
ReplyR

Quote
2:09 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Delaney says injuries show the skin had come into contact with a roughened surface or object.

Quote
2:17 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says marks on #Joannayeates arms are consistent with 'grip marks from finger tip pressure'

Quote
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney carried out a further examination the following day.


Quote
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
#Vincenttabak has his head bowed and buried in his hands as Dr Delaney describes the many injuries found.
ReplyRetweetFavorite 

Quote
2:43 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney is describing the deep bruising to #Joannayeates' neck muscles

Quote
2:52 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

Quote
2:56 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
10 minute break #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

Quote
3:12 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says #Joannayeates died as a result of compression of the neck

Quote
3:18 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says the pattern of injuries indicates manual strangulation.


Quote
3:19 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says #Joannayeates death was not instantaneous and she was alive at the time of the compression

Quote
3:21 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
No suggestion says Delaney that wrists were bound but there were grip marks

Quote
3:24 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney said there was no evidence of direct 'sexual violence'
#Joannayeates #Vincenttabak

Quote
3:26 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Delaney: it is not possible to quantify the amount of force applied or the duration of compression.

Quote
3:28 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says it is likely two hands were used for compression and that the other injuries also happened during compression

Quote
3:37 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Defence asking Dr Delaney about the length of compression.

Quote
3:39 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says he documented 43 injuries. He admits some of them possibly predated the events of #Joannayeates death
ReplyRetweetFavorite 

Quote
3:42 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Defence says some of the injuries would take minimal force to cause. Dr Delaney agrees with that.

Quote
3:47 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Defence asks why the use of the broom handle to attach the straps to move #Joannayeates' body was not in statement.

Quote
3:48 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney said he is confident the broom handle did not cause any injury #Joannayeates #Vincenttabak

Quote
3:50 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
That is all for today #Vincenttabak
Powered by ScribbleLive Content Marketing Software Platform


When did Dr Delaney mention the "frozen Condition of Joanna Yeates ?? He doesn't as far as I can tell.... 

So did he leave her body because it was still in Rigor Mortis until the next day ???

He doesn't mention body fluids either ... He really doesn't give a full and frank account of her post mortem.... (IMO)


http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2   (wait for it to load)
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 26, 2017, 08:58:16 PM
A few of those tweets just stood out to me ....

Quote
2:09 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Delaney says injuries show the skin had come into contact with a roughened surface or object.

Quote
3:21 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
No suggestion says Delaney that wrists were bound but there were grip marks

Quote
3:28 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says it is likely two hands were used for compression and that the other injuries also happened during compression


With her skin being on a rough surface and her wrists being held at the same time as she was strangled suggests more than one person being present....

Dr Delaney says the other injuries happened at the same time as the compression.... So......

DCI Phil Jones was always looking for 2 killers....

So who else killed Joanna Yeates .... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention anyone else being present ....

There are 2 people the police were looking for and I do not believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was one of them...(IMO)

Dr Vincent Tabaks story on the stand doesn't even support the Evidence....

Quote
This is what Tabak’s defence counsel said in his address to the court:
The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back with his hand in the
middle of her back. And she screamed. He put his other hand over her mouth which
caused the noise of the scream to cease.He removed his hand from her mouth and the
screaming continued. He then put his hand around her throat. He believes it was the one
that had been from behind her back and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury. The actions described above killed Miss Yeates. The
defendant accepts his actions were unlawful. He removed the hand from the mouth and the
screaming continued and then he put the hand around the throat. He believes it was the one
from around her back and held it there for about 20 seconds.' In a typed statement signed
by Vincent Tabak in September 2011, Tabak claimed that he didn't intend death or serious
injury.

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

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 26, 2017, 10:00:20 PM
Bit of wiki to start with .....

Quote
The word pendant derives from the Latin word "pendere", and Old French word "pendre", both of which translate to "to hang down". It comes in the form of a loose-hanging piece of jewellery, generally attached by a small loop to a necklace, which may be known as a "pendant necklace".

Dr Delaneys description of what Joanna Yeates was wearing .....

Quote
She had been wearing a chunky white watch with a silver necklace and pendant.

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02037/yeatespa2_2037647c.jpg)


These images from the CCTv are not the best... But I cannot see a Pendant.....

But if she had a chain around her neck... surely it would have left marks in her skin from compression, but this is not mentioned ....

Was Joanna Yeates redressed ???


Quote
Officers avoided putting a tent over her body amid fears that evidence could be compromised, the jury heard.

What evidence would be compromised ?????   That really needs thinking about!!



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 26, 2017, 10:33:28 PM
Lyndsey Lennen

Quote

11:16 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Ms Lennen describes how she took blood stained swabs from #joannayeates' chest. #VincentTabak

Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
There were blood stains on the sole and toe of Miss Yeates' sock and on her finger nails, court hears. #Tabak

I'll add quote from Dr Delaney

Quote
There were apparent blood stains on her flower patterned pink top but no signs of injuries to her genitalia, Dr Delaney said.

So theres enough blood to have soaked through her top and onto her chest .... There is enough blood that it has to have dripped on the floor for Joanna Yeates to have stood in it so it was on the sole and toe of her sock ....

Did her bare foot also have blood on it ??? 

Who's blood was on Joanna Yeates finger nails??  How did the blood end up on Joanna Yeates finger nails ???

To have blood on the sole of her sock she had to be walking about... Not standing still whilst someone strangled her ...

How long would it take for enough blood to hit the floor so that the sole and toe of Joanna Yeates sock would have blood on it??

Where in Joanna Yeates Flat was the blood found that Joanna Yeates stood in ??? That never came to court... If there was No blood of Joanna Yeates found in her flat, then she cannot have been killed there

There would and should have been Evidence of Joanna Yeates blood in her Flat If it had been in the kitchen it happened, there would have been a foot print and sock pattern in blood visible ....

If it was on the carpet there would have to be blood soaked into the carpet, where this event happened ... No photographs of blood in the kitchen or bathroom where taken to court... No piece of carpet that had been cut out with a blood stain on had been presented to the jury....

How on earth could there be no evidence from this murder be visible in this Flat!!!!

And the only answer to that is she was abducted like her parents have always said and she was killed somewhere else ... Proving that Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't have been able to commit this act.....(IMO)...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=0
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on September 26, 2017, 10:40:31 PM
Interesting points I agree.  If she had blood on her fingernails are we to assume this was as a result of her putting up a fight?   Was the blood her own blood or the blood of her attacker?  Did Vincent Tabak have any fingernail marks or gouges on his body?

Do we know the answers to these questions?   &%+((£
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 07:56:27 AM
Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Photos show how leaves had been packed around her body. #joannayeates

Quote
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Next witness to be called is Tanya Nixon, a forensic scientist who will talk about the blood stain to the wall #joannayeates

Quote
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Ms Nixon said there was blood visible from #joannayeates' right nostril.

Quote
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
#VincentTabak sitting with his head resting on the front of the dock and his hands on top of his head.

Quote
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Joanna's parents and boyfriend are in court listening to the evidence. #VincentTabak #JoYeates

Quote
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
A clot of blood and some drips of blood were found on the wall next to where Joanna's body was found. #VincentTabak

Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Further blood smears were found higher up on the wall according to forensic expert Tanya Nickson. #joannayeates

Quote
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Blood clot was likely to have been from Joanna's nose left during an attempt to put her over the wall, court told.

Quote
10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Court now shown photo of Joanna's body. Her t-shirt was pushed up over her bra. #joannayeates

Quote
10:47 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
William Clegg,QC, now cross examining forensic scientist Tanya Nickson. #joannayeates

Quote
10:48 AM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Brief cross examination over. Court taking a break #joannayeates


The heart doesn't pump blood after death, yet they say in court that she was dead within 20 seconds, and Dr Vincent Tabak had her around in his flat for 1 hour before going to ASDA..

How can blood be on the wall ?? How can there be blood drips??

Tanja Nickson explaining away nothing...  It may appear that it fits the circumstance ,but it doesn't ....  Blood doesn't drip when someone is dead....


If the blood on the wall was Joanna Yeates then she had to be alive when she was left on Longwood Lane.... (IMO)

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 08:43:12 AM
Quote
3:28 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says it is likely two hands were used for compression and that the other injuries also happened during compression

Dr Delaney tells court that the injuries occurred at the same time as the neck compression...

Quote
Mr Lickley went on to ask 6ft 4in Tabak to account for the many injuries suffered by Miss Yeates, including internal bruises to her ribs and back and damage to her neck muscles.

Where is the evidence in the Flat for this violent attack upon Joanna Yeates ???

Internal injuries??  How did they occur??

It sounds more like a fight than Dr Vincent Tabak walking into her Flat and strangling her straight away as the Prosecution have claimed ...

Where is the evidence of a fight with Dr Vincent Tabak??  He cannot have held both hands together and strangled her... yet Dr Delaney says it all happened at the same time ...

Why are there not any visible scratch marks on Dr Vincent Tabak ???
When he goes to ASDA there are no marks upon him...


Quote
How Bruised Ribs Happen

The most likely cause of bruised ribs is a blow to the chest. This pushes the ribs against the surrounding muscles and the impact may bruise the ribs. While the injury is referred to as bruised ribs, the majority of the pain is caused by injuries to the surrounding muscles and rib cage cartilage. In football, the injury could happen when a player is hit or when he falls on his side with the ball or a helmet between his body and the ground.


Another way in which to receive bruised ribs is:

Quote
Guest over a year ago

I got "bear-hugged" by someone the other day. She gripped me around the bottom of my rib cage and she squeezed really hard. My friend was mad at me so she wanted to hurt me and get revenge. I think that she may have fractured or even broken some of my ribs because there is intense pain there that will not go away, and I cannot breathe deep, laugh, caugh, or even walk without wincing in pain. I have to walk up stairs at school numerous times and I'm afraid I won't be able to do it. It hurts to walk or sit for even small amounts of time. What do I do?
 Reply


Is this how Joanna Yeates sustained bruising to her ribs??? someone gave her a bearhug??? That doesn't sound like anything Dr Vincent Tabak said at court... He was supposed to have just strangled her.. There was obviously alot more going on than the prosecution will have us believe...

Again I will say... If her parents say she was abducted, could this injury have occurred when they were forceibly removing her from her flat???

Quote
‘Did she get away at one point? Your hand was moving because she was moving.’

They know that Joanna Yeates must have escaped who ever it was that killed her , because of the Blood found on the sole of her sock and on the toe of her sock....

Surely Dr Vincent Tabak would be able to recall that she had escaped him???

As there was no blood evidence in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat she couldn't have been killed there either ...

Quote
As the harrowing image of the landscape architect lying in a foetal position was shown on  court screens, Mr Lickley asked Tabak: ‘Is that what she looked like on your spare bedroom floor?’

So Joanna Yeates is bleeding enough to deposit blood on a wall apparently... yet there is No blood found on the bedroom floor of Dr Vincent Tabak, even though he was supposed to have left her there for around 1 hour

The evidence is moving further and further away from Dr Vincent Tabak being the perpetrator ..  (IMO)..

So what have we ??

(1): A possible bearhug

(2): Enough blood for Joanna Yeates to stand in and have it on the sole and toe of her sock

(3): Marks on both Joanna Yeates wrists

(4): Cut on her nose

(5): Bruised ribs

(6): Bruised back

(7): Marks that suggest she had been on a rough surface

None of these injuries relate to anything that Dr Vincent Tabak said in court... The statement of Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand, doesn't support the 'Evidence" and if people want to call it a confession... Then why doesn't this so called confession match the evidence that Dr Delaney gave in court... Not only Dr Delaney , But Lindsey Lennen and Tanja Nixon...

Question... is there some type of device that could cause internal injuries whilst leaving marks that has a rough surface ??


http://www.coreperformance.com/knowledge/injury-pain/bruised-ribs-what-you-need-to-know.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051786/Joanna-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-driven-lust.html#ixzz4trNjNneV

http://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/symptoms-of-cracked-rib?page=6
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 09:41:24 AM
Joanna Yeates Mortuary picture..... I have attached the court drawing.. so if you feel I am being disrespectful don't look...

Dr Delaney did an initial examination of Joanna Yeates on the day they recovered her from Longwood Lane ...

The image is taken in the Mortuary and shows Joanna Yeates in the foetal position...

Her arms arms at chest height, her left wrist is touching her right fore arm, her left hand flops down....

Now this isn't the position in which she was found.....

Quote
Post-mortem examination pictures showed her lying on her right side with her jeans still intact but her pink top pulled up over her head, exposing her navel and her grey bra.
Her right arm was bent around her head while her left was resting straight across her body.

Now the court drawing obviously differs....  Her top is not over her head, her arms are loose by her side ... she is not wearing socks...

Why would you remove her sock and then start taking pictures ?? 

I believe this was how she was in the mortuary... when Rigor Mortis has stopped ...   Did the photographs at the scene match the photographs at the mortuary???  I do not believe that there were any photographs of Joanna Yeates in situ...

The court drawing suggests that Rigor mortis was finalising, as her arms had flopped down ....(IMO)..  And her legs are still drawn up.... If she had been frozen solid, then her head would still have her arm around it.... (IMO)..

How was the sock removed if Joanna Yeates was in the mortuary in a Frozen state ?????  It wouldn't be the first thing you would take from the body before an examination has been completed!!

Did they remove her sock at the deposition site on Longwood lane  ?? I believe it is possible.. also meaning she wasn't frozen solid as the Police have said ... Because that sock should be still on her in the Mortuary...(IMO)..


Did Dr Delaney pull her top down, to do his initial examination on Christmas day, so he would inform the Police that Joanna Yeates was strangled ??

Not only is the top removed from her head... But her head is also tilted backwards , revealing her neck area ...

If Dr Delaney did this initial examination on christmas day and this image is from that initial examination... Joanna Yeates was not Frozen Solid.... (IMO)...

Therefore she could not have been on Longwood Lane for 8 days ... Meaning Dr Vincent Tabak could not have left her there on the Friday 17th December 2010... The only day he had a few hours on his own...

Theres another puzzle also, which I find an odd statement from Dr Delaney...

Quote
11:42 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Joanna's body was lying in a 'foetal' position facing the wall. There were no shoes.

No shoes... Now one of the journalist early on in the investigation asked if Joanna Yeates shoes were missing... And DCI Phil Jones wouldn't comment on it...

Why did Dr Delaney says that there were "NO SHOES" ?? when all along they have talked of Boots??

What footwear did Joanna Yeates wear to have Dr Delaney say that there were no shoes???

Where there shoes at Longwood Lane ??? Dr Delaney was at Longwood Lane wand would have seen evidence of this ... Is Dr Delaney trying to tell us something??

(1): Flower patterned pink top

(2): Pendant necklace

(3): Missing shoes

Dr Delaney has given us 3 different pieces of evidence that show Joanna Yeates had a change of clothing that differed from what she had on when we see her in The Ram Pub....

It is feasible that Joanna Yeates had her change of clothing in her rucksack,(as leonora suggested).. and didn't return home, but went on to meet someone ...

Her top in The Ram pub is clearly Plain... she is wearing boots... You cannot see the pendant...

Is the court Drawing actually from the Mortuary?? Who took the Mortuary pictures ??? You cannot see the Flower pattern of her Top in that image as it is rucked up to her chest....

Another baffling question.... why doesn't Dr Delaney ever mention lividity???

That would prove whether Joanna Yeates had been moved in the last couple of hours since her death...  yet there is no mention of this important piece of Forensic Evidence....

Are you telling me that Dr Vincent Tabak, killed Joanna Yeates ... had her lying on his bedroom floor for 1 hour, moved her to the boot of his car, drove to ASDA, then drove aimlessly around before depositing her on Longwood Lane, and then carefully putting her in the foetal position so that she was in the exact same position throughout this entire time ????

I don't think so... He would not be making sure that her body was in that position from start to finish... Therefore where are the lividity marks on Joanna Yeates body to show that Dr Vincent Tabak moved her ???

If the lividity marks were not there ... why not ??? because they should have been ...


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: John on September 27, 2017, 10:06:42 AM

The heart doesn't pump blood after death, yet they say in court that she was dead within 20 seconds, and Dr Vincent Tabak had her around in his flat for 1 hour before going to ASDA..

How can blood be on the wall ?? How can there be blood drips??

Tanja Nickson explaining away nothing...  It may appear that it fits the circumstance ,but it doesn't ....  Blood doesn't drip when someone is dead....


If the blood on the wall was Joanna Yeates then she had to be alive when she was left on Longwood Lane.... (IMO)

Blood can still trickle from a wound or a gash after death.  The official explanation is that Joanna sustained the injuries as Tabak attempted to put her over the wall into the quarry.  That would certainly explain why no blood was found in either apartment.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 11:10:03 AM
Quote
A picture of Yeates' right foot with the sock missing was also shown to the jury. The prosecution has alleged that Tabak took the sock.
Then we have
Quote
A picture of her right foot with the sock removed was also shown.
removed by who?? It doesn't say Missing Sock!!
Quote
Yeates was lying with her knees pointing towards a quarry wall. Birch remembered the top of her white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow.
he also says

Quote
He added: “Although the body was almost covered in snow there was a small section with not covered. I could see what appeared to be a rear jeans pocket.

How much of Joann Yeates was exposed, not only to see a Jeans pocket, but her knickers and bare back also??? It was supposed to be a glimps of denim... Not virtually her whole back exposed ....

I've gone back to The CrimeWatch reconstruction ... which most of the filming was done around the 18th January 2011


Now the program has  a vague outline of a body lying on Longwood lane ... This body is lying on it's right side , with her legs going towards the road...  The angle of her foot with the sock upon it should be the opposite way round, the  foot should be facing the other way .... Yet we have the panned image of Joanna Yeates left foot going from right to left to her toes... And if she was facing the Quarry Wall they should have panned left to right... for that image ...

The foot show be point down towards the main road not up towards the rest of Longwood lane ....
Surely that important detail should not be incorrect !!!


In the first image I have attached, you can see the length of her body and make out her knee and back as it is facing the quarry wall...

When did the Police decide to change the position that Joanna Yeates was discovered in????

Mr Birches statement to the court says:
Quote
Yeates was lying with her knees pointing towards a quarry wall. Birch remembered the top of her white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow.

Knees pointing to the quarry wall!! So how does the CrimeWatch program explain itself that it depicts her with her knees facing the road...

Did Mr Birch sign a witness statement that was untrue??? How did he see her knickers if she had her back to the Quarry Wall as depicted in the Crime Watch reconstruction ....!!!!

Another huge red flag... where is the bare flesh on this Crimewatch Program ?? If Joanna yeates pink top had been pulled up??? Mr Birch sated that bare Flesh was visible ....

Quote
Birch remembered the top of her white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow.

Yet it gets better.... The crime watch  program depicts The Birches walking down towards the main road and passing Joanna Yeates and her body being in the position that we have become accustomed to....

So Joanna Yeates could not have been on that side of the road ....

Quote
In a statement read out to court, Birch said: "I saw a lump in the snow and what appeared to be a denim jeans pocket on the left-hand verge. I didn't think about it straightaway and continued walking. After about 10 paces, my mind was saying: 'That's a body.'"

So Joanna Yeates has to be on the opposite side of the road if the Birches are walking down the road... The same place that this forensic tent is situated.... (Image: 4) That is why this sentence now makes sense to me ...

Quote
Yeates was lying with her knees pointing towards a quarry wall.  Birch remembered the top of her white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow.

The Positioning of the forensic tent is at the opening to the woods... The Birches it appear to me have walked though the wood for the dog to do its ablutions... There Daniel Birch has seen Joanna Yeates back, at this juncture... Joanna Yeates knees would be facing the quarry wall...

There is nothing to say that Joanna Yeates knees where touching the Quarry Wall just that her knees were facing the Quarry walland they should have said touching with her being in The Foetal position on that small verge...

Thinking about it... where else would you get so much vegetation to cover her body up so that you could tuck the leaves in??? Not on the Verge thats for sure ....(IMO)...

Remember that this was a reconstruction that was aired on in November 2011 after Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction!!

Another thing that I noticed is she is "NOT" in the foetal position... she is lying there with her legs slightly bent....

And what is the purple looking object that is visible.. I have circled it on image 3

Is it a bag?? Or is it a Jacket ???

It is something, that they have obviously kept from the public..... (IMO)...

it clearly shows that the information on The CrimeWatch program is Incorrect... and I believe that she wasn't found were they say she was found...

Daniel Birches statement that is read out in court is testament to that... And the description of her knees facing The Quarry Wall

just to repeat, so there is No Mistake ....

Mr Birches statement to the court says:
Quote
Yeates was lying with her knees pointing towards a quarry wall. Birch remembered the top of her white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow.

pointing towards the quarry wall... That suggests she is at a distance....and on the opposite side of the road !!! (IMO)...


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/14/joanna-yeates-body-dog-walker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOST33-LjU

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/14/joanna-yeates-body-dog-walker

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 11:11:21 AM
Blood can still trickle from a wound or a gash after death.  The official explanation is that Joanna sustained the injuries as Tabak attempted to put her over the wall into the quarry.  That would certainly explain why no blood was found in either apartment.

She had enough blood leaving her body so she could stand in it having blood on the sole of her sock and toe... There should have been blood in the Flat!!

Quote
Yeates's nose was bloodstained and a red-tinged icicle hung from it.

How was that possible if she had been dead for at least 2 hours ???? The covered in leaves before it snowed !!!!

that would only be possible if her hair was wet.... i always wondered if Joanna Yeates had washed her hair, because the image of the bathroom has the shower head dangling in the bath....

And this Flat was Frozen in time apparently!!!


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/14/joanna-yeates-body-dog-walker

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 11:43:41 AM
This image from The Crimewatch program shows a leg , which should to be the right leg... It looks like there is a shoe or some other footwear on it....


It doesn't look like a bare foot... Also the body is lying ontop of the snow ... !! (IMO)

Again I have attached the image of the purple object that is visible in the shot... It looks a bit like a pouch... It is gathered near the top...

No mention of this purple item was given in court, or it's collection ever mentioned ... The only significant Evidence that was noted in the papers was something that had been handed into the Police....

Were Crimewatch showing us what  "The significant piece of evidence" was ???



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 01:04:03 PM
This image from The Crimewatch program shows a leg , which should to be the right leg... It looks like there is a shoe or some other footwear on it....


It doesn't look like a bare foot... Also the body is lying ontop of the snow ... !! (IMO)

Again I have attached the image of the purple object that is visible in the shot... It looks a bit like a pouch... It is gathered near the top...

No mention of this purple item was given in court, or it's collection ever mentioned ... The only significant Evidence that was noted in the papers was something that had been handed into the Police....

Were Crimewatch showing us what  "The significant piece of evidence" was ???


The Purple Pouch mushroom ... (Cortinarius porphyroideus)

Now it could be imagery like so many images of this case .....


Quote
Cortinarius porphyroideus
Cortinarius porphyroideus, commonly known as purple pouch fungus, is a secotioid species of fungus found in Australia and in beech forests of New Zealand. It was one of six species that appeared as part of a series depicting native New Zealand fungi on stamps, released in 2002. Common name: Violet Pouch Fungus.
Found: Nothofagus Forest
Substrate: Ground
Height: 60 mm
Width: 30 mm
Season: Autumn
Edible:

Also known as The kings pouch......

Quote
The Kings Pouch (Cortinarius porphyroideus) is pretty in purple. This endemic New Zealand fungi is a #mycorrhizal  inhabitant of the southern beech forests and spreads its spores through ingestion by animals, mainly birds. It is hypothesized that the Moa (a large extinct ostrich-like flightless bird) was attracted to the bright purple color. Since no more Moa are around any more I broke this one open, rubbed its #hymenium  (spore bearing structures) on my feet and continued to walk around the forest, hopefully spreading its spores far and wide!




http://www.pictame.com/tag/iwonderwhatittasteslike

http://www.pictame.com/tag/hymenium

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on September 27, 2017, 05:05:29 PM
Blood can still trickle from a wound or a gash after death.  The official explanation is that Joanna sustained the injuries as Tabak attempted to put her over the wall into the quarry.  That would certainly explain why no blood was found in either apartment.

The official version also says that there was a tiny blood spot on the boot seal of VT's car, which matched Joanna's blood.  IF VT killed Joanna, and transported her body to Longwood Lane, she, therefore, must have been bleeding. Wasn't her blood said to have seeped through the cycle bag that VT allegedly used?

If this part of the "official" version is true, then there should have been blood in one or both of the flats. If there had been, this would have formed part of the evidence against VT------IMO.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on September 27, 2017, 05:18:21 PM
I, too believe that Joanna's body was found on the opposite side of the road. That is where the trail is, and where people can walk their dogs safely. Nobody would walk a dog on the quarry entrance side:  there isn't enough room, and it would be dangerous-----IMO.

If we are right, then the wall doesn't come into play at all, unless, of course, the body was moved.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 06:00:18 PM
I, too believe that Joanna's body was found on the opposite side of the road. That is where the trail is, and where people can walk their dogs safely. Nobody would walk a dog on the quarry entrance side:  there isn't enough room, and it would be dangerous-----IMO.

If we are right, then the wall doesn't come into play at all, unless, of course, the body was moved.

I believe you and me are right mrswah... The wall doesn't come into play... They would have us believe that Joanna Yeates body was on the verge directly below the wall.. which obviously isn't true...

Question now being... why did they need all those Fire Engines????  when she was near the wood and by the trail
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on September 27, 2017, 06:55:43 PM
I believe you and me are right mrswah... The wall doesn't come into play... They would have us believe that Joanna Yeates body was on the verge directly below the wall.. which obviously isn't true...

Question now being... why did they need all those Fire Engines????  when she was near the wood and by the trail

An even bigger question is, IF Joanna's body was on the other side of the road, why was the public told something different?

Also, why did VT say that he tried to put Joanna over the wall?

AND, whose blood was on the wall----or wasn't it blood?
Title: Re: Forensics Or The Other Side of The Wall...
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 06:57:47 PM
Well I have found a little video that reveals the other side of the Wall (It was on sky news originally )

Don't know how long the video will stay there for ... last one I was looking at has disappeared ...  Think that was the one I got the Forensic tent picture from ...

If Joanna Yeates was meant to be put over that wall , then who ever intended that had to know that there was  a ledge on the opposite site... Are the Police really telling us that Dr Vincent Tabak knew that on the opposite side of that Wall was a ledge?? where it is possible for several Firemen to have been stood on !!!

After driving around aimlessly he just happens upon the exact spot where there is a ledge on the opposite side of the wall!!  I don't think so....  He would need to know that information first hand... And apparently he didn't know where he was driving that evening ...!!!

Was Joanna Yeates in The Woods... Or was she actually on this ledge as the attendance of 7 Fire Engines suggests !!!!

https://www.musicjinni.com/0U2HRo6yNXU/sky-Joanna-Yeates-Murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-Released-On-Police-Bail-UK-News-Sky-News-flv.html?6be9ccaf03f3927d936007aa2b85fa3c

Edit... why are these video's disappearing ??

Oops that was my mistake... That was the other video that went Missing...


 Here's The link


https://www.musicjinni.com/exE-A4PZKau/Yeates-Murder-Missing-Sock-Could-Hold-Clue.html


Images attached ....


Double Edit....  Did the Birches actually look over the wall, therefore seeing Joanna Yeates back and her knees facing the Quarry Wall ?????

The man that Sky News is talking to is Veteran Murder Investigator Rick Turner ( I think he says Rick)...


Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 07:46:04 PM
I have attached more images from the other side of the wall...

The trees have marks on them, which they shouldn't show signs of damage... And in one of the pictures two small branches have been cut....


There even looks like there's a figure of a man in one of them, but I cannot be sure ....

Edit.... Another thing I'd like to point out is that I am positive the early photographs of the wall were two different Locations... One was slightly further up and had stones that looked almost identical on the top... i did mention about how I thought that they had been replaced before ...

Double edit....  Image 3 of this post shows someone stood there also... To the right of where I have circled ...


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 27, 2017, 08:38:45 PM
On the above post I mention I believe the Police used 2 locations for the flowers being by the wall...

From The video, The Veteran Murder Investigator is stood to the right of the sign, and the flowers are to the right of him...

Yet on the pictures of the wall the flowers are to the left of the sign ...

On image 3 and 4 I have circled the stone in the wall... It is a different size in both of the photographs....

So...  Was Joanna Yeates over the wall as The Fire Brigade in rope access harnesses suggest... And why all the Tom foolery with the photographs ????

On image 4 The wall appears higher .....





[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 28, 2017, 07:27:35 AM
From Google street view you can still see on Longwood Lane the two areas they used for the images ... I have attached  screenshots .. You can see how similar they look...

They are about 10 yards apart ..

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics Or The Other Side of The Wall...
Post by: [...] on September 28, 2017, 11:26:04 AM
Well I have found a little video that reveals the other side of the Wall (It was on sky news originally )

Don't know how long the video will stay there for ... last one I was looking at has disappeared ...  Think that was the one I got the Forensic tent picture from ...

If Joanna Yeates was meant to be put over that wall , then who ever intended that had to know that there was  a ledge on the opposite site... Are the Police really telling us that Dr Vincent Tabak knew that on the opposite side of that Wall was a ledge?? where it is possible for several Firemen to have been stood on !!!

After driving around aimlessly he just happens upon the exact spot where there is a ledge on the opposite side of the wall!!  I don't think so....  He would need to know that information first hand... And apparently he didn't know where he was driving that evening ...!!!

Was Joanna Yeates in The Woods... Or was she actually on this ledge as the attendance of 7 Fire Engines suggests !!!!

https://www.musicjinni.com/0U2HRo6yNXU/sky-Joanna-Yeates-Murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-Released-On-Police-Bail-UK-News-Sky-News-flv.html?6be9ccaf03f3927d936007aa2b85fa3c

Edit... why are these video's disappearing ??

Oops that was my mistake... That was the other video that went Missing...


 Here's The link


https://www.musicjinni.com/exE-A4PZKau/Yeates-Murder-Missing-Sock-Could-Hold-Clue.html


Images attached ....


Double Edit....  Did the Birches actually look over the wall, therefore seeing Joanna Yeates back and her knees facing the Quarry Wall ?????

The man that Sky News is talking to is Veteran Murder Investigator Rick Turner ( I think he says Rick)...

I must say ... I am surprised that no-one has shown any pictures of this ledge before...  It's a large area ... And the most likely place Joanna Yeates was located..  maybe thats why the Police insist that they were killers.. It would take 2 people to put here over the wall...

If Joanna Yeates wasn't on that ledge... what was ?? 

Locals must know of it's existence..... ?? Do any locals know about the ledge ???
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 29, 2017, 07:04:40 AM
Lyndsey Lennen can try and confuse us with the way in which she talked about DNA on Joanna Yeates and Blood Spots in the boot of the car that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently drove to ASDA...

But when it actually came to it Nigel Lickley doesn't actually say Joanna Yeates body was in the boot of the car, he just suggests this to the Jury..

Quote
Mr Lickley said after killing Miss Yeates, Tabak drove to the Asda store.
“It may well be that the body of Joanna Yeates was in the boot of his car during his visit to Asda,” Mr Lickley told the jury.

I believe Nigel Lickley knew that Joanna Yeates had not been in the boot of that car... his own arguments in court clearly state that...

Why is he not saying that Joanna Yeates  was definitley in the boot of that car... apparently there is blood transfer on the seal of the boot... Yet Lickey is sheepish when telling the Jury that Joanna Yeates was in this car....

He doesn't say that Dr Vincent Tabak drove to ASDA with Joanna Yeates in the boot of the car... The two are seperate... He drove to ASDA and she could have been in the boot of the car... This is the same trick civilian Andrew Mott used when describing Joanna Yeates being frozen..

Quote
Mott says the body and ground were frozen. Defence asks about a broom handle used to help feed straps under the body.
2 minutes ago

He obviously doesn't say the body was frozen to the ground!!!


So when Lickey say Dr Vincent Tabak went to ASDA, he probably did, we just don't know what time this was ... But he falls to say that Joanna Yeates was in this car boot at this time .... An important detail....

For Dr Vincent Tabak to have killed Joanna Yeates and dispose of her body on Friday 17th December 2010, he had one small window of opportunity...

He has to kill Joanna Yeates clear up, switch things off, take pizza and sock, carry Joanna Yeates to various places between the 2 flats, be in his Flat for 1 hour put her apparently in the boot of his car...before he goes to ASDA....
And according to the defence drive aimlessly around after his ASDA trip and dump Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane ...

Yet Lickley isn't saying that...  He says "It may well be"...... a huge difference, he isn't putting Joanna Yeates in the boot of that car, when he should be ....

I would have thought as he was "The prosecution: he would be relying on the 'Forensic Evidence" provided by Lyndsey Lennen, to bolster his belief that Joanna Yeates was in The Boot of Dr Vincent Tabak's car... why isn't he ????

I say it's because he know that it is not true... Joanna Yeates was never in the boot of that car that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently drove to ASDA...

And if joanna Yeates was never in The boot of That Car how on earth was Dr Vincent Tabak  supposed to have transported her from 44, Canygne Road ????




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg412321#msg412321
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on September 29, 2017, 08:46:34 AM

Most people wouldn't have followed what was said in court: they followed what the newspapers reported about what was said in court, much of which was sensationalised in order to get people to buy the papers!

Of course there is no evidence that VT went to ASDA with Joanna's body in the boot of his car, and of course Mr Lickley knew that.

IMO, somebody who can go shopping with a body in the boot of his car, AND look perfectly calm on CCTV while he is shopping, has to be an experienced killer, not someone who has just committed his first murder. No evidence has ever been produced to suggest that VT had killed before---------------------.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 29, 2017, 11:33:02 AM
The mention of stickers has always puzzled me.... 'The Coldplay stickers that Joanna Yeates apparently had in her Flat... The stickers that are dotted around, the Hallway and on the small bit of wall next to the kitchen, where you can see the intercom to the right...

I cannot find the stickers next to the kitchen at The moment which one has the initial 'J" upon it... But yesterday i saw another sticker in The Hallway and it had upon it the initial "H"...

Which had me wondering why if these stickers were denoting some type of forensic collection did they not to go trial... and why these 2 different initials J and H were on The Red Stickers in different locations in the flat???

If you watch the video you see the sticker at about 3:39

https://www.musicjinni.com/8CB3OdnwMQq/Joanna-Yeates-Trial-Vincent-Tabak-Found-Guilty-Of-Murder.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 30, 2017, 08:19:25 AM

Andrew Mott has been described as lots of things, but this one takes the biscuit...
Quote

Twitter
Isabel Webster
@SkyNewsWebster
#vincenttabak sitting with eyes covered and head in hands as pathologist, Andrew Mott gives evidence about recovering #joannayeates body
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 30, 2017, 08:31:15 AM
Andrew Mott

Quote
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Andrew Mott, wearing protective clothing, went to the body. The snow was undisturbed around it. There was apparent blood staining on a wall.

For the snow to be undisturbed around the body, it cannot have been on the Grass Verge, with all of the traffic that goes up and down Longwood Lane. The back of the body should have been exposed to grit.

Was the body on the ledge ???

Or in the woods?


If it was in the woods... what was over the ledge for the rope access guys to be needed ??

I always come back to the ledge... As Dr Delaney had witnessed her being placed on the roadside by two Officers.

And the use of the "Orange" stretcher, The Fire Service use, when getting a person from a difficult location, also make me stay with the ledge ..




[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: nina on September 30, 2017, 12:57:57 PM
Andrew Mott

For the snow to be undisturbed around the body, it cannot have been on the Grass Verge, with all of the traffic that goes up and down Longwood Lane. The back of the body should have been exposed to grit.

Was the body on the ledge ???

Or in the woods?


If it was in the woods... what was over the ledge for the rope access guys to be needed ??

I always come back to the ledge... As Dr Delaney had witnessed her being placed on the roadside by two Officers.

And the use of the "Orange" stretcher, The Fire Service use, when getting a person from a difficult location, also make me stay with the ledge ..




.... for the snow to be undisturbed ......

Sorry Nine, I think that you are wrong, because it started snowing approx. an hour after Joanna's body had been put on the ground. It snowed heavily all night, so any grit from traffic that night or the next morning would have hit snow, not Joanna.

 

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 30, 2017, 01:27:12 PM
.....
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: nina on September 30, 2017, 01:35:46 PM
Exit stage left.......

????  You mean?
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 30, 2017, 01:55:34 PM
.... for the snow to be undisturbed ......

Sorry Nine, I think that you are wrong, because it started snowing approx. an hour after Joanna's body had been put on the ground. It snowed heavily all night, so any grit from traffic that night or the next morning would have hit snow, not Joanna.



Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 30, 2017, 02:02:14 PM
All I can really say.. Is if there is so much contradictory evidence to what was presented at trial... How can it be that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime ??

And if Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill Joanna Yeates... How could Joanna Yeates have received Justice ????
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on September 30, 2017, 04:22:54 PM

What time was Joanna Yeates body deposited???

What time did it actually start snowing????

Where you there Nina to witness this event???

We don't know when Joanna's body was deposited. I'm sure nina is referring to what was reported in the media.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on September 30, 2017, 09:22:45 PM
.... for the snow to be undisturbed ......

Sorry Nine, I think that you are wrong, because it started snowing approx. an hour after Joanna's body had been put on the ground. It snowed heavily all night, so any grit from traffic that night or the next morning would have hit snow, not Joanna.

And Nina If she had been placed there for 8 days before she was discovered.... Ever day for 8 days her back and anything else on that roadside verge would have been hit with grit on a daily basis... Therefore melting said snow she was covered in... If she was on the ledge as I have suspected... Then she would still be covered in snow..

The area where she was supposed to be located near the opening to the woods...  I'm sure there had been plenty of walkers with there dogs up and down longwood lane in those 8 days ...

We just have to accept we have a difference of opinion Nina  ?{)(**
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: nina on October 01, 2017, 10:22:19 AM
I don't know any more than you about the exact time that Joanna Yeates was dumped in L/wood Lane, I also don't know exactly what time it started snowing. I do remember that a sports club nearby had CCTV which showed the time it started snowing and this time was printed in the media.

Now if you go back to me digging out my diary and giving you the weather in Bristol from Nov to just before Joanna was found. You will see that there was snow on the night of 17th, heavy snow, all night I believe, although not being out all night I can't swear to that. Before the heavy snow and after for a few days the temperature was -4 and sometimes 0 degrees. So as well as snow on her, Joanna would have been frozen under the snow and the snow, grit above her would have been frozen too. It was to cold for said snow, grit to be thawing IMO.

So if Joanna was dumped on the 17th her back would have been covered with snow and ice, just another lump at the side of the road I suppose. The next morning any drivers wouldn't have seen her IMO.

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 01, 2017, 10:29:53 AM
I don't know any more than you about the exact time that Joanna Yeates was dumped in L/wood Lane, I also don't know exactly what time it started snowing. I do remember that a sports club nearby had CCTV which showed the time it started snowing and this time was printed in the media.

Now if you go back to me digging out my diary and giving you the weather in Bristol from Nov to just before Joanna was found. You will see that there was snow on the night of 17th, heavy snow, all night I believe, although not being out all night I can't swear to that. Before the heavy snow and after for a few days the temperature was -4 and sometimes 0 degrees. So as well as snow on her, Joanna would have been frozen under the snow and the snow, grit above her would have been frozen too. It was to cold for said snow, grit to be thawing IMO.

So if Joanna was dumped on the 17th her back would have been covered with snow and ice, just another lump at the side of the road I suppose. The next morning any drivers wouldn't have seen her IMO.


Your correct you probably know far more than I do as a resident of bristol....  I think I was slightly disappointed when I had discovered the Ledge and no local had said anything about it.....

I know leonora had mentioned about the tunnel before... but without seeing over the wall i hadn't realised that there was a fair sized piece of land there really...

And hoped someone would comment upon the images I had found... Also on the fact how coincidential it must
 have been that whilst Dr Vincent Tabak drove around aimlessly , and not knowing Longwood Lane , he just happened upon the spot where the ledge was on the opposite side of the wall...


Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: nina on October 01, 2017, 11:14:13 AM

Please accept my apologise... I didn't mean to come over as aggressive....

Your correct you probably know far more than I do as a resident of bristol....  I think I was slightly disappointed when I had discovered the Ledge and no local had said anything about it.....

I know leonora had mentioned about the tunnel before... but without seeing over the wall i hadn't realised that there was a fair sized piece of land there really...

And hoped someone would comment upon the images I had found... Also on the fact how coincidential it must have been that whilst Dr Vincent Tabak drove around aimlessly , and not knowing Longwood Lane , he just happened upon the spot where the ledge was on the opposite side of the wall...

Again Nina...  please accept my apology.... Bye Nine


Seriously Nine, do you expect locals to investigate every hole, ledge, tunnel and the rest? Do you know every little thing in your neighbourhood, I know that I don't. 

How many people from Bristol post on here I wonder, apart from me, a right daft div, if I may say so. If I lived in other parts of Bristol I would never have appeared on this forum, but sadly because it was on my doorstep I felt I had to say something, daft div that I am. (A div was Co Durham for a daft person!)

Perhaps you need to come to Bristol, December is not far away, for a week-end. Google maps are good, but if you are serious about this cause, you need to come to Clifton to see exactly how long it takes to go from A to B etc., Who knows I may even meet you for a coffee! Now there's a thought.

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: nina on October 01, 2017, 12:23:28 PM
Most people wouldn't have followed what was said in court: they followed what the newspapers reported about what was said in court, much of which was sensationalised in order to get people to buy the papers!

Of course there is no evidence that VT went to ASDA with Joanna's body in the boot of his car, and of course Mr Lickley knew that.

IMO, somebody who can go shopping with a body in the boot of his car, AND look perfectly calm on CCTV while he is shopping, has to be an experienced killer, not someone who has just committed his first murder. No evidence has ever been produced to suggest that VT had killed before---------------------.

While I agree with your post, the last paragraph, try looking at it like this:

You're a first time murderer, this awful fact is maybe trying to get into your brain. Maybe you deny it, maybe you accept it. You are running on fright, panic, auto-pilot, adrenalin and whatever, so what appears idiotic to us, like going to ASDA with Joanna in the boot, just doesn't register in the murderer's brain. I mean if you've just murdered someone going to ASDA maybe would be quite normal to that brain at that moment.

I don't know, I've never killed anyone, but I did many decades ago see a friend walking down the road, she looked quite normal, apart from the fact that I had to say her name about three times before she responded. She was so worried and inside her head that she said afterwards that she couldn't even remember meeting me. Turned out her young daughter was last seen being given a hand into a strange car. Ended up that mum wasn't told that daughter's friend's mother had got a new car. Makes you think, even small things like changing your car things you don't think twice about, can cause real fright to another person.

Well these are just my thoughts mrswah on how a person might react having killed for the first time. I think logic as we know it can be thrown out of the window.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 01, 2017, 03:26:19 PM
I have attached an image of the small radiator in the alcove as you enter Joanna Yeates front room, leaning against it, is a packaged, rose bush... 

Theres a lot of imagery in this case... No- one mentioned the rose bush that has been left in Joanna Yeates flat.... And with her being a Landscape architect, I would have thought the media would have zoomed in on anything plant related....

Her mother mentioned the christmas tree, but that isn't there, maybe that is in the room with the bay window...!!


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/656480856
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 01, 2017, 06:53:04 PM
 ?{)(**
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 02, 2017, 09:47:47 AM
I am going back to Joanna Yeates living in the entire ground Floor of 44, Canygne Road...

The evidence to support this theory is as follows:

(1): The Forensics on the Bay window that were done whilst she was a "Missing Person"

(2): Video footage outside what we have been lead to believe is Flat 2, whilst Joanna Yeates was a Missing Person

(3): The alarm sensor above the red book case.. (I believe there is an opening behind it)

(4): The kitchen outlet pipe..... It doesn't exist.. How can you have a kitchen with no outlet pipe for the water from the sink??

(5): Early video footage showing, what we know as flat 2 saying that it was Joanna Yeates Flat

I have looked and looked for the outlet pipe which should be under the window of what is supposed to be Flat 1's kitchen... It doesn't appear to be there... The only thing that resembles a pipe below the window, is what I believe to be the Gas mains ...

When you look at this pipe it has a piece going upward which you see on Gas mains pipes, and if it was an outlet pipe it would have a rounded elbow joint instead...

The room they say is Joanna Yeates kitchen I believe is possibly the utility room and storage...  There had been works and refurbishments done on Canygne Road by May 2011... We do not know what this Flat was supposed to look like ....

I have attached an image and circled the pipe I believe to be the Gas Mains pipe....

If there is no outlet pipe from that kitchen, then that cannot be a kitchen....(IMO)

There is an over flow pipe to the left where the flat aboves outlet pipe goes into... Joanna Yeates Flat should have the outlet pipe going to this Overflow pipe... Image 2

Image 3 shows the outlet pipe from the above Flat going into the overflow pipe...

So where is this mysterious outlet pipe from Joanna Yeates kitchen????







[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 02, 2017, 10:02:39 AM
If I believe that Joanna Yeates could possibly have lived in the entire Ground Floor, I would like to make a suggestion of why she might not have felt comfortable with Greg being away for the weekend , and being on her own...

What we know as Flat 2.... That front door is all glass and easily broken into to.... when we look at what is Flat 1 it is very secure with a solid door.. Yet flat 2's door has the glass panelled door and is at the back of the building.....

All the other main doors to that building are solid... That being glassed panelled is puzzling... Is it a vestibule?? And there's another door in the hallway??

I also wondered why Joanna Yeates hadn't invited one of her girlfriends to stay over the weekend, with her being worried about Greg being away...

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: nina on October 02, 2017, 11:19:33 AM
If I believe that Joanna Yeates could possibly have lived in the entire Ground Floor, I would like to make a suggestion of why she might not have felt comfortable with Greg being away for the weekend , and being on her own...

What we know as Flat 2.... That front door is all glass and easily broken into to.... when we look at what is Flat 1 it is very secure with a solid door.. Yet flat 2's door has the glass panelled door and is at the back of the building.....

All the other main doors to that building are solid... That being glassed panelled is puzzling... Is it a vestibule?? And there's another door in the hallway??

I also wondered why Joanna Yeates hadn't invited one of her girlfriends to stay over the weekend, with her being worried about Greg being away...

"Worried" I don't think that I've ever read that Joanna felt worried, lonely yes, first time without Greg yes, but not worried.

Yes you go ahead and rearrange the living accommodation, but at the end of the day there were two flats in the Basement and that is a FACT. It was probably one space, in the way distant past but not recently.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 02, 2017, 11:39:57 AM
I shouldn't have edited my posts yesterday.... nothing changes...  At the end of the day Dr Vincent Tabak was a scapegoat IMO.... CJ has to have had some assistance from the Police.... he's not going to Miss out on over £7000 of rent for Flat one from between December 2010 and October 2011....


Something about the layout of that house is wrong ... end of!!

Whether people think I am off my head i don't give flying **** Evidence is Evidence and in this case there isn't any...

I'm tired... sitting here for 12- 18 hours a day for the past 11 months, researching and typing is tiring... And I do not think I can find anything else...

When I get Phil and Ann to admit in writing what on earth was going on in this case.. I'll post that... But it has become apparent... that all my efforts appear to be in vain...

I just hope that Dr Vincent Tabak's family views it.... or someone with a moral compass......  Because when things don't add up... someone is lying.... And nothing adds up in this case (IMO)...

This Case beggars belief... it is as plain as day, yet it has been ignored by many.. Whoever was the really perpetrator is happy as a pig in **** .... Congratulations... 8@??)(



Ciao
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: nina on October 02, 2017, 11:59:07 AM
I shouldn't have edited my posts yesterday.... nothing changes...  Farewell

Oh come on Nine, don't be such a drama queen.

This is a forum for debate and for debate you need two sides of the coin!
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: mrswah on October 02, 2017, 12:58:04 PM
"Worried" I don't think that I've ever read that Joanna felt worried, lonely yes, first time without Greg yes, but not worried.

Yes you go ahead and rearrange the living accommodation, but at the end of the day there were two flats in the Basement and that is a FACT. It was probably one space, in the way distant past but not recently.

I agree with nina re the living accommodation.

There was some mention of Joanna feeling nervous about being alone for the weekend: it was reported in some newspaper, but I don't recall which one. It might not be true: if she had been that nervous, she would have gone with Greg, gone to see her parents, or had a friend to stay/gone to stay with a friend.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: nina on October 02, 2017, 02:14:33 PM
I agree with nina re the living accommodation.

There was some mention of Joanna feeling nervous about being alone for the weekend: it was reported in some newspaper, but I don't recall which one. It might not be true: if she had been that nervous, she would have gone with Greg, gone to see her parents, or had a friend to stay/gone to stay with a friend.

Maybe it was Joanna's first time alone and she was feeling nervous. I suppose that part of Clifton is very dark plus the driveway to her door, was that dark I wonder. I hadn't considered that. She did after all try to 'phone a few friends for company that evening.

What a damn shame that no one from the Ram was free.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on October 02, 2017, 03:39:19 PM
If the disposition of the ground floor at 44 Canynge Road were different from the layout comprising two self-contained flats that the press has described, how can the journalists and the jurors live with themselves after visiting it themselves and then keeping silent about this big lie? A conspiracy between these people cannot completely be ruled out, but that would be even more mind-boggling than the extreme phoneyness of the trial itself.

There is something seriously weird about the large number of people who believe that Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates. There is indeed a very remote possibility that he did so, but no one who isn't party to the cover-up can possibly know that, because the trial was such an unprecedented exercise in concealing the truth from an astonishingly gullible public. The fake chaplain confession, the fake testimony about the Schiphol interview, and the landlord who failed to tell the court about the mysterious persons he had seen to whom the police turned such a conspicuous blind eye, each separately and together PROVE that NOTHING about this death can be believed at all.

I can almost understand why the average Bristol citizen goes about his business without bothering too much, but I really cannot understand the mentality of anyone who comes on to this or any other forum, reads the facts to which the press has turned a blind eye, yet still goes on trying to argue that black is white, in flagrant disregard for the facts.

There is one small gleam of light on this otherwise gloomy day, namely an act of contrition (or atonement) on the part of the Gruniad for its sin of telling the world how all Lindsay Lennen ever wanted to do was to use DNA to put people behind bars:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/oct/02/dna-in-the-dock-how-flawed-techniques-send-innocent-people-to-prison
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 07, 2017, 09:01:31 PM
Does anyone know what file 607 could relate to?? Noticed this filebox with this number upon it near the wall with the Intercom on it...

Image attached ...
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 07, 2017, 09:24:46 PM
If Joanna Yeates Sunglasses were supposed to be in her rucksack... why are they on the shelving unit just below the Intercom ??


image attached ...
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 08, 2017, 06:56:03 AM
Does anyone know what file 607 could relate to?? Noticed this filebox with this number upon it near the wall with the Intercom on it...

Image attached ...

I was looking at Avon and Somerset Polices website... They are the ones who use these file types with the black ring pull.... And also have numbers upon these files boxes... These are used by The Major Crimes Unit at Avon and Somerset...

Which are from Cold Case Files....

So which cold case has the number 607 ??? or does the number refer to something else ???

Or was It correct when somebody told me that The Joanna Yeates case was a cold case ??? and that number 607 actually refers to Joanna Yeates or one of many unsolved cases

Image attached

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/features/teams-bid-to-unravel-forces-unsolved-rape-and-murder-cases/

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 11, 2017, 12:48:52 PM
This Article is dated 1st January 2011

Quote
Forensic officers tested the snow and ground in Longwood Lane for tyre tracks after Miss Yeates’s body was found.

So where was Joanna Yeates ???? This to me suggest that she wasn't where they said she was...

Tyre Tracks??? well that is not Longwood lane itself it has to be somewhere that no vehicles have been for a while..

And the only place i could suggest is "Durnford Quarry" or the Opening to the "Woods".. With all the parties that had taken place around the area .. They are the only two places that I wouldn't imagine a vehicle to be... But possibly the woods had been accessed since 17th December 2010... leaving "Durnford Quarry'"...

No evidence of tyre marks were brought to trial... Or ever mentioned, apart from this article I have found... The tyre marks must have been significant enough for them to take photographs to rule in or out a suspect.....

The Police and The Fire brigade spent along time in that area... we see the rope access guys there on the 27th December 2010, what were they recovering at that time ???  Was something dangling over the tunnel??

There is some blue rope?? Blue wire?? Lying on the ground just over the wall on the piece of land above the tunnel...

I pointed out what I thought were marks on the trees, but on closer inspection they look like notes, as in letters??


Image 2.... I have circled what appears to be an object?? Glove ?? Sock ???  I have also circled the note which appears to be written on...

The first 2 images come from a report by ITN news on 2nd January 2011... two question i have now... Why wasn't that area sealed off by the Police and why didn't they remove the object and  the note like things attached to the tree???



http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/landlord-released-on-bail-somerset-failand-longwood-lane-news-footage/655296004

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343233/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-Prof-Strange-quizzed-police.html#ixzz4vC6JN2yj

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/688034660


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 13, 2017, 09:41:22 AM
Every word that was made in The Police Press Conferences were carefully chosen. Every word that was imparted was crafted. Every word That DCI Phil Jones spoke had been meticulously constructed. This would ensure that if they were talking directly to the person whom had either killed Joanna Yeates or had knowledge of Joanna Yeates death, these words would hopefully prick their conscience ..

The avoidance of direct questions relating to what Joanna Yeates was wearing on the day she was found... Always telling us she was fully clothed.. No boots.... When asked about shoes DCI Phil Jones diverted the question... 

There had to be something significant with what Joanna Yeates was wearing for them to play cat and mouse games with the press... If she had the clothes on that she had been wearing on the night they say she disappeared and had worn to The Ram public house, then realistically, there shouldn't have been any problem with the Police describing her dressed condition on her discovery... Minus Her coat or not... Minus Boots.. Minus shoes...

They gave away lots of information in dribs and drabs... some information that really we shouldn't have found out about until the trial..(imo)

Things like Greg being away that weekend, That CJ helped start the car, that her coat, was left at the Flat,that there had been no forced entry, that there was 'No" sexual assault, yet they couldn't rule out a 'Sexual Motivation".. that she had been to various shops on route home and what purchases she had made... There was virtually nothing left out... Nothing new that you would have thought would smash this case when it did eventually come to trial... Because we were all too aware of the circumstances surrounding this Investigation...

Bu the Police do hold things back.. The Police have a way in which they know who that perpetrator is... Something that only the killer and the Police would know, something that would identify them from anyone else, that may make claims that they had committed this horrendous act...

But nothing new came to trial... In fact Nothing came to trial to support what some would say is Dr Vincent Tabak's confession... Nothing that had been withheld by the Police for this trial of great importance..

So I keep looking ..re-reading and possibly discovering the hidden truth...

From Channel 4 News at The Police Press conference DCI Phil Jones said:
Quote
At a press conference earlier, DCI Phil Jones said: “When Jo was found on Christmas day morning she was fully clothed. She wasn’t wearing her jacket. She wasn’t wearing her boots and she was only wearing one sock.

An innocuous statement and no untruth... But It's what surrounds this innocuous statement that is really important.. It is what they are NOT saying that is really important...

She wasn't wearing "her" Jacket... that got me thinking... was she wearing someone elses Jacket?? Because "Fully Clothed" in my book means just that.. she had all the garments on you would expect on finding her in the winter months...

She wasn't wearing her Boots?? Later on in the Investigation we are told that she wasn't wearing shoes... But was she wearing trainers?? The images of the trainers in the hallway are there for a purpose, these very same trainers that moved position in a Flat that was a time capsule.... Just like the trainers that were found under the sink in 44, Canygne Road... Did Joanna Yeates have trainers on???

Joanna Yeates very well might have been missing a sock... But did she have tights on?? Women often wear tights under their clothing as an extra layer of protection against the cold.. I don't ever remember them saying that she had a bare foot... I think we presume.. because of the information we have been given....

Maybe it is more to do with what hadn't been said, And really that should be the case... Because there should always be something withheld from the public something that connects the Killer to The Crime and The Crime scene...

But there is Nothing new that connected Dr Vincent Tabak to this Crime... Nothing we didn't already know... And in my opinion..... There  should have been!

'The Sexual Motivation Angle need further Investigation (imo)... They managed to wangle a tall story from Dr Vincent Tabak at trial... But.. The 'Sexual Motivation" was spoken of well before we hear any cock and bull story coming from Dr Vincent Tabak mouth at his trial for the Murder of Joanna Yeates..

There had to be something that the Police were already aware of to suggest that this had been a 'Sexually Motivated Attack"... Wasn't that one of the reasons that ITN News were banned...  mark Williams Thomas queried that the Police had said that There was No Sexual Assault, yet they couldn't rule out a Sexual Motive... That describes motive... And the Police must have had a reason to believe that this was the motive.. They had to have some kind of evidence that would support this motive...

She was Fully Clothed... Her Jeans were not interfered with...  I know they say that her T- Shirt/Top was over her head.. But any Detective  might have come to the conclusion that the reason for this was that the killer knew Joanna Yeates and couldn't bare to look at her , or she stare back at them...

So why the "Sexual Motive" ??  What possible reason could the Police have to believe that there was a "Sexual Element to this case, as Mark William Thomas said in his Interview with ITV...

The Police didn't know about the apparent porn on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop at this time... They didn't know that Joanna had nearly been kissed by Dr Vincent Tabak.. yet we  happily go along with the Polices idea that it was a 'Sexually Motivated attack....

Is it possible that the marks on Joanna Yeates neck were not allcaused from someone strangling her...
 Did the bruising that were clear to see look like a "love bite"???

Is this why they all believed that it was 'Sexually Motivated"...  They were leading Dr Vincent Tabak down the garden path....(imo).. Maybe they were afraid to mention this mark on her neck.. Hoping that the jury by looking at the photographs would come to that conclusion on their own... After The Prosecution made it clear that Dr Vincent Tabak's purpose was indeed a sexual one.... Did the Jury put two and two together and come up with five ???

That is why I believe the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to Kiss Joanna Yeates is important...  Because a Love Bite is just a few steps on from a Kiss.....

A jury listening to The Prosecution pushing the Sexual Urges they say that motivated Dr Vincent Tabak... The judge on summing up, so sure in his own mind that 'This was a Sexually ' motivated assault... And then to put the final nail in Dr Vincent Tabak's coffin, The Porn is played out to the public as the guilty verdict is read out...

I couldn't I understand there insistence that it was "Sexually Motivated"... Or there was a 'Sexual Element " to this case without any signs of  a "Sexual Assault"..  But if i believe that a Love Bite was possibly on the neck of Joanna Yeates amongst the bruises.. Then YES... I can see how they would not rule out 'A Sexual Motive"... Even though it could have been possible that Joanna Yeates had Scratched herself in such a way to cause the marks ....


You can understand why The Yeates believed it was 'Sexually Motivated" if they were aware of such marks on her neck... Or any other part of her body.. And why they were horrified at the information we were given about what was purported to be on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop....

So everyone was in on certain information about the death of Joanna Yeates, apart from Dr Vincent Tabak..(imo).. Because I never forget Ann Reddrop's insistence that this was indeed "MURDER" and "MANSLUGHTER" was never an option.. But the evidence in court didn't really prove "Murder" It didn't really prove anything... Apart from the fact a man stood up and said how things played out....And we all know that that didn't make sense...!!!

I think it's what we were not told that is important.. and what we were lead to believe is true... If Joanna Yeates did have a Love Bite on her neck, or another part of her body.. then Dr Vincent Tabak could not have killed her (imo).. He surely would remember such an action...

I have just had another thought... is this why they talk of saliva and DNA?? Because if someone gave Joanna Yeates a "Love Bite" Then it would be quite possible that their DNA was indeed left behind !!!!!



https://www.channel4.com/news/police-search-for-joanna-yeates-missing-socks
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 13, 2017, 01:50:46 PM
20 seconds never seemed long enough to me to strangle someone.... It seemed far too short, I am no expert on the subject....  but I believe that Dr Carey said about Joanna Yeates died from stoppage of the heart...

I Want to suggest a possible outcome

The marks on Joanna Yeates neck, could quite easily be "Love Bites" aka (Hickeys).. The reddening of the skin, the bruise like appearance.. The sucking on the neck that can take some 20 seconds to cause these marks.. The pressure, light to moderate that would be needed for the marks to appear depending on the sensitivity of a person skin...

The area of the neck that these marks could be... They could be the size of fingers tips they could be the size of anything... Were these marks on Joanna Yeates neck 'Love Bites"???

Given a love bite may cause venous obstruction, it would depend were on the neck that this love bite was given...  Venous Obstruction as far as I am aware is a restriction of veins... So it would be quite possible that a Love bite would cause the restriction of veins.... Depending on the person giving these love bites and the technique that they use, if they were a little inexperienced....

It is extremely rare but it has happened that a love Bite has caused the death of someone, it has be known to cause blood clots that can stop the heart or give someone a stroke ....

So is it down to the interpretation of the marks on Joanna Yeates neck that we need to look at...???
I don't know... as I said it's a theory... But The lack of struggle present in Joanna Yeates Flat and the lack of any physical marks on Dr Vincent Tabak on the day the Police went to see him at his Flat... suggests to me that it is very possible that the Venous Obstruction, is what I am suggesting it is.....

Was this "Complex Investigation" meant to get Dr Vincent Tabak out of the way??  I don't know that either... But no-one has been clear on anything that they have said in this Investigation whatsoever....

The quotes below tell us it could be a possibility.....

When ever I look up Venous Obstruction I get info like this ...

Quote
The scar tissue in the vein can cause either damage to the valves leading to backward flow or a blockage in the vein resulting in poor return of blood to the heart. The blockage in the veins is called chronic venous obstruction.
Or
Quote
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To determine if venous strangulation obstruction (VSO) of the distal half of the equine small intestine would increase length of that segment.

Quote
This article is about blood clots in veins. If you want information on blood clots in arteries, which is a common cause of heart attack and stroke, see the topic on arterial thrombosis.

Quote
Love bite horror as teen dies 'after girlfriend's hickey formed blood clot that travelled to brain causing stroke'

Quote
4. Kiss aggressively, Use your tongue:
If you noticed that your partner is enjoying your kissing by her moaning, you should now start kissing more tightly, harder or aggressively. Use your tongue to lubricate the area. Now you need to understand that, while giving a hickey kiss, it is pertinent to know that your teeth are not involved and must also do away with excess spit as you don’t want to leave a slobber on your partner’s neck.

Suck gently on the spot for 20-30 seconds which is long enough for the capillaries on the skin to break and thus, appear the hickey mark.

Quote
Dr Carey told the jury it is always "surprising" how quickly compression of the neck can cause people to pass out or even die.

He said it was likely Miss Yeates probably died from "stoppage of the heart".

The court was told the neck has blood pressure receptors that, when pressed, can tell the heart that blood pressure is too high, slowing or stopping the heart.

So I am I correct in my theory?? i don't know .. we don't have the photographs of Joanna Yeates to see if this happened...

But we have 2 Dr's giving very short testimony on how Joanna Yeates came to die, testimony that was never challenged ....
Was Joanna Yeates death an accident??

I had originally suggested that, but more about play fighting, Love Bites had never entered my mind... but today they have ...

Please remember this is only a theory, before wading in... I don't know if this is correct..

Edit.. Therefore sucking on the neck to cause this venous obstruction, would make this case 'Sexual"...
Just a thought....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/love-bite-horror-teen-dies-8718037

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/thrombosis/pages/introduction.aspx

https://vein.stonybrookmedicine.edu/disease/chronic-venous-obstruction

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11340552

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/tabaks-panic-dumping-joannas-body-101510489.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 13, 2017, 05:56:05 PM
Quote
2:13 PM - 21 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Dr Carey explains that some victims of strangulation may cause themselves injuries trying to escape their killers grip.
ReplyRetweetFavorite 

Quote
2:15 PM - 21 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
There were no such injuries on Joanna's body.

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=2
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 15, 2017, 02:12:13 PM
Forensics scandal now hits TEN THOUSAND cases: Rogue scientists may have tampered with blood tests in suspect cases including murder and rape

Quote
Rogue scientists may have tampered with forensic evidence in more than 10,000 cases – raising fears that innocent people could languish in jail for up to another five years after being falsely convicted for serious crimes, including rape and murder.
Experts are now painstakingly going back over the vast number of blood tests that it is feared have been doctored by employees at Randox Testing Services.
The full extent of the scandal is vastly greater than the 484 cases originally claimed by police in February when The Mail on Sunday exclusively revealed how evidence had been manipulated.
Up to a quarter of the affected samples were used in trials for serious crimes such as rape and murder.


Because there are only a dozen experts in the country who are qualified to check the blood samples, it could take up to five years for all of the falsified data to be sifted through and for miscarriages of justice to be rectified by the courts.
Already, important police investigations, trials and inquests, including the investigation into the death of former Premier League footballer Dalian Atkinson, have been delayed because critical evidence provided by Randox cannot be relied upon.

Shocking article .....

Quote
Because there are only a dozen experts in the country who are qualified to check the blood samples,

Wonder who those dozen qualified people are ? Does anyone we know of fit the bill?

Does that mean that when Blood Samples that were apparently in Dr Vincent Tabak's car were supposed to have been tested, that they need to be tested by one of these 12 qualified people ???

Tanja Nickson Blood Analyst??


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4980962/Forensics-scandal-hits-10-000-cases.html#ixzz4va6pXSiG

Yes back to THAT Car... Why did everyone just accept that the Blood apparently found on the seal of the boot of Tanja Morsons car, was deposited there by Dr Vincent Tabak...

I'm not convinced on this apparent blood sample, but for arguments sake lets say it was there... Then how can he be held accountable when he wasn't the only person to have access to that vehicle ???

They went away at Christmas... I presume they put luggage in the boot... What if there was some blood on the outside of Canygne Road, a minute spot could easily be transferred ....
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on October 16, 2017, 03:55:37 PM
Forensics scandal now hits TEN THOUSAND cases: Rogue scientists may have tampered with blood tests in suspect cases including murder and rape

Shocking article .....

Wonder who those dozen qualified people are ? Does anyone we know of fit the bill?

Does that mean that when Blood Samples that were apparently in Dr Vincent Tabak's car were supposed to have been tested, that they need to be tested by one of these 12 qualified people ???

Tanja Nickson Blood Analyst??


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4980962/Forensics-scandal-hits-10-000-cases.html#ixzz4va6pXSiG

Yes back to THAT Car... Why did everyone just accept that the Blood apparently found on the seal of the boot of Tanja Morsons car, was deposited there by Dr Vincent Tabak...

I'm not convinced on this apparent blood sample, but for arguments sake lets say it was there... Then how can he be held accountable when he wasn't the only person to have access to that vehicle ???

They went away at Christmas... I presume they put luggage in the boot... What if there was some blood on the outside of Canygne Road, a minute spot could easily be transferred ....
This is very likely, as Bernard the ?kitten would get blood from Joanna on his paws each time she played with him through small scratches he made in her skin. This blood could be transferred to the ground where Vincent and Tanja would place their luggage in the course of loading their car for their trip to Holland.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on October 18, 2017, 08:35:59 PM
"Worried" I don't think that I've ever read that Joanna felt worried, lonely yes, first time without Greg yes, but not worried.



This report says that she was dreading being on her own at the weekend while Greg was away....

Start at about 45 seconds into video...

https://www.musicjinni.com/aZ09umz0SDK/Jo-Yeates-was-nervous.html

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Leonora on October 25, 2017, 04:53:08 PM

This report says that she was dreading being on her own at the weekend while Greg was away....

Start at about 45 seconds into video...

https://www.musicjinni.com/aZ09umz0SDK/Jo-Yeates-was-nervous.html
The only colleague from the Ram to testify in person was Darragh Bellew, and it is what he left out that is most interesting. The word "dreading" comes from a witness statement from another colleague that was read out in court, so it is hearsay even though the TV journalist took it as gospel. It was obvious that Joanna was careful to spread her remarks wide, so that her colleagues would have no inkling what she really did plan for the weekend - or whether she even planned at all. "Fun things" was the phrase Greg was to use afterwards.

The press and the public speculated at the time whether Joanna was up to something Greg wouldn't have approved of, such as buying expensive boots lined with real fur. It occurred to me at the time that he may have paid a visit that weekend to an old flame of his own in Manchester or Derbyshire - and Joanna knew or guessed - but there is no actual evidence to support this - except that it was obvious to everyone that the public were not getting the whole story. It obviously wouldn't suit the police to reveal anything that might detract from Rebecca Scott's insistence at the time that the couple were "the real deal", as they were busy insisting that Greg wasn't a suspect - even though he was in the eyes of the press and the public.

Since they dismissed Greg as a possible perpetrator within 3 days of the setting up of Operation Braid (and 3 days before finding Joanna dead), the police and the CPS must already have decided that CJ, VT, and/or someone else WERE suspects/WAS a suspect.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 04, 2018, 05:26:57 PM
Quote
15.5.6. Expert Witness: Police computer analyst
The female police analyst was in the witness box from 10.30 am to before noon on 19
October 2011.
The police analyst gave evidence on Wednesday 19 October and claimed that the
following (partly set out below in blue) is the result of her analysis of the metadata from
Buro Happold’s computers and Tabak’s laptops at Flat 2. Prosecuting counsel related to
the witness and she confirmed that her analysis shows that Tabak researched ‘police’,
‘missing persons’, ‘recycling’, etc.
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been
changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of
some pages that had not been changed.
The jury looked at pages that have not been changed, allegedly (as the defence did not
dispute (by defence forensic analysis or otherwise) any of the police computer evidence
whatsoever. Defence lawyers did not even attempt to show that metadata cannot be
preserved and thus such electronic evidence may be partly unreliable. The prosecution
evidence was bounded into a huge volume of A3 width and one wonders whether it was
lack of Legal Aid funding that prohibited the defence team from challenging this evidence.
According to the expert police computer analyst and as tabulated in he prosecution’s thick
A3 booklet of a timeline of 566 events, Dr Tabak went to the computer and created the
following Prosecution Internet evidence:


The 566 Timeline of events.... The Timeline that may reveal more than we have realised....

I'll start at this timeline as it is dated...

Quote
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’
At Line 347 of the prosecution chart
 Tabak searched Google maps for
‘maps to Longwood lane’
‘Mirror newspaper website’
‘BBC news’
‘alcohol –police limits’ 

We know that Dr Vincent Tabak is in Holland at the time of these searches..... We don't know whether or not he took a laptop with him... But i don't think it matters ...

Quote
At Line 372 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘BCC household rubbish collections’
 At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
Tabak’s research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location

It is Timeline 376 that is important... I have looked at it many times and not realised the significance of this timeline... Firstly it isn't a search timeline.... which it should be... But more importantly i believe it is what it represents....

I believe that this analysis of the laptop/computer that our perfect power point pointer did, was done before Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested... I believe that this was the evidence that they originally had....  I believe they were already analysing a laptop/computer before January 2011... 

There is no real searches in January if we look at the Timeline...  And quite frankly there should be dozens.... I also suggest that various searches were added, the ones being in January... Because NO-one unless they happened to be in the Police department would know about the Note and the Pizza before it was released to the press...

There is nothing significant in the searches after timeline 376... nothing a lay person would know to search for....

I truly believe that the work done on the "laptops" was done before the 5th January 2011... well before that time... 

Someone was planning the "Dutchmans demise" well in advance, the searches indicate that to be true...  This is why they have the early search when Dr Vincent Tabak was in the Centre of bristol on the searches....

Quote
At Line 118 of the prosecution chart
Tabak accessed the Internet and performed some Google searches
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’

He was never at home.... He never made the search.... And Just like Timeline 376, they have nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak....

Remember they have released CJ by the 2nd January 2011...  There are NO references to the landlord within the searches and there should be if they are Dr Vincent Tabak's.... So I would suggest that the searches belong to the person who believed CJ was Innocent, but wanted to implicate the Dutchman for what ever reason....

There should be plenty of Dutch in these searches and there isn't....  So the question has to be... who's laptops did the Police have before Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested... ??

Timeline 376 tells us that the information was already part of the prosecutions information and that they had already made up this Timeline of events before they even arrested Dr Vincent Tabak...(imo)..

It's the other "Timelines" that were added at a later date... (imo) or else you wouldn't have an entry about the Police catergorising the searches into.. "Forensics" "Google" and "Wiki"... I believe that was where the searches stopped originally...  I also think it is extremely possible this was when the Police went to Ann Reddrop for her advice, because they would have needed some kind of evidence they believe pointed to a suspect...

But we know there must have been a problem... as Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't apparently come to their attention....

Quote
At Line 382 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled
‘Yeates pizza’
‘Avon police seize rubbish’
‘Yeates
‘Sky news images’
‘Yeates’
‘police’

Now this entry has to be the 4th January 2011, now Dr Vincent Tabak could not know if it was of any significance... and as he had apparently taken the "Pizza and Box with him along with the sock... he would not have done this search....

Quote
They seized the bin at Yeates's flat on 20 December but did not take the bins from the rest of the street until 23 December.
Only the person whom had been at Joanna yeates Flat would know if there was anything significant about Joanna Yeates 'own" bin being seized, it would not be of any importance to Dr Vincent Tabak....


So I believe that , that particular search belongs to the real killer of Joanna Yeates and not Dr Vincent Tabak.... that search and the rest belong to someone that the Police questioned and searched their laptops/computers, because there is no other way (imo) that the timelines could be done so early on, giving our Computer analysis the opportunity, to put her own Timeline in between the list of 'timeline " searches....



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

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/04/joanna-yeates-police-questions-investigation

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 04, 2018, 05:35:43 PM
Quote
They seized the bin at Yeates's flat on 20 December but did not take the bins from the rest of the street until 23 December.

What was significant as early as the 20th December 2010 for the Police to seize Joanna Yeates bin from her Flat??? The 20th December 2010 is the day that Joanna Yeates is reported "Missing".. why would the Police feel the need to seize her bin?? What was it about this "BIN" that they felt the need to take  it away...

We as the public are told that she is just a "Missing Person"... But that cannot be true.. their need to start seizing items from the Flat on the day she is reported "Missing".. tells us that they suspected fowl play immediately...

No-one knew about the "Pizza" on this date...  No one knew anything....  And why would the Police think that the "Pizza" is significant so early on when they didn't know whether or not Joanna Yeates had actually eaten this Pizza??

They apparently had no idea when she left her Flat... she could have taken it elsewhere....

They only have the information that The Yeates family and her boyfriend have told them at this point... and a receipt for the "Pizza".. they have NO reason to believe that she had come to harm and hadn't visited someone on that weekend by the 20th December 2010... So what did the Police believe had happened to Joanna Yeates by the 20th December 2010 for them to seize her bin from her Flat??

Now that is the big question !!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/04/joanna-yeates-police-questions-investigation

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 04, 2018, 06:49:41 PM
I thought I remembered seeing Joanna Yeates bin in her Flat... What did the Police do ???? Put it back ???? why is the bin there if it was reported that it had been seized??

From the video clip at 23 seconds, you can clearly see a kitchen bin in the kitchen...  The bathroom bin is also still in the Flat...  So which BIN did the Police seize????


Image (1): Kitchen Bin

Image (2): Bathroom Bin

Image (3): Big communal Bin

The bins for the whole house were communal, So which BINS are we left with??? Bedroom Bin??? What was in Joanna Yeates bedroom Bin for the Police to seize it????  Now that definitely has nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!


The quote says:
Quote
They seized the bin at Yeates's flat on 20 December but did not take the bins from the rest of the street until 23 December.

It makes us believe that it is connected to the Pizza.... But is it ????? Or was there something else in The Bin they seized!!

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-england-bristol-news-footage/656441704

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 05, 2018, 10:17:47 PM
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/view-of-the-bathroom-of-joanna-yeates-flat-in-canynge-road-showing-picture-id129073067)

And....

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/an-interior-view-of-the-kitchen-of-the-flat-of-joanna-yeates-on-12-picture-id129063060?s=612x612)

Now I do not know why it hasn't dawned on me before... But it stares us in the face.....

Where is the evidence that they lifted any prints from the bathroom or kitchen in Flat 1 in which Joanna yeates was supposed to have lived???

Surely there would be gaps in the black dust where these finger prints were lifted ?????

I'm no expert... But.....!!

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 06, 2018, 08:47:50 AM
How did Joanna yeates let Dr Vincent Tabak into the Flat??

According to the trial... Joannna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak saw each other at the kitchen window, she waved to beckon him to come in..... Then what??

She needs to go from the kitchen to the front door.... And.......
Lets him in??

Now that is not possible.... 

There are TWO locks between Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak and that would take some thought about letting a total stranger into ones home on a night you're worried about being left alone...

There are two options as to how the door was opened....

Firstly Joanna Yeates would have need to go into the Front Room and release the door lock with the Intercom.... Then go back to the front door and release the Yale lock to let Dr Vincent Tabak into her home....

Alternatively... she used her keys, which would then suggest that they were available to her somewhere easy to access..

From The Defence....
Quote
He left his flat; was walking towards his car and went past her kitchen window.
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had confirmed.
She beckoned to him to come in.

Joanna invited Vincent in, as all the evidence indicated.

She had opened the door and invited him in.
He took off his coat.
He hung it on her coat rack.

It sounds quite straight forward.... Quick wave at the window then straight to the door and open it and he is in the Hallway.....

Yet it isn't straight forward....  Joanna Yeates either has to return to the living room to release the second lock via the intercom or she needs to use her keys to unlock the door....

My question is... If Joanna Yeates had unlocked the door with her keys... who then returned her keys to her Rucksack???

There has never been any question at trial in relation to the Flat keys and Dr Vincent Tabak... He isn't asked about them...

Now if Joanna Yeates used the keys to let Dr Vincent Tabak inside the Flat, it is more than likely that they were still in the second lock, as Joanna Yeates would need to open the door again to let Dr Vincent Tabak leave....

But as we know Joanna Yeates keys were found in her Rucksack on the dining room table, apparently... begging the question , who put the keys in the Rucksack???

So we have to question also How Dr Vincent Tabak opened Joanna Yeates front door to take her apparently around to his Flat??

Quote
Vincent Tabak said: ‘She fell to the floor. I
was in a state of panic, shock. I still can’t understand what happened.’ Dr Tabak said all this
happened in the kitchen. He said that he then carried Miss Yeates’s body into the bedroom, where
he placed it on the bed, then carried her into his own flat. He said he then returned to Flat 1,

The events almost seem plausible... Yet vital information is MISSING!!

How did Dr Vincent Tabak open Joanna Yeates front door in the first place??  There is no mention of how he managed to do this..... Did he use the Intercom to release the second lock?? Did he use Joanna yeates keys to open the door... Where Joanna yeates keys still in the lock???

The Defence Nor The Prosecution, explain how it was possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to negotiate Joanna yeates front door....

The Defence will have us believe that Dr Vincent Tabak just left the door on the latch.....

The Defence.....
Quote
Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that. It shows a very calculating
person trying to wriggle out of her death but it does not help in thinking of what happened at the
flat….
He went to his flat and left Joanna’s flat door on the latch.
He returned.
He turned off the oven that she had turned on.
He took the Tesco pizza that was in the kitchen.
He carried the body from her flat to his flat.

Now the latch theory doesn't hold water, as we still have the issue with the second lock.... How did Dr Vincent Tabak open the front door of Joanna Yeates Flat in the first place to be able to leave it on the latch???

He obviously didn't use the Intercom...  as this Intercom would have finger print dust all over it... so that to me suggest that both he and Joanna Yeates had to use the keys to open the Front Door of Flat 1....
And the Police obviously knew something about whoever had attacked Joanna yeates, not to bother even finger print The Intercom...
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7613.0;attach=7434;image)

We still have the Question of.. How did Joanna Yeates Flat keys end up inside her Rucksack on the dining room table????

Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't say he returned Joanna Yeates keys to the Rucksack on the dining room table... Dr Vincent Tabak never mentions keys....

No-body appears to have questioned this IMPOSSIBILITY..... Joanna Yeates didn't put them there after the event...... Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't have put them there or the Defence would have said he used the keys so would The Prosecution...... And if he never had possesion of the Flat keys.. How was Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to be the Killer of Joanna Yeates ???

The issue with the keys lends to the fact that someone else needed keys (imo)... Because if they didn't have keys,they too would have the same issue as Dr Vincent Tabak of exiting the Flat without using the keys or the Intercom... And I believe that this was part of the reason why they initially arrested CJ.... They knew that keys were needed to be used to enter and exit The Flat....


So....Why didn't the Police look elsewhere ???

How many sets of keys were there to Joanna Yeates Flat ??

And why on earth did The Defence not Point this obvious problem out!!!

Edit.... So we are left with two possibilities.... Someone who also had access to the keys to the Flat murdered Joanna Yeates there..... Or she was killed elsewhere and not at the Flat... with someone returning her items....But that still leaving the issue of of needing the keys to enter and exit the Flat..... Meaning (imo) Dr Vincent Tabak could not have committed this crime !

Double Edit... If Dr Vincent Tabak had used the Intercom... Then why was there no evidence brought to trial, to show that a finger print/ palm print was on this Intercom... And why is The Intercom NEVER mentioned at Trial???


https://philarchive.org/archive/RAMTMT-4
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 06, 2018, 07:22:40 PM
Now early reports of where Joanna yeates was located differed.... But I want to go back to this location....

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/26/article-1341676-0C9499D7000005DC-696_634x410.jpg)

Now the reason I have come back to this is because of The little news clips I found.... On the 27th December 2010, we have the rope access guys, and looking carefully at the video you can see them climb the fence in that area just by the trees....

Image (1): shows a yellow helmet appearing

Image (2): shows a rope access guy climbing over the fence between the vehicles to the right of the Police Officer...

Image (3): Clearly see him climbing over the fence and his yellow hat..

Image (4): The Police and Forensics initially standing in that area on the 25th December 2010

Image (5) From the mail..

Image (6): The Rope access guy is carrying a metal rod of some description... (what is it??)
I have added a close up of this object..



If you watch the clip and keep an eye to the right of the Policeman.. you can see the two Rope Access guys emerge...

You can see the yellow Helmet starting from 57 seconds....

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/688036836

Do we still all believe that Joanna Yeates was next to that wall on Longwood Lane where they told the Jury she was ?? Because I never have...!!

Edit I believe that is a scythe....   Now why are the rope access guys needing a scythe, when Joanna Yeates was apparently found further up the road..  What was in that area that they were trying to retrieve??  Nothing from Longwood lane came to trial! And according to the trial testimony Joanna Yeates was just dumped on the grass verge near the wall ....

Image (7): The scythe raised up...

Again, if the location differs to where the trial said she was found, then it cannot have been Dr Vincent Tabak!


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

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 07, 2018, 07:56:31 AM
From this video clip... (transcript)

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/655484800


Quote
Every day for two weeks the Police have searched the Landscape Architects Flat and today they were back again. If the evidence exists, it's proving difficult to find. The Police admit the Murder Investigation is complex, yet criminologist mark Williams Thomas believes breaking it down into three elements.

Why would they need to search the tiny Flat for 2 weeks???  I believe it is more to do with display than evidence collecting, what possible evidence could they find 2 weeks on after searching everyday??

So they started there search on the 20th December 2010... we know that they removed Joanna yeates bin on the 20th December 2010...

Why, are we Forensically searching this Flat when Joanna yeates was supposed to be a "Missing" person.. and "NO" evidence at the Flat suggested a struggle.. DS Mark Saunders, appealed for information about her whereabouts on the 22nd December 2010.. They lead the public to believe that she was a "Missing" person and that they wanted the publics help...

They knew that she was a "Murder" victim from day one... They behaved as If she was a Murder Victim from day one...  Dr Vincent Tabak could not have given them any indication so early on in the Investigation...  Why did the Police and Greg Reardon go to Dr Vincent Tabak's door on the morning of the 20th December 2010.. when they didn't go to Geoffrey Hardymans Flat??
CJ being the person to inform Mr Hardyman...

Quote
Mr Hardyman had supplied the legal defence lawyers with a statement which was read
out at Vincent Tabak’s trial by a defence barrister. Mr Hardyman stated that he was in bed with a
cold on that Friday evening of 17 December 2010 and (in contrast to the two persons who told
police that they had heard screams coming from the property on the Friday night, 17 December
2010) Mr Hardyman stated that heard nothing all that weekend and did not learn that Joanna Yeates
had been reported as missing until Christopher Jefferies had told him about it on Monday 20
December 2010.


The Polices behaviour seems at odds... Why would you immediately assume that the Flat next door had a connection to Joanna Yeates being Missing... without any evidence to support this within an hour of arriving at the scene??

You either have Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates knowing each other for there to be an incline of reason to go to Dr Vincent Tabak house.. Or the basement Flats are communal in some way.... either of those possibilities didn't come to trial... So why were the Police knocking on Dr Vincent Tabak's door in the early hours of Monday the 20th December 2010??

And what was it about the information they had that determined them to treat this as a "Murder Inquiry" on the same day she was reported "Missing"!!

https://philarchive.org/archive/RAMTMT-4
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 10, 2018, 01:04:20 PM
Quote
Photographs were shown of Yeates lying in a foetal position on Longwood Lane, her body covered in snow and leaves. The prosecution alleges Tabak tried to throw the body over the quarry wall but then concealed it beneath a pile of leaves.

And.....

Quote
More pictures of the body were taken at a nearby mortuary. Yeates was still in a foetal position, her pink top pulled up to just under her shoulders. Her grey bra was visible as was part of her left breast.

Quote
Yeates's nose was bloodstained and a red-tinged icicle hung from it. Her eyes were puffy and red and there was bruising on her forehead, behind her ear and under her eyelids. Her cheeks and neck were also bruised. She had an abrasion on her lip and red bruises on her chin. Her blond hair was bloodstained.

Quote
Yeates's nose was bloodstained and a red-tinged icicle hung from it. Her eyes were puffy and red and there was bruising on her forehead, behind her ear and under her eyelids. Her cheeks and neck were also bruised. She had an abrasion on her lip and red bruises on her chin. Her blond hair was bloodstained.

At trial Dr Vincent Tabak says he believed that Joanna Yeates was dead.... Well to me the description of...

(A): being in a foetal position

(B): A red tinged icicle hung from her nose

Tells me that she was still alive.. Of course I am no expert, But blood doesn't run when someone is dead...  The fact that her hair was also stained with blood indicates she must still have been alive when she was either kept somewhere or place on Longwood Lane...

There was NO Blood EVIDENCE at Joanna Yeates Flat... From which Joanna Yeates would surely be lying down with blood leaving her body... For it to have got in her hair...

Dr Vincent Tabak never mentions any blood in the Bicycle cover.... Surely if Joanna Yeates had been bleeding then this cover would have had plenty of blood on it... But the Prosecution doe not question where all the blood is.... The Defence do not mention this either as fair as I am aware....

But logic dictates that she must have still been alive... (imo).. And had put herself into the foetal position .... `To protect herself... Either from the injuries or the cold ....

There may have been signs of Compression of the neck... But I believe that heart failure was the cause of her death...

Quote
In Tabak's defence, Bill Clegg QC said Miss Yeates did not die of strangulation, but of heart failure.

"The obstruction of Joanna's airwaves caused oxygen starvation that in turn caused heart failure," Clegg told the jury.

Clegg also told the jury that the death of Yeates happened in "a few seconds of madness."

The statement by Clegg doesn't make sense.... 

Quote
Between 30-180 seconds of oxygen deprivation, you may lose consciousness.
At the one-minute mark, brain cells begin dying.
At three minutes, neurons suffer more extensive damage, and lasting brain damage becomes more likely.
At five minutes, death becomes imminent.
At 10 minutes, even if the brain remains alive, a coma and lasting brain damage are almost inevitable.
At 15 minutes, survival becomes nearly impossible.

Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates in less than 20 seconds, by compression of the neck... That doesn't explain any of the other Injuries that she sustained...

If he has one had behind her back and one around her neck.. where did the other Injuries come from....

* Nose
* Lip
* Head
* Forehead
* Cheeks
* Chin
* Both sides of her head
* Behind ear
* Wrists

Quote
The judge reminded the jury of the 43 injuries found on Yeates when her body was discovered in a mound of snow on Christmas Day last year. He suggested the jurors focus on a series of bruises as they could only have been caused in life. He also highlighted the finding that she had injuries to both sides of her head.

Quote
Home Office pathologist Russell Delaney said some of the injuries must have been suffered while Yeates was alive. He said: "Bruising only occurs when the heart is beating, so the injuries occurred during life."

So where did all the Injuries come from If Dr Vincent Tabak had killed her by holding her neck for 20 seconds??

Quote
Her eyes were puffy and red
Does that describe strangulation??

Sounds more like she had been crying to me...

Did Dr Delaney ever say that there was "Petechial Hemorrhaging"/Subconjunctival Haemorrhaging what about the whites of Joanna yeates eyes???

Quote
A subconjunctival haemorrhage is a
bleeding underneath the conjunctiva, the
transparent layer which lies over the white
of the eye, called the sclera. This bleeding
is caused by the leaking of a blood vessel
in the conjunctiva.

Quote
Purple bruising above Miss Yeates's right eye and a graze on her cheek were found by Dr Delaney, the court heard.
Injuries on her nose and lip were also suffered while Miss Yeates was still alive, he said.
Dr Delaney said: "Bruising only occurs when the heart is beating - so the injuries occurred during life."
Haemorrhages were noted by Dr Delaney on her eyelids and face.
"The particular haemorrhages in the skin, face and eyelids are signs there has been venous obstruction in the head and neck," Dr Delaney said.

Dr Delaney only says eyelids... what happened to the Whites of her eyes... What about under her eyes lids??

There is so much Missing from the description of Injuries by the medical experts...

Why is it all so evasive??

Dr Delaney will has us believe through the Prosecution and Defence, that in 20 seconds, Joanna Yeates received 43 Injuries whilst being strangled and her heart had stopped.... Well her heart couldn't have stopped whilst she received the Injuries... So at what point did Joanna Yeates heart stop??  And how did the Injuries occur??


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html

https://www.moorfields.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/a-e-subconjunctival-haemorrhage.pdf

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vincent-tabak-jo-yeates-joanna-yeates-trail-murder-investigation-court-case-walked-away-any-time-sto-237256

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/14/joanna-yeates-body-dog-walker

https://www.spinalcord.com/blog/what-happens-after-a-lack-of-oxygen-to-the-brain

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/26/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-jury
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 10, 2018, 01:30:59 PM
Quote
"I would have expected this death to be a dynamic incident and as such it is not possible to determine the respective positions of Joanna and her assailant.

Why couldn't Dr Delaney as a Forensic pathologist determine what positions Joanna Yeates and her assailant were in at the time of the attack?

Surely it would be part of the examination to know where each person was standing when finger prints on Joanna Yeates neck would indicate if someone was behind her or in front of her....

Isn't that part of a Forensic Pathologists job to find out the position of the assailant and the victim? wouldn't that knowledge add to what happened during an attack???

Wouldn't you need to know if the victim's back was to the assailant and was trying to run away.. or the victim was looking the assailant squarely in the eyes..

 I am astounded that Dr Delaney couldn't be more precise as to the position of Joanna Yeates whilst she was being attacked... Or whether there had to be more than one assailant involved in the attack, seeing as there were grab marks on both wrists....

I don't understand!



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 10, 2018, 07:39:57 PM
Quote
The jury heard that leaves found on the victim's body had been placed there and compressed against her, according to forensic archaeologist Dr Karl Harrison.

Dr Tanya Nickson, who analysed blood found on a wall beside Miss Yeates, said she believed an attempt had been made to deposit her body in a quarry.

Forensic scientist Lindsay Lennen revealed she had detected DNA from Tabak on Miss Yeates' chest and jeans as well as DNA from her in the boot of his car.

Forensic Archaeologist..
Quote
Forensic Archaeology
A forensic archaeologist’s first involvement may be to help the police locate the site where a body and victim’s personal items, or stolen goods are buried, through geological and geophysical surveying techniques, as well as using imaging and photography.
The forensic archaeologist may also help with the excavation, using similar tools and expertise to those used at an archaeological dig. This has to be done slowly and painstakingly, and the archaeologists will record and preserve anything found at every stage and depth (for example paint flakes, hair, clothing or DNA) as it may be vital evidence. The colour and state of the soil may be useful in the investigation.


Quote
Evidence from forensic archaeologists about how materials degrade or decompose over time and in specific conditions is important, as this can help determine, for example, how long a body has been buried by the state of the clothes or the surrounding soil, or how long stolen goods have been buried by the subsequent damage to metal and other materials.

What was Dr Karl Harrison doing on Longwood Lane if Joanna Yeates body was in a frozen state and had not decomposed???

Attached image.... is this Dr Karl harrison?? This is from the video linked... On the 26th December 2010... Now if that is Dr Karl Harrison with possibly Lyndsay Lennen or Tanja Nixon, then when was Joanna Yeates body removed from the scene?? This clip was taken on the 26th December 2010....

I do not understand the reason for a Forensic Archaeologist being at the scene, If his job is to find buried items...

Quote
FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGY
Forensic archaeology is the application of archaeology (the study of past cultures and activities) to legal investigations. The skills and methods used by archaeologists to find and interpret buried or hidden sites of past activity have direct application to modern forensic investigations. In North America, forensic archaeology is often considered to be a specialization of forensic anthropology.

So was Joanna Yeates buried?? And I don't mean under a pile of leaves...

Quote
A forensic archaeologist is typically called when human remains are found scattered on the ground surface and/or remains are suspected to be buried.

So... why was Dr Karl Harrisons expertise needed ???

Quote
Karl Harrison is a forensic archaeologist. He’s trained to find, excavate and recover human remains under the most challenging and often harrowing of circumstances.

edit.. If it is not Karl Harrison in image 2... Is it Dr Delaney????


https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/659074538

https://news.sky.com/story/killer-confessed-to-chaplain-10484853

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/forensic-archaeology.html

http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/archaeologie-archaeology/

https://digventures.com/2015/05/my-life-in-objects-karl-harrison-forensic-archaeologist/


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 11, 2018, 09:49:05 AM
This is a quote from a blog about the case... and I will as suggest that they did attend the scene on "Boxing Day" But I will also add that we do not know for an absolute fact, that Joanna Yeates was removed Christmas Day... Was she still there ???

Quote
Dr. Karl Harrison, who is also described as a forensic archaeologist. Tania Nickson’s professional qualifications are unclear, as is her relationship to LGC Forensics at the time of this investigation. She seems to have subsequently become a member of the staff of the School of Defence & Security, Cranfield University, Shrivenham. There is strong support for the proposition that she did not attend the crime scene until Boxing Day. If this were the case, then she could not have seen the body itself lying on the grass verge of Longwood Lane.

We have this quote that makes us believe that this happened on Christmas Day at the Mortuary.. But did it??

Quote
Dr Delaney performed the first examination at 6pm on the day her body was found.

Dr Delaney was at Longwood Lane, so that could have been his initial examination... We are only informed that an ambulance took her to The Mortuary on the 25th December 2010. The link below has Dr Delaney at the scene for 4 hours..

Quote
Dr Delaney said care was taken to minimise any disruption to potential
evidence as her body was lifted. Two yellow webbing straps were fed under
her calves and lower back — using a broom handle to get them underneath.

She was then lifted by one officer, supported by a second behind him, and
placed on an open white body bag atop an orange stretcher by the roadside.

From there she was taken the couple of miles to the public mortuary at Flax
Bourton where Dr Delaney began his initial post mortem at 6pm.


It only states that Joanna Yeates was taken to the Mortuary... It really is interpretation (imo)..  It is extremely possible that... Dr Delaney examined her at the scene on the 25th December 2010... I cannot see that he wouldn't be making a quick assessment at that time... The activity at the scene suggested it was a "Murder". Everyone assumed that it was.... If Dr Delaney had arrived at the scene at 12:00pm, he would have seen what condition Joanna Yeates was in.. and would have been able to see the marks on her neck at that time...

He was there whilst she was removed from an area we really do not know much about, and placed onto a board... She quite possibly could have been still at the scene... There was a Forensic tent at the entrance of The Quarry...

We have two statement... she was moved at the scene onto a board and Dr Delaney had preformed his first examination there.. And she is at The Mortuary at 6:00pm

Well 6:00pm could easily be Boxing Day...  Just because an ambulance turns up doesn't mean that Joanna Yeates was in it....

We had the Fire Brigade there... There presence was never explained.... So why should we just assume that Joanna Yeates was actually taken to the mortuary on Christmas day????

Does Dr Delaney in his testimony state, that he examined Joanna Yeates at the Mortuary at 6:00pm on Christmas Day???

Quote
Forensic pathologist Dr Russell Delaney said he was summoned to the scene just
after midday and stayed for four hours until Jo’s body was removed in a
painstaking operation.

He was summoned at midday.... and stayed for 4 hours.... what time did he actually arrive??? He was there when they removed her body...  He could have arrived at 2:00pm making it 6:00pm when he saw her on the stretcher... we do not know!!

So we actually need the testimony to state that he arrived at the scene and at what time he arrived at the scene and whether or not Joanna Yeates was still on Longwood Lane on Boxing Day....!! because it is a strong possibility that she was... making more sense of Dr Karl Harrison, and Tania Nixons testimony... I believe they too were there on Boxing Day!! (imo)

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg416792;topicseen#msg416792

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/840925/jury-see-photos-of-jo-yeates-body/

http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/dna-merchants.html

Edit.... There is no evidence that Dr Delaney was local to Bristol, and wouldn't have been hanging around Avon and Somerset head quarters on the off chance... He would have needed to travel from his home...
Dr Delaney could well have lived  a two hour Journey away.... I have found A "Russell Delaney  and a Jane Delaney" who lived in Leicester.. Now that a two hour Journey.... !! 

So where did Dr Delaney live at the time he was summoned to Longwood Lane ????
And what actual day did they remove Joanna Yeates to the Mortuary??

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 11, 2018, 10:16:37 PM
I have attached enlargements of this image, and have circled the areas of Interest...

(http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/691b1aa001294e569b19e743bf6276cb/joanna-yeates-murder-g4jbnb.jpg)

Image 1: Copy of Image incase it disappears

Image 2: Circled patterned area..

Image 3: Circled finger prints that were not lifted

Image 4: Circled arrow pointing to an area

Image 5: A row of numbers reading what looks like 100 8312 or 100 8317 difficult to tell (100 8812/ 100 8817)

Looking above Image 5's row of numbers I believe there may be an F 59, that is written or P59 difficult to tell ...

The 100 number reminded me when you used to ring the "Operator" back in the day  on that number...


Those numbers must be there for a reason?? Don't know yet, but maybe I can find out what...

Also the patterned area.. If that has come from something why has it not been identified??

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 12, 2018, 08:24:33 AM
Looking at the kitchen cupboard doors, It appears to me that the cupboard fronts have been stuck on top of the original cupboard doors.....


Image 1: Where the cupboards meet, there appears to be a cupboard door underneath that are flush.. The doors with the handles have a gap.

Image 2: The cupboard above the cooker to the right, the cupboard front doesn't go to the edge.

Image 3: This is taken from below.. and you can see that the cupboard front on the left is stuck on top of another cupboard front... (imo)


There are many oddities about the staging of that Flat... 



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics/Cleaner
Post by: [...] on January 13, 2018, 08:40:16 AM
That Flat.... The Staging.... What have we missed??

Looking at the Flat from the tour, everything about that flat is wrong... It doesn't look like a crime scene... What it looks like is the aftermath of a possible crime scene...

It was the drum in the corner of the front room that I washed over before.... (image attached)

What are they trying to tell us about that scene... I believe it points to someone else entirely... Not Dr Vincent Tabak...

I believe it is trying to tell us that the Cleaners have been in.... I could never understand why all of Joanna Yeates carpets had been removed.. But now I believe I know why....



Quote
(1): Assessment: We walk through the site and create zones to prevent cross-contamination.

(2): Bio Removal: This is the most dangerous step as we remove all visible blood, body fluids, and compromised materials.

(3): Preparation: Remove carpet, furniture, dirt, dust, etc. in preparation for disinfecting.

(4): 3-Step Biowash: This involves cleaning, disinfecting, and deodorizing.

(5): Path of Extraction: We use the same 3-step process to disinfect the pathway around and out of the home.

(6): Site Breakdown: Disinfect all equipment and properly dispose of biohazard containers.

We have the pictures (image 2) of the yellow sign of the bio hazzard chemicals in use... It's been done right in front of our faces, but we don't see it...

We see people in Coveralls taking the equipment into Joanna Yeates Flat... (image 3)

All around us we can clearly see that they are cleaning up the crime scene... By the removal of the carpets.. The 8 gallon drum container in the corner of the front room, they are telling us I believe that this scene was Cleaned up and possibly professionally cleaned up!! It could contain specialist cleaning products..(imo)

The video we see of the Flat that the jury was supposed to have seen... Is of a "Crime Scene" that has been cleaned (imo)

The areas we have seen that have had arrows pointing to them or the little red dots, possibly are where blood or fluids of some type that they could not render a sample from because the Flat had been cleaned.... And again I'll say possibly professionally cleaned...

Maybe the bedroom was the scene of crime... It is the only area that has actually got brand new underlay.... I believe they took the original underlay away... (As Evidence)..

They have always insisted that Joanna Yeates was "Missing" from the 17th December 2010... That gives someone 2 days in which to professionally clean that Flat...  And the staging and the imagery we see tells us this I believe...

There is no way that body fluids did not release from Joanna Yeates body.. (imo) And if their insistence was that she had been killed in the Flat , then there should have been bodily fluids to show that it had happened there...

If the Flat has been cleaned... They would have a hard time getting samples...

This Case is puzzling... completely puzzling.. And they know what happened to Joanna Yeates.. Or should I rephrase that... They know that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill her...  You are talking about more than one person involved when it comes to clean up... That in itself makes them accessories... So... did Dr Vincent Tabak let us know that if someone had come round to clean up the Flat... No-one would have heard anything going on??

Quote
Defence Counsel: Tell me, what is the building, 44 Canynge Road made of?
Tabak: Stone. Stone is good insulation; hardly can hear others in other flats in the
building.

There is always something hidden in what people say and the statements that were made!! (imo)

In CJ's second witness statement we do not know the exact time or day that he saw people at the gate.... Talking in hushed tones... Well was it the cleaners that CJ saw ???

Anything is possible!!

Edit.....

Quote
(2): Bio Removal: This is the most dangerous step as we remove all visible blood, body fluids, and compromised materials.

Might explain why in image 3 they have breathing masks on and full protection.....


http://www.aftermath.com/content/crime-scene-cleanup-supplies

http://www.aftermath.com/wp-content/uploads/28PointChecklist.pdf

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

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 19, 2018, 10:29:38 AM
Quote
Harriet Tolputt‏
@HarrietTolputt
Follow Follow @HarrietTolputt
More
Dr Miller tells court it was very likely that death or severe trauma occurred within 8 to 10 hours of her last meal. #JoYeates

6:14 AM - 18 Oct 2011

8 to 10 hours...

Quote
Friday December 17, 12.50pm: Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon, who both work for design consultancy BDP in Bristol, have lunch together at the Hope and Anchor near their offices. Joanna eats cheesy chips. Sadly it turns out to be her last meal.

How do we know this was her last meal?? How do we know when she died as she was frozen??


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-timeline-of-events-2377178.html

https://twitter.com/HarrietTolputt/status/126285066757357568
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 19, 2018, 10:32:49 AM
Quote
More
"Sufficient volume of blood" smeared on wall to cause "drips towards the ground" - forensic expert tells court. #JoYeates

2:38 AM - 18 Oct 2011

Was Joanna Yeates still alive to loose so much blood???


https://twitter.com/SunriseIsabel/status/126230748389851137
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 19, 2018, 10:35:10 AM
Quote
Tanya Nickson analysed blood found on wall of Longwood Lane and attended #JoYeates post-mortem. She is giving live evidence now #TabakTrial

2:29 AM - 18 Oct 2011

Is that new ?? Or did I forget she attended the Post Mortem??

https://twitter.com/SunriseIsabel/status/126228443070345216
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 19, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Quote
Rupert Evelyn‏
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
While trying to find out what clothes Jo was wearing Greg lifted the bed cover and saw one of her amethyst teardrop earrings. #joyeates

6:39 AM - 17 Oct 2011

So the clothes she had on Friday, must have still been at home ?? only conclusion!

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/125928908431441920
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 19, 2018, 10:59:09 AM
Quote
Isabel Webster‏Verified account
@SunriseIsabel
Follow Follow @SunriseIsabel
More
#JoYeates boyfriend recalls they would always keep their front door double locked - whether in or out. Windows were also locked. #TabakTrial

So how did Dr Vincent Tabak open the door??


https://twitter.com/SunriseIsabel/status/125902956213190657
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 19, 2018, 11:42:05 AM
Quote
Martin Evans‏
@evansma
Follow Follow @evansma
More
#JoYeates died of a heart attack caused by oxygen starvation in a period of between 15 and 20 seconds, Mr Clegg tells jurors

6:56 AM - 25 Oct 2011

https://twitter.com/evansma/status/128832409365004288

Quote
Martin Evans‏
@evansma
Follow Follow @evansma
More
The quicker #JoYeates died the less likely there was an intent to kill, Mr Clegg says.

6:54 AM - 25 Oct 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply   Retweet   Like   Direct message

https://twitter.com/evansma/status/128831851744858112


Odd statement by Clegg! The quicker Joanna yeates died... 
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 19, 2018, 12:32:33 PM
Quote
SWNS.com‏
@SWNS
Follow Follow @SWNS
More
He was taken to Trinity Road police station where further DNA was taken, matching the sample he gave in Amsterdam on Dec 31 #joyeates

8:15 AM - 10 Oct 2011

https://twitter.com/SWNS/status/123416328584429568

Never... thats stating the obvious...  Did they match samples on Joanna Yeates ???
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 19, 2018, 01:09:10 PM
Quote
Rupert Evelyn‏
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Asked whether death "must have" occurred in 12 hours after lunch Delaney says "death occurred after eating that last meal" #joyeates

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/125877811666878465

Does that mean her stomach contents were empty??  what time does that say that she died??

What was That last meal??
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 20, 2018, 06:37:21 AM
Going back to this tweet and re-reading...

Quote
Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says #Joannayeates death was not instantaneous and she was alive at the time of the compression

Had something happened to Joanna Yeates before she was strangled???


Quote
“She was clearly alive at the time that compression happened. Death was not instantaneous.

Pointing out she was alive before the compression happened... Well of course she would have been or there wouldn't have been signs of strangulation...

Quote
“I would have expected her at some point to have been in pain. I would have expected her to struggle. This would be a dynamic incident.”

The bruises and grazes found on her face, nose, chin and head could have been caused by her being thrown to the “floor, ground or other ­roughened surface,” the court was told.

Dr Delaney said: “Bruising only occurs when the heart is beating – so the injuries occurred during life.”

There were no signs of any sexual violence on the young woman.

Was she attacked first, then the compression came second, and not the injuries happening from the attempt to strangle her..

Dr Delaney states that there was no signs of sexual violence... But there are obvious signs of physical violence, which must have occurred before she was strangled..(imo)

Now the prosecution do not bring anything to trial to support that this attack happened in the flat... And if Joanna Yeates was killed in her flat, there must be evidence of the physical assault on her there inside Flat 1...  So were was this evidence at trial??

Why does Dr Delaney skirt around everything??


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/277558/Killer-weeps-at-pictures-of-Joanna-s-body
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 22, 2018, 07:09:33 PM

Quote
Andrew Mott, wearing protective clothing, went to the body. The snow was undisturbed around it. There was apparent blood staining on a wall.
by juliareidsky via twitter October 14, 2011 at 10:28 AM

If Joanna Yeates had been on Longwood Lane for 7 days as 'THEY" say she was, that cannot be possible....

Andrew "Civilian" Mott tells us so...

The snow was undisturbed, apparent blood staining on the wall.

Well If Dr Vincent Tabak put her there on the 17th December 2010.. Then the blood on the wall should have been covered with snow .... And Not been visible!!



Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 22, 2018, 08:09:23 PM
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/group-of-police-officers-in-black-coats-forensic-officer-news-footage/659163566

It's a Crime Scene... Or so they say..... So why is the Police Officer on the right eating soup?? You can see he has a spoon in his hand... Short Clip. just keep an eye on him...

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 22, 2018, 08:18:21 PM
Is that Andrew "Civillian" Mott walking there in the white top? Thought he wore a Forensic Suit??

Same video as above

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics/Missing sock
Post by: [...] on January 23, 2018, 04:30:02 PM
Dr Delaney said that Joanna Yeates was found in a "Flower Patterned Pink Top"

Quote
There were apparent blood stains on her flower patterned pink top but no signs of injuries to her genitalia, Dr Delaney said.

This from an Article from Mrs Yeates which they made a documentary...  So I believe what they say is accurate...

Quote
“The only thing of Jo’s that wasn’t in the flat was Jo herself.”

It took me a while but.... 
The Clothes that Joanna Yeates was found in I don't think they were hers....  I think someone re-dressed her and the Clothes she went to The Ram in were still in the Flat....


That makes sense looking at what Mrs Yeates says....
The only Thing Missing from the Flat was Joanna Yeates....
Not even "The Missing Sock"....
Because the "Missing Sock" wasn't Joanna Yeates.... It can't have been....
Mrs Yeates tells us that.....


Joanna Yeates was The only thing "Missing"from her Flat!


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/david-and-theresa-yeates-our-agony-without-1702939

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Baz on January 23, 2018, 05:11:46 PM
The full quote is:

"When we got there Greg had already gone through her bag and found Jo’s wallet, her glasses, everything.
The only thing of Jo’s that wasn’t in the flat was Jo herself."

He's not claiming that they took a full inventory of everything Jo owned including all her clothes and that everything was there. He's clearly talking about things that you would expect her to have on her if she had gone out.

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 23, 2018, 05:13:23 PM
Andrew Mott says: The body and ground were frozen.

The images of the bathroom in the Flat shows a very black dirty looking bath....
Mrs Yeates says: that  The only thing Missing" from Joanna Yeates Flat was Joanna Yeates herself...

The private CCTV doesn't show Joanna Yeates reaching Canygne Road
Colin Port says:  The last know image of Joanna Yeates is The Hop House Pub
We have Dr Delaney saying : Flower  Patterned pink Top.

Mostly Dr Delaney says nothing... which is important... he Misses out whether Joanna Yeates body had been washed.. It very well could have been... we have NO body fluids at all... Joanna Yeates clothes are clean as far as we know..

Andrew "Civilian" Mott says 2 seperate things... The ground was frozen and the body was frozen.. Joanna Yeates should have been frozen to the ground, with body fluids leaking..

I believe that Joanna Yeates was killed elsewhere, I believe she was washed... and I believe that she was re-dressed and NOT in her own clothes....

Is The Missing Sock the real clue??? And I do not mean as a trophy, It bugged me when DCI Phil Jones said that it was   size 5... Why would he mention the size of the sock???

Did Joanna Yeates have someone elses sock on?? and maybe not the one DCI Jones shows us. It appears she may have been wearing another womans clothing.... was she wearing another womans sock as well???..

So where was she kept for all those days?? I don't believe she was on Longwood Lane ... !


Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 23, 2018, 05:15:40 PM
The full quote is:

"When we got there Greg had already gone through her bag and found Jo’s wallet, her glasses, everything.
The only thing of Jo’s that wasn’t in the flat was Jo herself."

He's not claiming that they took a full inventory of everything Jo owned including all her clothes and that everything was there. He's clearly talking about things that you would expect her to have on her if she had gone out.

Hi Baz....  It is what her parents say... Not Greg...
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 23, 2018, 05:27:53 PM
Remember Andrew Mott and PC Martin Faithful trying to stop the body from Thawing out...

Quote
Mr Faithfull told the court how the forensic team had made efforts to prevent Miss Yeates frozen body from thawing out, in order to avoid losing any potentially significant evidence.

And
Quote
Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.

What was on the body as evidence that they both were trying to Protect??

Foot print ??

Hand Print ??

Finger prints ??

What evidence was left behind, that those statements were made in court ....

Did they take any photographs of this "Evidence"??

Edit... It has to be something that would disappear..... I am now thinking it's possibly the impression of someones lips....

There was an article years ago about DNA on Joanna Yeates lips... And all the talk of Dr Vincent Tabak trying to Kiss her...

Was it the impression of someones 'Lips" ?? Who kissed Joanna Yeates....



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/277423/Killer-weeps-over-images-of-Jo-body
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 23, 2018, 06:24:47 PM
Leonora... Have you got the article, you mention about the DNA on the lips in your blog?

Quote
16th January 2011: The Mirror carries a story linking LGC Forensics to the murder of Rachel Nickell and the firm’s involvement in the Joanna Yeates case. Dr. James Walker is identified as the scientist in charge of the firm’s DNA team. Unattributed statements claim that results of DNA swabs from the body are expected within days, but can be used only after an arrest. There is also an unattributed statement that a formal inquiry 30 days after Joanna’s death is not anticipated. The Sunday Express carries an unattributed claim that a tiny sample of DNA has been found on Joanna’s lips.

I cannot find the Sunday Express Article.. But I do remember reading it and i found it some time ago...

Edit.. I found this from one of my posts,... But still can't find the article...

Quote
ReplyShare0

2419 days ago
Noel O&amp;#39;Gara
DNA on lip does not prove murder\r\rFirst they need to eliminate the cat.
DNA may have come from a kiss of a friend, how could anybody deduce that it was planted by a killer?
Also that dna trace may have been there for weeks if not months. The obvious first person to eliminate would be her boyfriend in order to avoid mass testing.
If it is the boyfriend&#39;s dna, that proves that he kissed her on the lips. Big deal. It does not record the time of the kiss and dna thirty years old has been used by police to convict people.
DNA is a very dangerous tool which is open to abuse by unscrouplous policemen who need results. You can draw all sort of inferences from it.
Public confidence in it is misplaced.


The Article has gone.... It is the one that is replaced with 'The ColdPlay" article and the image of Mr and Mrs Yeates, yet it still has Noels comment on it...!!!  I knew there was something about that article...


http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg421841#msg421841

http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/search-for-scapegoat.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/223433/Coldplay-to-beam-live-Corbijn-film-around-the-world

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: Baz on January 24, 2018, 09:16:42 AM
Hi Baz....  It is what her parents say... Not Greg...

I know. I didn't claim it was Greg. The "he" I was referring to was her Dad. The article YOU shared states:

David, 64, told the Sky documentary Murder at Christmas: “When we got there Greg had already gone through her bag and found Jo’s wallet, her glasses, everything. The only thing of Jo’s that wasn’t in the flat was Jo herself.”

But anyway the point wasn't about who said it but rather that they weren't claiming that they had checked that every item of clothing she owned was accounted for.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 09:32:44 AM
Who was the "Police Surgeon" who attended the scene..

Quote
Note: It is a fundamental responsibility of the police to preserve life. Police officers
should not assume a person is dead unless the circumstances are obvious, for
example, a badly decomposed body. Otherwise a police surgeon should attend the
scene to pronounce life extinct.

Or did they not bother with the Police Surgeon as i believe they were aware she was dead early on in the Investigation..

Quote
Once an incident has been deemed a suspicious death or homicide, the coroner for
that area must be notified. The SIO has responsibility to notify the coroner
immediately that an investigation is underway.
pg156

The Investigation into Joanna Yeates death had to be Immediate... And the throng of Officers at the scene tells us they knew it was "MURDER"...

I am presuming that The Corner was notified Immediately... 

Quote
11.4.3 CRIME SCENE ATTENDANCE
The SIO should be clear about why they want a Home Office pathologist to attend a
scene. If the SIO is of the opinion that the investigation would benefit from it, they
should insist that the pathologist attends before the body is moved. This should first
be discussed with the coroner
pg157

Attending The Crime Scene.. Dr Delaney Home Office Pathologist...

Quote
The SIO retains overall responsibility for all the crime scenes and directs all
investigative activity. The pathologist must not attend scenes until the SIO is
satisfied the initial crime scene assessment examinations have been completed
and that the body can be removed from the scene without detriment to the
investigation. Premature attendance of a pathologist at a scene can place the SIO
under pressure to remove the body.


firstly who was the SIO on the 25th December 2010??

Initial Crime Scene Assessment examination

How long does it take to complete the initial crime Scene assessment ?? What could they see or what did they know that indicated that Joanna Yeates had been "Murdered"... According to The Police they didn't know that Joanna Yeates had been strangled for days... Yet we have here clear instructions of what the "then" SIO had to do to inform the coroner and the Pathologist...

If they cannot touch the body until the Pathologist has seen it... how did they determine that Joanna Yeates had been Murdered???

As I posted yesterday... Was she inside a suitcase/holdall.... That would give a clear indication that this was a Murder!!

We know that Dr Delaney was summoned around noon... Which gave 3 hours for the SIO to make his assessment of the Crime Scene.... Is 3 hours long enough ?? They say that Joanna Yeates was found on the grass verge on Longwood lane... But what did they "Miss" out??

I believe she was in a suitcase/container... There has to be something to make the Police behave in the manner they did on that day being 25th December 2010...



http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPREF/murder-investigation-manual-redacted.pdf
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 09:53:33 AM
Quote
11.4.3.1 Briefing the Pathologist

Prior to an attendance at the crime scene the SIO should brief the pathologist, in
writing where possible, and ensure the needs of the investigation are fully
communicated. The following key areas should be included in the briefing:
• Identity of the body if known;
• History of the body – including the medical history of the victim, drugs found at
the scene and actions taken or developments since the discovery of the body;
• Timescales concerning the finding of the body, the last sighting and any other
significant times which may impact upon an estimation of the time of death;
• Any additional information received from other experts if appropriate;
• Initial evidence from witnesses;
• Scope and priorities of the investigation;
• Any special evidential expectations and requirements of the scene examination
and post-mortem.
At the briefing, the pathologist, in liaison with the SIO, the CSM and other physical
evidence experts, will evaluate the available information and identify:
• Health and safety issues in relation to the scene of discovery of the body and
the personnel involved in the examination of that scene;
• Evidential issues raised by the circumstances of death and how these issues are
best approached;
• Risk of contamination posed by the circumstances of the case, and the
measures that are required to prevent such contamination;
• How the examination of the scene and body should be approached;
• The best location for the autopsy and, if possible, an approximate time of arrival
at that location.
Pathologists should make a detailed, dated and timed record of the briefing.
Pathologists must record full details of the scene and the body, and document both
their own actions and those of others that may be significant to the pathologist’s
examination.

When did the SIO brief Dr Delaney??

Why was Dr Delaneys attendance at court skimmed over... The information that he had about this case from his initial briefing with the SIO and him being summoned to the scene, should have been covered at trial...

Quote
11.4.3.2 Taking Specimens at the Scene

It is essential that no specimens be taken from the body until there has been
consultation between the pathologist and the CSM. SOCOs and forensic scientists, if
present, should be consulted.

Where it is considered likely that trace evidence may be shed or contaminated by
manipulation of the body into the body bag, it may be advisable to remove some or
all of the clothing at the scene. All specimens should be taken using only equipment
supplied or approved by the SOCO. If clothing is to be cut, only instruments supplied
by them should be used.

Dr Delaney arrived at what time at the scene ???  Where LGC Forensic there already??

When did Dr Delaney consult with LGC??
Title: Re: Forensics/who identified the body??
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 10:06:52 AM
Quote
11.4.5 VICTIM IDENTIFICATION

*In the majority of cases, the identity of the victim will be known and they can be
positively identified by a relative or friend.
Whenever possible, identification should
be made before the post-mortem examination takes place by two independent
people.

*This may not be possible where contamination issues cannot be managed
appropriately or if a member of the victim’s family is a suspect. Viewing the deceased
is facilitated by the family liaison officer (FLO) through the coroner’s office.

*It is of paramount importance to discover the identity of a victim as soon as possible
where it is unknown. On occasions, the body may be mutilated or have been
concealed for such a time that post-mortem changes make recognition impossible.

*The detailed examination of the deceased for evidence of identity is a specialised
task for the pathologist and other experts. The following methods of identification
will assist in identifying the victim where the body is decomposed, dismembered or
otherwise unsuitable for visual identification:

• Fingerprints;
• Dental records;
• DNA profiling;
• Tattoos, scars and other unusual marks;
• Property and clothing;
• Jewellery;
• Facial reconstruction.

Which 2 Independent people made the identification of Joanna Yeates??

Who identified her before the post mortem??

I remember them saying they identified her "White Watch"... According to "Victim Identification" jewellery identification is a why to identify someone who is..

Quote
The following methods of identification
will assist in identifying the victim where the body is decomposed, dismembered or
otherwise unsuitable for visual identification:

So why was Joanna Yeates "white watch" even mentioned if she hadn't started to decompose??


http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPREF/murder-investigation-manual-redacted.pdf



Title: Re: Forensics/Dr Miller
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 10:35:45 AM
Quote
11.4.6 TIME AND CAUSE OF DEATH

Evidence of the time of death based on factual evidence, such as when the victim
was last seen or when they were found dead, tends to be more accurate than that
based on the condition of the body and its immediate environment. Estimations by
the pathologist can be liable to error. A pathologist is more likely to provide a range
of times between which death occurred. However, even an approximate time of
death can be invaluable in narrowing TIE parameters or providing information for
the suspect interview strategy. It is, therefore, important that the SIO obtains from
the pathologist some indication of the time period within which death has occurred.

Uncollected mail and newspapers may give an indication of the approximate time
and date of death. The condition of the environment, the presence of food and dirty
dishes, and last sighting of the victim can also be useful indicators. Consideration
should be given to using timelines to assist in determining the facts.
Forensic analysis of alcohol levels may also be useful. Alcohol back-calculations in
Road Traffic Act cases are well established and based on sound data. Similar
conclusions about the time that has elapsed since drinking can often be drawn in
fatal cases.

Where the time and contents of a last meal are known, the degree of digestion can
assist in establishing a time of death. Stress, however, can slow down the digestion
process and this should be discussed with the pathologist, especially in cases where
the victim has been held hostage.

The cause of death should be included in the pathologist’s report and explained in
both plain English and in medical terms. If the victim suffered multiple injuries the
pathologist will, in the majority of cases, be able to identify which of these
caused death.

The cause of death is a pivotal factor in an allegation of homicide. It is, therefore,
essential that the SIO fully understands the cause of death identified by the
pathologist, and their reasons for coming to this conclusion. The SIO must be
prepared to draw on material generated by the investigative team to assist and
challenge the pathologist’s conclusions.

The cause of death should be included in the pathologist’s report and explained in
both plain English and in medical terms. If the victim suffered multiple injuries the
pathologist will, in the majority of cases, be able to identify which of these
caused death.


Dr Delaney sent Joanna Yeates stomach contents all the way up to Scotland to Dr Miller, so how could they have determined the cause of death as strangulation/ compression of the neck, if by the time the Police have told the media the cause of death they haven't got the stomach contents analysed ??

Quote
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Dr Miller examined a sample taken from the stomach of Joanna Yeates. #VincentTabak
ReplyRetweetFavorite 

2:08 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Dr Miller was trying to identify when Joanna experienced trauma, or died, which would have stopped her digestive system working.

2:11 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Joanna Yeates' last meal was the portion of cheesy chips she shared with her boyfriend on their lunch break.

2:14 PM - 18 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Dr Miller tells court it was very likely that death or severe trauma occurred within 8 to 10 hours of her last meal. #JoYeates

The couldn't collect any stomach contents until the body have fully thawed, Dr Delaney doesn't complete his autopsy until the 28th December 2010.

What recorder dates does Dr Miller have for examining the contents of Joanna Yeates stomach?
Would Dr Miller who is in Scotland... rush the stomach contents examination for Dr Delaney??

How long do each of these test take ??

When did Dr Miller receive the contents of Joanna Yeates stomach??

They couldn't determine the cause of death of Joanna Yeates until her stomach contents had been tested for drugs etc... They would not know for sure if something else had not contributed to Joanna Yeates death...

Where there any other injuries to Joanna Yeates that were not give at trial??

Thinking about it.. Dr Miller couldn't have received the stomach contents by the 28th December 2010, then herself testing them and getting the results back to Dr Delaney, for him to determine cause of death ...

How many days would it take for her body to full thaw in the first place??

Again ..
Quote
The cause of death is a pivotal factor in an allegation of homicide. It is, therefore,
essential that the SIO fully understands the cause of death identified by the
pathologist, and their reasons for coming to this conclusion. The SIO must be
prepared to draw on material generated by the investigative team to assist and
challenge the pathologist’s conclusions.

Did Dr Delaney have all the information to hand when he said that the cause of death was strangulation/compression of the neck??

It's difficult to see how, if he hasn't got the report from Dr Miller by the time the cause of death is made official on the 28th December 2010!!


http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPREF/murder-investigation-manual-redacted.pdf
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=1
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 11:21:03 AM
Quote
11.4.3.3 Removal of the Body

When a scene has been assessed, the pathologist will usually supervise the
packaging and subsequent removal of the body. If trace evidence has not been
collected at the scene, the deceased’s hands may be placed in bags before the body
is removed. If the head is to be similarly placed in a bag, it must be remembered that
any open head wound is likely to shed blood into the bag during transit. This may
obscure such details as the direction of dried bloodstains and make it difficult to
collect trace evidence. It is advisable to examine the head for such material at the
scene, where applicable.

On arrival at the autopsy room the body should remain undisturbed, still in its
wrapping or body bag, until the pathologist arrives to undertake the examination.
This is unless any different action has previously been agreed with the SIO, or other
person designated by the SIO, for some specific purpose.
The SIO is responsible for ensuring continuity of the body. They must designate an
officer to accompany the body from the crime scene to the post-mortem
examination room, and to identify the body to the pathologist.


By the Afternoon of the 28th December 2010 DCI Phil Jones gets Introduced to the media and is the "NEW" SIO

Jon Stratford in the begining of the video says as he address the media...

Quote
Good Afternoon ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming here today.. Can I also thank you for the patience you showed yesterday when we were forced to postpone the er.. this press conference until today...

I would like to introduce Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones..Phil is the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) in this Investigation.

Ok... when did they know for a "FACT" that Joanna Yeates had died from Strangulation/neck compression???
It has to be before the 27th December 2010..

This from DCI Phil Jones at the Leveson....

Quote
The ~]oanna Yeates missing person and murder investigation

13. A media strategy was put in place by the SIO at the outset when the missing
person investigation commenced. I was not the original SIO. In those early
stages the objective was to maximise publicity in order to find Joanna, The
strategy was then further developed by the SIO with assistance from CCD when
it became a murder inquiry, It is important to bear in mind that the media
strategy, like any other, has to be kept under continual review as the

investigation develops. I was appointed as SIO on 27th December 2010 and in
consultation with CCD continued to develop the media strategy as the
investigation grew,

I was appointed as SIO on 27th December 2010

Now looking at the first quote the SIO has to follow the change of command with the body, why would you switch SIO's before the autopsy has been completed???

Was Joanna Yeates autopsy completed before the 27th December 2010?? Giving less than 2 full days in which to thaw a body and have the stomach contents analysed in Scotland and them result being returned to Dr Delaney ??

How did they send the stomach contents to Scotland by the 27th December 2010 when a body can't have thawed ??

Dr Miller cannot have received the stomach contents by the 27th December 2010... So when did she actually receive them??

Quote
   27 DEC 2010     UK
Joanna Yeates’ family lay floral tributes
The mother of Bristol architect Joanna Yeates broke down in tears today visiting the spot where her daughter’s body was found. Results of the post-mortem have yet to be revealed.

Miss Yeates’s body was formally identified by her parents today, but police cannot yet determine how she died.

So if the pathologist cannot perform his autopsy until formal identification takes place, by 2 independent people (EG.. The Parents)..  How did they manage to...

* Thaw the body

* Take stomach content samples

* Perform an autopsy

* Get all results back

Before the 27th December 2010 when they switched SIO's for the case ??? Impossible !! Why would they change the Change of Command??

How can they assure:The SIO is responsible for ensuring continuity of the body. If before the official cause of death has been established, we switch SIO's!!

https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-family-lay-floral-tributes

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPREF/murder-investigation-manual-redacted.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122182731/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-Phillip-Jones.pdf

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 11:48:10 AM
Quote
11:33 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney is a forensic pathologist.
ReplyRetweetFavorite 

11:36 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney was on call on Christmas Day last year. He was called to longwood lane

11:42 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Joanna's body was lying in a 'foetal' position facing the wall. There were no shoes.

11:49 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney is describing how the body was removed from the scene. There was no sock on the right foot #Joannayeates

11:55 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Delaney agrees there appeared to be blood stains in the hair of #Joannayeates'.

11:55 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney carried out an initial postmortem.


11:59 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Court is shown images of #Joannayeates' body. #Vincenttabak covers his eyes with his hand

12:09 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
#Joannayeates' parents are not in court today

12:22 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney carried out a further postmortem the following day.


12:38 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney describing bruises and grazes on #Joannayeates' body

12:47 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
#Joannayeates had injuries 'consistent with force being applied', says Delaney

12:49 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Delaney says the injuries to her neck were consistent with force being applied #Joannayeates

12:50 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Break to 1245 #Vincenttabak

12:50 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky

2:09 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Delaney says injuries show the skin had come into contact with a roughened surface or object.

2:17 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney says marks on #Joannayeates arms are consistent with 'grip marks from finger tip pressure'

2:27 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney carried out a further examination the following day.



How many examinations did Dr Delaney carry out ?? And on how many days?? why did the sky news reporter repeat that Dr Delaney carried out a further examination the following day... Is that 3 days that Dr Delaney did the post mortem over ??

Quote
2:52 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates


Why is Dr White doing a further examination before anyone is arrested and after Dr Delaney has already done one ??

So we have Dr Delaney doing examination on 3 days or more ??

25th December 2010 when he viewed Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane

26th December 2010 ???

27th December 2010 ?? when the SIO's were changed

28th December 2010, when we got official conformation??

31st December 2010?

Quote
Dr Delaney said the body had been frozen rigid when it was recovered and he was initially unable to conduct a full post-mortem until it had fully thawed out.

So when was Joanna Yeates initially recovered?? if she was frozen solid, it would take more than 2 days for her body to thaw at a regulated temperature, so as not to have any tissue decomposing at a different rate..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8831300/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeates-may-have-been-strangled-with-one-hand.html

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 11:51:48 AM
Quote
Blood found on Miss Yeates's pink T-shirt may have been deposited after her death, Dr Delaney added.

Now was it ever established who all the blood on Joanna Yeates belonged too??

Was it all hers ??? Or was that the other DNA profile they were talking about???

That sounds like someone was setting the scene..(imo)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8831300/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeates-may-have-been-strangled-with-one-hand.html
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 12:36:05 PM
From the Police Press conferences... DCI Phil Jones Confirming that the post mortem was concluded on the 27th December 2010...

Avon and Somerset Constabulary
Published on Dec 28, 2010

Quote
And I am leading that Murder Investigation... As you know the post mortem examination has taken longer than usual, because of the frozen condition of her body.. The Pathologist completed his examination last night..

So If Dr Delaney or Perhaps another Pathologist?? Stick with Dr Delaney, completed his examination on the evening of the 27th December 2010.. When did Dr Miller receive the stomach contents of Joanna Yeates ??

We have to let the body thaw... We all have to do our examinations of all the evidence to make sure nothing else contributed to her death..

So are we back to the suitcase/holdall? Was Joanna Yeates inside ?? What else could have been inside the suitcase/holdall? for them to know that Joanna Yeates death was a "Murder" from day one!!

How did Dr Delaney do his Initial examination if the body hadn't been identified until 27th December 2010 by her parents??

So when was Dr Delaneys initial examination??? Difficult to know, seeing as he compeleted the examination by the 27th December 2010

Nothing... and I mean nothing adds up in this case.... why is everyone ignoring the facts!

We now know that they changed SOI's before Dr Delaney completed the autopsy.... why ?? Or did they do the switch mid-way through???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 12:56:02 PM
The only way that the Police could conclude that Joanna Yeates had been Murdered by the 27th December 2010, was if she was found inside the suitcase/holdall, I cannot see how else they could come to that conclusion when the thawing of the body should have taken days!!... (imo)

They were treating it as a suspicious /murder on the 25th December 2010...

So where is the suitcase/holdall??
Title: Re: Forensics/Tent Bag!
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 01:58:11 PM
Suitcase, holdall or TENT BAG...

What type of bag/holdall are they talking... They keep mentioning tents... Joanna Yeates wasn't underneath any Forensic tent... we have images of tents everywhere,

From Channel4 news (Channel 4 News reporter, Darshna Soni, )
Quote
Scaffolding and a green tarpaulin were erected at the rear of the substantial converted Victorian property today.

But in the actual video she says at 30 seconds:

Quote
Scaffolding was erected and a green tarpaulin tent

So if Joanna Yeates wasn't under any tents, was she in a Green Tent Bag/Holdall??


https://www.channel4.com/news/joanna-yeates-murder-police-search-neighbours-flat

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 25, 2018, 04:48:39 PM

Quote
11.4.4 LIAISING WITH THE PATHOLOGIST
The role of the pathologist is not limited to the actual post-mortem, and there may
need to be regular contact between the SIO and the pathologist throughout the
investigation. This is particularly the case when evidence relevant to the injuries or
cause of death becomes available from witnesses, scientists or the offender. While
most communication will be conducted directly between the SIO and the
pathologist, the appointed coroner’s officer may also serve as a useful point of
contact. See 11.4.1.2 Coroner’s Officer.
The need for effective lines of communication between the SIO, coroner and
pathologist cannot be overemphasised. Photographs of the scene and the results of
an AIDs test must be relayed to the pathologist as soon as possible, as must any
other issues affecting the injuries or cause of death that become apparent during the
investigation. Results of subsequent forensic tests, especially toxicology, will be
essential in confirming the pathologist’s opinion.


Just to clarify.......

Results of subsequent forensic tests, especially toxicology, will be
essential in confirming the pathologist’s opinion.


So... Dr Miller couldn't have possibly got the stomach contents of Joanna Yeates and confirmed all the test by the evening of the 27th December 2010..

So.. They cause of death could not be established by Dr Delaney at this time...

Does someone want to question all that again!!

What was Joanna Yeates real cause of death??? There might have been signs of Compression of the neck..... But what was left out of the results ???





http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPREF/murder-investigation-manual-redacted.pdf
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 27, 2018, 11:23:23 AM
The image I have attached an circled, shows a Forensics Officer at the door of Joanna Yeates, he has a key and what appears to be a remote control...

Is the remote control for opening the second lock??

Maybe the second lock didn't need a key always...

 Is that the piece of broken console that is referred too.. Is it the remote for the door??
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 27, 2018, 11:49:48 AM
Longwood lane had to mean something to the killer... It had to be a place of relevance.. Just looking at this image, the text below jumped out at me...

The image was taken in the summer... The image has a circled area on it... Was the circled area already on the image in the summer??  I mean I don't think the media circled it....

This is the area that the Police were looking at Forensics and the Rope Access Guys... who we saw exiting that area...

It brings more questions... like..

* Who had the aerial survey done??
* Was their plans for that particular area..
* What is actually in the circled area??
* Was something found there ??
* Did the Police take this image or have it taken for them??

Now I have another question... Was another investigation going on at the same time?? I know I have mentioned twin track... But It would makes sense to me if they found, something else at that location...  Because then I would understand the need for Karl Harrison forensic archaeologist ( maybe looking for human remains?)being at the scene...

He wasn't checking leaves (imo).. But they could have him make a statement to that effect... He may have moved leaves... But he was searching for something else and it wasn't Joanna Yeates!!! (imo)

Also it would make sense of Joe Goff being there and "ALL" of the many many many Police Officers, at that scene... Because there was more than one event taking place...(imo) So what evidence had the Police found in that area previously?? Did they find evidence in that area previously?? Or did they find evidence of another crime at that scene, besides Joanna Yeates Murder!!

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/02/article-1343359-0C949E88000005DC-154_634x334.jpg)

This image shows where Miss Yeates' body was found on Christmas Day. The photograph is from an aerial survey taken in the summer

* Was something found there in the summer or a little later?
* Why did they published that image with that text??
* Had they been given information about that location??

                     
                           Someones trying to tell us something I believe..

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343359/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Heart-broken-boyfriend-Greg-Reardon-speaks-anguish.html#ixzz55NpuRNFW


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 28, 2018, 09:10:57 AM
We have here a post in which Dr Delaney describes Joanna Yeates as wearing A pink Flowered patterned Top

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg442576#msg442576

Quote
There were apparent blood stains on her flower patterned pink top but no signs of injuries to her genitalia, Dr Delaney said.

We had Nigel Lickley describing it as "Long sleeved...

Quote
She had earlier eaten a plate of chips with her boyfriend.

"This was to be her last meal," Mr Lickley told the jury.Footage showed in a long-sleeved pink top and jeans, with a white watch.

"She was found (on Christmas Day) wearing this," Mr Lickley added.

The trial continues.

Joanna Yeates  in The Ram

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02037/yeatespa2_2037647c.jpg)

Again image of Joanna Yeates in The Ram..

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OxJwSkKu4IY/hqdefault.jpg)

Dr Vincent Tabak could not have killed Joanna Yeates... end of... I keep saying this... Does 'Avon and Somerset Police" wish to comment?

Joanna Yeates was supposed to have been killed by Dr Vincent Tabak within minutes of her Joanna Yeates arriving home after she had left The Ram pub and had visited a few shops on her journey home...

That cannot be possible...

In the Ram Pub she is clearly wearing a short sleeved plain top.... Yet we have 2 descriptions of the top that she was found in on Christmas day....

It was a Long Sleeved, Flower Patterned Pink Top instead of the short sleeved plain top, that she was wearing at The Ram Pub....

How did the jury not notice??? They saw the images of Joanna Yeates,... were these images changed??

Where these garments ever brought to trial as evidence ?? Showing the blood staining??

You have one of three choices... either Joanna Yeates  didn't go home and had a change of clothes with her and was killed a lot later... Or who ever killed her re-dressed her...

Nigel Lickley talks of the Footage... So is there Footage of Joanna Yeates in The Hope and Anchor at lunchtime?? Or is he talking about the Footage taken when she has been found....??

If he means Lunchtime then when did Joanna Yeates go home to change her top to the one we see her wearing at The Ram... does that mean if the footage was from Lunchtime ..Joanna Yeates had been working from home as I had said was a possibility?? Then having Greg saying bye to her at home... But he doesn't say he's at home when he says goodbye to her in the lobby.. (Could be hallway).. Did Joanna Yeates have on a Long Sleeved top at The Hope and Anchor?? Or does Nigel Lickley actually mean when she was found on Christmas day she was wearing this Long sleeved top??

Either way.. Joanna Yeates was found in different clothing to that she was clearly seen wearing in the Ram...  There is NO talk of Dr Vincent Tabak re-dressing her... And if we take away the Long sleeved top... we still have Dr Delaneys description of the "Flower patterned Top".. which is evident she was not wearing at The Ram Pub...

Clearly proving that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill Joanna Yeates ..(imo)

When could he have had the time to re-dress her... They don't say at court that someone redressed her... which you would have imagined was vital information!

I would be interested to see this footage if it is in The Hope and Anchor... Because like the Nero Cafe Footage, we haven't seen this... Is Joanna yeates actually with Greg in The Hope and Anchor?? Is that why we haven't seen The Footage ???

Another possibility that has just sprung to mind was Joanna Yeates had the plain top in her rucksack at lunch time and changed her top at work when she was going for a drink... Meaning that the long sleeved top should have been inside the rucksack... But it wasn't!! We did hear of a "stripy Top" But Nigel Lickley doesn't described the Long sleeved top as stripy... He describes it as Long Sleeved and pink!

Yet I have found this.....

Quote
Footage of Miss Yeates at the Bristol Ram showed her in a long-sleeved pink top and jeans, with a white watch.

Does that mean the footage we see of a woman in The Ram Pub .. isn't Joanna Yeates ???  Or does it mean that the Footage we have seen was not taken on the 17th December 2010??

Because I could never understand why Greg had asked for images on The Facebook page for people only to send of Joanna Yeates with...

Greg Beardon 21 Decemnber 2010
Quote
Hi everyone, Thanks for the overwhelming messages of support and the noble effort of certain individuals to publicise Jo's disappearance.
Can I just ask people to only post photo's that match (or come close) her description when she was declared Missing.
That is with short, styled and dyed blond haircut and be at least from 2010 onwards. This is so no misleading photographs make their way into the media and are published that show Jo not as she would look if found.
Thank you


When Joanna Yeates is declared "Missing" There is no description what her hair was like the only image I remember are the early posters which have her with Long Hair... The date of his post is the day after she has been declared "Missing" I cannot find any articles from that date that describe Joanna Yeates hair..

Which brings me back to the question... What footage did the Jury see of Joanna Yeates wearing a 'Long Sleeved Pink Top' in The Ram Pub??  And is the footage that we see of Joanna Yeates in the Ram Pub either Not Joanna Yeates .. Or it was NOT taken on the 17th December 2010!

Edit.... Next question... when was she "DECLARED" Missing??  Declared is the wrong terminology... People are Reported Missing.... Then 'Declared" Dead !!

The only other people who are "declared" Missing ... tend to be soliders who are "Declared" Missing in Action!!

What strange terminology!!

Did Greg Reardon ever have any connection to the forces... maybe that would explain the way in which he talks....



https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/murdered-joanna-yeates-was-in-neighbour-s-car-boot-as-he-shopped-at-asda-1-3857053

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8817687/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Joanna-Yeates-then-sent-text-saying-he-was-bored-court-hears.html

https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 28, 2018, 05:23:15 PM
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg442893#msg442893

Who was the original SIO??  Anyone know ??
Title: Re: Forensics/ Chalk Line
Post by: [...] on January 29, 2018, 09:37:29 PM
After I posted this... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8727.msg443954#msg443954

I thought I would revisit this image...
(https://i2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/article926836.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/inside-the-house-of-joanna-yeates-imahe-gallery-set-image-9-266914929.jpg)

I've always wondered what that outline was... I ignored it.... well I am not ignoring it now.....

It's a Chalk Line..... That what it's supposed to be  ..... The only thing that springs to mind and the only thing that Dr Vincent Tabak spoke about was the mobile phone....

Is that someone trying to tell us that the phone was DEAD!

And that is the Chalked outline of a dead mobile phone????

You see I could never understand why Joanna Yeates mobile phone would be working on the Sunday night if she hadn't recharged it....  Looks like someone keeps trying to tell us something!!!

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on January 30, 2018, 11:46:18 AM
Quote
Isabel Webster‏Verified account
@SunriseIsabel
Follow Follow @SunriseIsabel
More
#JoYeates boyfriend recalls they would always keep their front door double locked - whether in or out. Windows were also locked. #TabakTrial


https://twitter.com/SunriseIsabel/status/125902956213190657

Double Lock
Quote
A type of spring lock which may be used as a deadlock by an extra turn of the key.

So I believe that I was correct when I stated that Joanna Yeates door would have needed a key to exit... And that The Intercom and panel were not just there for decoration... The second lock would be a spring lock, as I had said...

Someone replaced Joanna Yeates keys in her bag!! And that wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak... They staged it to make it look like she had returned home to her Flat, but she didn't... She can't have ....


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/double_lock

Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on February 13, 2018, 10:39:09 AM
Winch was needed... where was Joanna Yeates located?

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.

Lift the body out from where?

Quote
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.

What Chemical Evidence... That certainly wasn't mentioned in court!

Does that go with this tweet about something being flushed down the drains?

Quote
Sunday Mirror‏
@TheSundayMirror
Follow Follow @TheSundayMirror
More
The main thing cops will be looking for in the drains is evidence flushed by Jo's killer. But how much could still be there? #yeates

What were they looking for in the drains?? Drugs??

If they were looking for Drugs... Why would the killer flush it down the toilet?? That wouldn't link them to Joanna Yeates ?? Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention drugs!!
What are they trying to say... I could see the BF flushing drugs down the toilet because he was afraid what the Police might think or say, as he had reported her Missing... But the Police were looking for a sock and a Pizza.

Now Pizza is slang for "LSD/ Weed"... And
Pizza Topping is slang for "Mushrooms"

Is that what the Police have been talking about??



https://twitter.com/TheSundayMirror/status/23386758783696896

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344531/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Snow-plays-havoc-forensic-tests-murder-investigation.html#ixzz56ysivk7N
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on February 13, 2018, 10:46:37 AM
Was Longwood Lane area 'The Scene Of The Crime"??

From LGC's website:

Quote
Joanna disappeared after walking to her home in Bristol on 17 December 2010 and her body was finally found on Christmas Day in a country lane a few miles from her home. Working closely with Avon & Somerset Police, LGC Forensics was instrumental in obtaining a DNA profile from evidence found at the crime scene and in linking this with a range of supporting forensic evidence, including from Tabak’s car. The crucial evidence was provided by the work to refine the DNA procedures in order to enhance the DNA samples – which were inhibited, possibly by the unusually high levels of salt at the location of the body, because of a recent snow fall. 

The Scene of Crime was supposed to be the Flat... and Longwood Lane the second scene of Crime... But LGC doesn't mention a second scene of crime..

If they recovered DNA from the Crime Scene.. being the Flat... where was it at trial??


http://www.lgcgroup.com/about-us/media-room/latest-news/2011/lgc-forensics-provides-key-evidence-in-jo-yeates-i/#.WoK_q5PFKi4
Title: Re: Ikea Bedding solves the crime !!
Post by: [...] on February 17, 2018, 08:25:13 PM
(29): Dr Kelly Sheridan (Fibre Analysis Expert)

Quote
Abstract

On the 17th December 2010, Joanna Yeates was reported missing by her boyfriend. In her home, police found a half drunk bottle of cider, her coat and body warmer, purse, mobile phone and keys. There was no sign of a disturbance. On the 25th December 2010, following a high profile appeal, her clothed body was found on a roadside next to a disused quarry. What followed was one of the largest police operations undertaken in the UK against the backdrop of intense media scrutiny, resulting in a prime suspect being identified and arrested. Key textile fibre intelligence, however, provided no evidence of a link between the prime suspect and the homicide. This presentation describes how questions over the intelligence provided by fibre evidence in this case were resolved, and became crucial in the identification conviction of the true perpetrator.

According to Dr Kelly Sheridan, it was the Police that discovered a half drunk bottle of cider.. and body warmer...
How was there still a half drunk bottle of cider at the Flat... I know Greg said he drunk the cider.. But apparently he only drank half of it... So it had been sat there from Friday 17th December 2010 until Monday 20th December 2010..
I find that odd... why didn't he drink the entire contents of this bottle of cider ??

Body warmer... we have never been told about a body warmer...

Fibre Intelligence... Now I find this interesting because I haven't got the full pdf of this I just presumed that the fibre evidence that Dr Kelly Sheridan is referring too is the Black coat... Because that was the only fibre evidence apparently brought to trial...

Quote
Key textile fibre intelligence, however, provided no evidence of a link between the prime suspect and the homicide. This presentation describes how questions over the intelligence provided by fibre evidence in this case were resolved, and became crucial in the identification conviction of the true perpetrator.

I assumed that they must be talking about CJ as the initial prime suspect... It may not be the case ...... And I'm thinking CJ has a brown coat and Dr Vincent Tabak has apparently got a black coat... So fibre evidence cannot be that obvious that they cannot distinguish colour... But then I found this... Talk about a revelation... I do remember Ikea being mentioned, but not in this context..

Quote
Under the sure guidance of chair Peter Guttridge, Northumbria University’s Dr Kelly Sheridan and Sophie Carr shared their experiences of being part of various crime investigations over the years. Dr Sheridan shared some of the details from her involvement in the Joanna Yeates investigation, including some fascinating information about how Ikea bedding had a role to play in solving the crime.

Ikea bedding?? When was Ikea bedding anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak??? What was the need to report on the ikea delivery in the papers??  maybe the ikea link is 'The bedding" and not a piece of furniture.. So what has the Ikea bedding got to do with Dr Vincent Tabak??

Is this Joanna Yeates Ikea bedding?? Is that why there is no duvet cover on the bed??
Is it Dr Vincent Tabak's bedding??
The only time a duvet is mentioned is:
Quote
The attack may have started in the hallway, which was found in a chaotic state. It could have continued in the bedroom: one of the earrings Yeates is thought to have been wearing was discovered beneath the duvet.

And that is not in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak.... Was the earring on the bed or between the cover ??

Why has the evidence of The Ikea never been brought to trial... If The Ikea Bedding played a key role in solving the Murder of Joanna Yeates, how could that be the case??

We have been told umteen times that Dr Vincent Tabak only ever comments on a mobile phone... So how was This "Ikea bedding " linked to Dr Vincent Tabak???

identification conviction of the true perpetrator.
How as a fibre transfer expert did Dr Kelly Sheridan attribute the Ikea bedding to Dr Vincent Tabak??? Maybe as I have said all along Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't the true perpetrator!

Dr Kelly Sheridan had worked on The Joanna Yeates Case.... yet I do not find her at trial... That is curious in itself... She has clearly tested evidence that was pertinent to the case, yet this evidence did not surface at trial...
It's supposed to be a sexually motivated attack... he was supposed to have placed her on the bed.... So..... wouldn't you expect this most important relevant piece of evidence to reach the trial of the man that was supposed to have killed her....

How did and could the ikea bedding have a role in solving the crime??
(1): Transfer of fibres?
(2): Fibre Damage?
(3): DNA on textiles?
(4):Blood on fibres
(5):Why didn't Greg notice blood on the bedding?

Come to think of it...Why wasn't Joanna Yeates bedding brought to trial?? Not just because of the statement of Dr kelly sheridan, but the blood evidence that should have been apparent on the bedding...
 Now again until now I hadn't thought of this... If Joanna Yeates has been placed on her bed.. where was the blood evidence on the bedding to support the idea that this took place ?? Where was the prosecution showing the jury that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed place Joanna Yeates on her bed.... They have the expertise to hand if they wish and chose to use it... But Dr Kelly Sheridan is never called... Why not??
I do not understand why The prosecutions evidence doesn't support the ridiculous story of Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand... Surely it should...

Someones apparent tall tale should be supported by evidence.. and not just the word of someone!

Going back to Ikea... If Ikea is evidential to the case, does it follow that this was the reason that the story of The Ikea Delivery Guys surfaced?

Which gives us a different problem... The Ikea delivery story developed on the 17th January 2010

Quote
Detectives will speak to the pair this week after discovering Jo, 25, received
a purchase from the Swedish home store the month before she was killed.

IKEA vehicles have tracking devices and it is believed data logs confirmed the
two men had been at Jo’s flat around 2.43pm on November 9.

How they got access to the Flat is one issue.. But the story breaking is more to the point... If we have Dr Kelly Sheridan stating that the Ikea bedding played a key role in the case and the story is released before Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested.. How does he get connected to the bedding?? His searches are not about bedding or ikea..?

By 17th January 2011 CJ has been released.. If he is the prime suspect that Dr Kelly Sheridan talks of he isn't attached to the ikea bedding...

So what connected Dr Vincent Tabak to it?? Nothing has to be the answer... Or else it would have come to trial... So my question has to be ...Who really was the Prime suspect whom they attributed the Ikea bedding too??

One last thought..

Quote
During her career Kelly has dealt with a number of high profile cases - such as the murders of Joanna Yeates and Stephen Lawrence, cold cases, and cases for the Criminal Case Review Commission. Kelly has also worked on behalf of the defence.

Did Dr Kelly Sheridan have evidence for the Defence??  Could the Ikea bedding prove that Dr Vincent tabak wasn't the killer?? Did the defence decide not to use Dr Kelly Sheridan?? It's the only reason at the moment I can think of why she didn't testify at trial!!



https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/312830/joanna-ikea-pair-in-police-quiz/
http://www.crimestory.co.uk/crime-story-2016/speakers/dr-kelly-sheridan/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

http://newwritingnorth.com/news/crime-story-wraps/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282670038_The_Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates_Operation_BRAID_-_Case_Example

https://www.northumbria.ac.uk/about-us/academic-departments/northumbria-law-school/research/northumbria-centre-for-evidence-criminal-justice-studies/members/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on February 19, 2018, 08:39:56 PM
What were they looking for in the Tonnes of Rubbish??

Quote
Officers yesterday revealed they had received more than 1,300 pieces of information, which had generated more than 900 lines of inquiry. The investigation team has categorised 239 of these as "high priority". Police said they had so far viewed more than 100 hours of CCTV footage and were sifting through 293 tonnes of domestic rubbish seized in the area around Yeates's flat.

I never really put that into perspective... 293 tonnes of rubbish from the area around Joanna Yeates home. There would not have been 293 tonnes of rubbish in the bins around Joanna Yeates home... 293 tonnes of rubbish is one hell of alot of rubbish and in the vicinity of Joanna yeates home, those household would never have produced that amount.

Was Longwood Lane a Rubbish site??  I have an image from a short video of Longwood lane taken on the 12th October 2011 by ITN News.. It takes us over the wall where we can see the ledge, but in the background the appears to be a tip of some sort.... Is this where Joanna Yeates was actually located??

Was Joanna Yeates literally dumped?? Did they know that she had been dumped??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wjpECgjzE

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on February 26, 2018, 01:35:48 PM

What is the Forensic Officer carrying in the Hood of his Forensic suit??

Something that is Yellow with a white nozzle...  He shouldn't be taking anything from the Flat Of CJ or anyone else on his person...

I have attached an enlarged image...

You cannot leave a potential scene of Crime with items stashed in your hood!!

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/12/31/1293821848664/Forensics-officer-008.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=b848b9d87dc66f9a6d63a06e8b263452)

This brings into question where the blood that apparently was found in the boot of Dr Vincent Tabak's car came from...(imo)

If the Forensic Officer is removing items not in Forensic bags but on his person, that throws in to question the Forensics in this case yet again!!




https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/31/forensics-science-finding-yeates-killer?CMP=twt_gu
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: AerialHunter on March 04, 2018, 02:30:49 PM
looks like a face mask with a plastic outlet valve to me.
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on March 31, 2018, 12:52:12 AM
DNA..... that tiny sample that apparently had Dr Vincent Tabak's name written all over it.... I am trying to understand how probabilities and matches work when deciding if someone has contributed to a DNA sample and especially one as small as the sample used to arrest and convict Dr Vincent Tabak....

1000/1 chance.... hopelessly small... pointless even not conclusive... But when trying to read about DNA and different theorems and of course understand such theorems, I find some interesting ways in which it can be determined how to calculate if a person is the contributor of said DNA sample....

And I think that CJ is the key here.... (again no finger pointing... he is an example)

Quote
Bayes's Theorem
The likelihood ratio and the match probability, being reciprocals, contain the same information. The LR, however, has a property that makes it especially useful, provided that prior odds are available on the hypothesis that the two DNA profiles have the same source. (Prior odds are the odds that the two DNA samples came from the same person on the basis of information other than the DNA. Posterior odds are the odds when the DNA information is included in the analysis.) That property can be stated this way:

The posterior odds are the prior odds multiplied by LR.4

In everyday words: Whatever are the odds that the two samples came from the same person in the absence of DNA evidence, the odds when the DNA evidence is included are LR times as great. That statement is an instance of Bayes's theorem.

For example, if there is reason to think that the prior odds that two DNA samples came from the same person (however this is determined) are 1:2, and the LR is 10,000, the posterior odds are 5,000:1. Many statisticians and forensic scientists prefer to use the likelihood ratio rather than the match probability (Berry 1991a; Berry et al. 1992; Evett et al. 1992; Balding and Nichols 1994; Collins and Morton 1994) because it admits an inferential interpretation that the simple match probability does not. Odds can be converted into a probability by the relation Prob = Odds/(Odds + 1), or Odds = Prob/(1-Prob). Thus, a likelihood ratio, which is not a probability, can be used to obtain a probability.

Extremely confusing... But It had me thinking..... Did the DNA Forensic examiners use Bayes's theroem?? Or did they use something else to determine what they probability of a match to Dr Vincent Tabak would be??

They talked of searching the DNA data base for a match...

Quote
The move will also be seen as controversial – especially as the Daily Mail understands that the sample has already been run through the national DNA database without finding a match.

The date of that article is in itself Interesting.... 14th January 2011

Now this is the part where Dr Vincent Tabak talking about the sample being dodgy holds water (imo).... They have already taken a sample from him... It should have been put through the national data base, they didn't find a match!!! Therefore his second sample shouldn't find a match either....(IMO).. But they apparently match Dr vincent Tabak's sample to this tiny DNA profile... How I don't know .. But I will carry on with my theory...

But if we go back to the idea of theorms and have more than one sample from a particular suspect, then that sample would therefore generate a greater hit... And the percentages would change.....

So they have 2 samples from Dr Vincent Tabak at this point and one sample from CJ.....

If I apply logic to the idea that 1000/1 chance that the sample belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak... The same should have applied to CJ realistically,.... It's a minute detail... I have said before that I believed the fact that someone was male in a sample group consisting mainly of females would give that sample a probability of 1000/1 .... we need to know what the sample was tested against... And if we are looking at odds as low as 1000/1.. CJ should in reality have matched some of the same characteristics as Dr Vincent Tabak....  That being Male and White.... Yet CJ's sample was not a match... And the sample should have at least shown that it came from a male...

Quote
Suspect Identified by a DNA Database Search
Thus far, we have assumed that the suspect was identified by evidence other than DNA, such as testimony of an eyewitness or circumstantial evidence. In that case, the DNA is tested and the match probability or likelihood ratio is computed for the event that a person selected at random from some population will have the genotypic profile of the evidence sample. There is an important difference between that situation and one in which the suspect is initially identified by searching a database to find a DNA profile matching that left at a crime scene.

The point I am making is the difference between CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak was that they had 2 samples from Dr Vincent Tabak in which to apply any type of probability... Couple that with other purported evidence and for an unsuspecting Jury it sounds compelling...

For instance we have....

* 1000/1 DNA
* Lived at the same address
* Could come into contact with Joanna Yeates at the communal hall
* Had a black coat
* Was apparently home alone
* Their two firms had a connection to each other
* Used the same exit (small gate)
* Had apparently been told by CJ that Greg was away
* His girlfriend was away for the evening
* He ate pizza
* He drove a car
* Made a second witness statement

We now have circumstantial evidence that adds weight to the useless DNA sample and gives weight to that sample...
Quote
Two Fallacies
Two widely recognized fallacies should be avoided (Thompson and Schumann 1987; Balding and Donnelly 1994b). The "prosecutor's fallacy"—also called the fallacy of the transposed conditional—is to confuse two conditional probabilities. Let P equal the probability of a match, given the evidence genotype. The fallacy is to say that P is also the probability that the DNA at the crime scene came from someone other than the defendant. An LR of 1,000 says that the match is 1,000 times as probable if the evidence and the suspect samples that share the same profile are from the same person as it is if the samples are from different persons. It does not say that the odds that the suspect contributed the evidence DNA are 1,000:1. To obtain such a probability requires using Bayes's theorem and a prior probability that is assumed or estimated on the basis of non-DNA evidence. As stated earlier, only if that prior probability is 1/2 will the posterior odds equal the LR.

The "defendant's fallacy" is to assume that in a given population, anyone with the same profile as the evidence sample is as likely to have left the sample as the suspect. For example, if 100 persons in a metropolitan area are expected to have the same DNA profile as the evidence sample, it is a fallacy to conclude that the probability that the suspect contributed the sample is only 0.01. The suspect was originally identified by other evidence, and such evidence is very unlikely to exist for the 99 other persons expected to have the same profile. Only if the suspect was found through a search of a DNA database might this kind of reasoning apply, and then only with respect to other contributors to the database, as we now discuss.

That sums it up in lots of ways ..

Quote
For example, if 100 persons in a metropolitan area are expected to have the same DNA profile as the evidence sample, it is a fallacy to conclude that the probability that the suspect contributed the sample is only 0.01. The suspect was originally identified by other evidence, and such evidence is very unlikely to exist for the 99 other persons expected to have the same profile. Only if the suspect was found through a search of a DNA database might this kind of reasoning apply, and then only with respect to other contributors to the database, as we now discuss.

The suspect be identified by other evidence and such evidence is very unlikely to exist for the 99 other persons.
only if the suspect was found through a search of a DNA DATA BASE might this kind of reasoning apply..... Well...

Again I will say that we are only too well aware that Dr Vincent Tabak had given the Police a DNA sample whilst he was in Holland, so naturally that would have been put through a DNA DATA BASE.... added to that the circumstantial evidence and they have themselves a case and a suspect.... OMG

They realistically could have applied the same evidence to CJ... But his lawyers knew it was a crock of s*** that the Police were saying... And he was released....

But we now have a baying public wanting an answer to this crime... So they can apply the same logic to Dr Vincent Tabak...(imo) this time it sticks.... It is not evidence... there is NO EVIDENCE... But a set of circumstances and a sample that exclude other people when marrying the two together....

The DNA sample should have been thrown out... It's ridiculous that it was not challenged... The only way in which that sample might have had any clout was if there had been other Forensic evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being inside Joanna Yeates Flat and Joanna Yeates being inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....  And that couldn't be enough really either... I say this because again CJ....

He should have hit one marker on the DNA, that being male.... And I could apply the same Circumstances to him

* Lived in the building
* Made a second witness statement
* Was The landlord
* Had access to Joanna Yeates Flat
* Knew Greg was away
* Heard people by the small gate
* Used the same communal area

These married together are really no different than that of Dr Vincent Tabak in many ways..... The only difference was that Dr Vincent Tabak had supplied an extra DNA sample....

CJ's solicitors put a stop to that idea quick sharp.... Because it is not enough to determine guilt... There has to be solid evidence to support any claim .... And where is the solid evidence to support that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates ??

Where was the proper investigation into the 200 plus contacts that Joanna Yeates had on facebook, where was the DNA sampling of all her friends and associates?? Where was the viewing of CCTV footage from other days of her week to check she hadn't been followed... Whos' was the other DNA profile they found?? What motive was there for this Murder? Why would Joanna Yeates let a complete stranger into her home when not totally happy about being left alone??  Why the rush to arrest?? Why not check the college she had attended and anyone she may have come into contact... Why did the Police not leave that building alone!!

There were more people that had a profile that would fit just as easily as Dr Vincent Tabak's but they were never considered suspects... People whom she had told she would be alone... People who knew her routine on a Friday..People who had attended the Halloween party at the Flat at Canygne Road who DNA must surely have been left there.... Don't misunderstand me I am not saying any of these people are responsible... what I am saying if you marry the small DNA sample with circumstantial evidence they too should come up as 1000/1 at the very least..

* DNA Male
* Knew she would be home alone
* Worked at the same company
* Knew her routine
* Knew her plans
* Knew Greg was away all weekend
* Knew what time she left the pub
* Knew where she lived
* Knew her phone habits

Basically any circumstance could be applied to a tiny DNA sample....  But I personally believe that the DNA sample was a fallacy... It has to be, every male that Joanna Yeates knew could have be a candidate purely because they were male (imo) And they realistically should have tested everyone male that Joanna Yeates had been in contact with or knew...  But i don't believe that they tested any of them, that why i think the sample is a fallacy...  Because being a white male should have come up high on the 1000/1 sample.. And they manage to get only Dr vincent Tabak to register, and I believe the reason for this is that he gave two samples, which made him stand out from any other possible suspect and they ran with what they had....

So what real proof is there that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates????

Oh Yes... That crock of unsupported S*** that was spoken on the witness stand by a man whom did not have The Presumption of Innocence as a basic right, and a media circus that told us all what a very bad man he was indeed...

And a defence team that was about as much use as a chocolate teapot.....
I do not know what probabilities or theorems The Forensic Firm use... But If I can argue a theory as to how it should have been thrown out as evidence, then why didn't the Defence have it thrown out??

Because 1000/1 is an extremely small and useless sample, far too small to arrest someone and certainly far too small to have someone convicted with murder...

Edit... If Dr Vincent Tabak's first DNA sample he gave on the 31st December 2010 hadn't show in the National Data base by the 14th January 2011....  Does that mean that the sample was put into the system after the 14th January 2011...
Did they put the two samples in on the same day??  Or a few days apart?



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on March 31, 2018, 10:46:49 AM
Part 1....

Understanding how Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA swob was analysed, and when it was analysed had me on a search.. Unfortunatley I had to use The Font of all knowledge wiki...  As it was good enough at trial I thought it's good enough here...

Wondering why his DNA sample of the 31st December did not yield any results I have come to understand the simple answer to that....

Quote
England and Wales
Though initially only samples from convicted criminals, or people awaiting trial, were recorded, the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 changed this to allow DNA to be retained from people charged with an offence, even if they were subsequently acquitted. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 later allowed DNA to be taken on arrest, rather than on charge. Between 2004 when this law came into force and 2012, anyone arrested in England and Wales on suspicion of involvement in any recordable offence (all except the most minor offences) had their DNA sample taken and stored in the database, whether or not they are subsequently charged or convicted. In 2005-06 45,000 crimes were matched against records on the DNA Database; including 422 homicides (murders and manslaughters) and 645 rapes.[7] However, not all these matches would have led to criminal convictions and some would be matches with innocent people who were at the crime scene. Critics argued that the decision to keep large numbers of innocent people on the database did not appear to have increased the likelihood of solving a crime using DNA.[8] Since the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in 2012, those not charged or not found guilty must have their DNA data deleted within a specified period of time.[3]


This explains a lot.... I will start with CJ first.... It isn't until 2012 that CJ gets his DNA removed from the data base, we hear in the papers he recieves an apology and everything is destroyed that connects him to the case..... But it is actually a change in the law that allows for CJ to get his DNA sample destroyed...

But I therefore need to go back to The National Data Base....  As the Interview in Holland appears to be a ruse to gain a sample of Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA... DCI Phil Jones remarks on The Judge Rinder Program are starting to make sense now......

At 31:25 mins: DCI Phil Jones says on The Judge Rinder program....
Quote
It was around the 20th January, that erm... we positively identified there were components in the mixed DNA.. of Vincent Tabak

Light on I am at home....

The sample that DC Karen Thomas obtained in Holland was useless to The Police, it was pointless taking it... They could have quite easily have disposed of it...DC Karen Thomas didn't take the sample to eliminate Dr Vincent Tabak, because he wasn't under arrest, therefore his sample legally could not have been taken to confirm or rule out Dr Vincent Tabak as a donor of any sample that may have been found on Joanna Yeates body....  If my understanding is correct...

So the Crimewatch program that tells use how reluctant that Dr Vincent Tabak was to have a sample taken from him and how DC Karen Thomas's suspicions were aroused because of Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent over interest in Forensics is utter tosh....(imo)

The program is made to appeal to the publics lack of understanding of law, and to add weight to the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently something to hide by them stating he was reluctant... when as a matter of law they could not take Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA to test against the sample found on Joanna Yeates... He was NOT under arrest and we know he was never cautioned in his Holland Interview...(imo)

SO DCI Phil Jones stating that it wasn't until the 20th January 2011 that they positively identified components in the mixed DNA makes sense... That was the day that they had arrested Dr Vincent Tabak and had taken his DNA sample on arrest, which they could then test against any samples they may or may not have had.....

There's me thinking DCI Phil Jones was loosing the plot... when in reality he is telling us what they could and couldn't do by the 20th January 2011....

Does this now go with the theory and idea I had that the sample was...

(A): Useless, because it didn't even show CJ as a possible contributor of a tiny DNA sample, even to the point of
       saying he is a white male....
(B): That both Dr Vincent Tabak's samples were put into the National Data base on the 20th January 2011, giving
       them a hit as to a possible contributor of the sample they apparently had from Joanna Yeates??

Is it this which gives them their percentage, coupled with the circumstantial evidence that I posted above...

So my next question has therefore got to be ...... What the hell did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak with??? The DNA isn't it.... It can't be... They cannot use that as a source of comparision as he wasn't arrested until the 20th January 2011.. yet they arrest and charge him.... With what exactly?? What evidence did they have to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak as a Murder suspect in January 2011??

We have assumed it was two things... The DNA and The Sobbing Girl.... neither could be the reason that they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak... The Sobbing Girl evidence was not used at trial and The DNA Sample could not be legally used as Dr Vincent Tabak was NOT under arrest on the 31st December 2010 when DC Karen Thomas Interviewed him in Holland .... (imo)

The timing of the Yeates appeal had been used to hoodwinked us into believing that it was this that brought the Sobbing Girl forward.... Even if that was the case, there was NO other evidence to support that Dr Vincent Tabak should be a suspect.... NONE!!!

We blindly believe what we have been told, because it makes us sleep well at night knowing that another monster is locked away for a terrible crime... We do not question what the Police or CPS say... because we believe that they  are honest and want to put the bad men away... But I feel we need to question... We must Question...  Instead of been happy that someone is paying anyone is paying....

We knew Dr Vincent Tabak appear at Bristol magistrates Court... We do not really know what charges have been brought against him... If they decide to use the ruse that he implicated the landlord and lied ,I presume a contempt of court is a possibility... But the so called evidence that he had Murdered Joanna Yeates simply wasn't there....

We have to wait until they have searched his laptops apparently to see what they deem as Incriminating Searches, to have anything that closely resembles a connection to the case... I believe the searches are poppycock... Thousand of us searched anything about the case we had been following... It didn't mean that we had Murdered Joanna Yeates... The searches make no sense... Looking up body decomposition for a a body we all know is frozen won't give you any indication on how long it takes to decompose.... It's frozen... It's not going to decompose.... Yet this search was deemed incriminating.... HOW!!

So upon arrest, no-one has put Dr Vincent Tabak at the Crime Scene, there is NO CCTV Footage of Dr Vincent Tabak doing anything incriminating... The private CCTV Footage of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders spoke of, showed nothing untoward, as it would have been used at trial....  The only CCTV Footage they have of Dr Vincent Tabak is at a burger stand according to mrswah(which she has seen on the internet..) and the infamous Asda CCTV footage showing a man shopping for goods, we do not even see him at the checkout to establish what goods he apparently bought... But are happy to go with the alleged text message that Dr Vincent Tabak had a typo and wrote "CRISIS" instead of "CRISPS".... Do we know he actually bought CRISPS?? He has a carrier bag with him... But what does it contain????
Again everyone is happy with the idea that he subconsciously had made an error, to determine his guilt... Where is the evidence he even bought CRISPS that day???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369062#msg369062

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg407073#msg407073
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on March 31, 2018, 10:47:16 AM
Part2...

What did The Defence actually do for Dr Vincent Tabak?? I cannot see that they did anything... apart from securing his conviction without challenging anything... And allowing Dr Vincent Tabak to take the stand to tell us a pack of lies.... We have the supposed Guilty Plea to Manslaughter... This information the Nation already knows about, making Dr Vincent Tabak the first person i would imagine attending a British Court, on the stand as a "Guilty Man" only to be proved "Guiltier".... Presumption of Innocence People... come on...

Why hasn't Clegg done any legwork... (imo) he cannot have.... yet everyone appears to pat "The Master Defender" on the back.... For what... Being bloody hopeless!!

Did Clegg know about the sample taken in Holland of Dr Vincent Tabak?? Did Clegg check the ASDA CCTV to see what items Dr Vincent Tabak had purchased... Or did he like everyone else accept what had been said....

Is my theory correct, and the only reason that they could say that Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA matched the sample from Joanna Yeates was because of Circumstantial Evidence and them putting his 2 samples into the DNA data base on the same day?? Or whilst under arrest.... Does this useless DNA sample give us conclusive proof that Dr Vincent Tabak came into contact with Joanna Yeates??

No it doesn't .. neither does anything they have stated connect Dr Vincent Tabak to The Murder of Joanna Yeates ...

So why won't anyone speak of this terrible Miscarriage of Justice?? When many know the law, but have kept silent... Or maybe there were conditions imposed in court to stop people speaking of this case....

I for one do not know of this conditions if that is the case...As I am a member of the public who would not be privvy to such things....

But the media would and Lawyers would... And therefore the strange silence surrounding Dr Vincent Tabak becomes apparent.... My lack of Law Knowledge or my odd way in which I post.. Doesn't detract from the fact that this case is full of holes... That Dr Vincent Tabak was treated unfairly and that NO Evidence supported Dr Vincent Tabak being responsible for the Murder of Joanna Yeates...

If they talk of The National Data Base as early as 14th January 2011, then they are only comparing the sample to know criminals or people who have been arrested on a major charge... Which brings me to the statement about Dr Vincent Tabak not having even a parking ticket or any other charge against him.... Has this been deliberately mentioned??  I personally would interpret that as yes....

If they believe they know who actually killed Joanna Yeates they may have a small criminal conviction that didn't warrant taking a DNA sample.... Therefore they would have nothing to compare that persons DNA against in the DNA DATA BASE...  And as the sample was pathetic, it couldn't be used to conclusively prove any connection... Or give them a percentage...

But not to keep repeating myself... They had 2 samples from Dr Vincent Tabak... put them both in the DNA DATA BASE, couple that with Circumstancial Evidence and a Percentage can be thrown out to satisfy the public...(imo)

Is it because we have all watched too many American Crime Programs that we accept as read that a Defendant tells the jury his side of the story to get a reduction in sentence?? And that on a simple Interview they collect DNA sample and rule them in or out.... That we believe what we have seen happened to Dr Vincent Tabak is lawful??

In the media at the time they talked of DNA Screening a whole bunch of people..... Well legally as far as i can see they cannot do that... They would need a reason to take such samples from everyone and for Elimination purposes, that doesn't appear to part of our law...

DCI Phil Jones stated that they had taken samples from all of the witnesses they had Interviewed.... (I posted on this )

Quote
So there was something just not quite right about him.... And the Officer erm..decided...erm.. following the policy we had taken with all our witness's... to ask him for a voluntary DNA swab, which he agreed to do.....

It may have well have been policy... But they could not use these samples legally if my understanding is correct.... They could not check all of the Interview witness's DNA samples against the DNA DATA Base as this would be in contradiction to  Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which refers to a person's right to a private life,...

Dr Vincent Tabak had no connection to the Murder of Joanna Yeates other than being her neighbour... So his DNA sample from the Holland Interview was to give the public an excuse to hate Dr Vincent Tabak and assume he must be guilty...

Why did CrimeWatch allow us to believe that this DNA sample from Holland was proof of Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt... Why didn't they question the legality of this sample...

Can anyone remember a case in the last decade where they got the public to give a voluntary DNA sample as to eliminate them from the Inquiry???  No, I bet you can't, because it is not legal..(imo) They could check a suspect they had arrest against the national Data Base... But couldn't check thousands of Innocent people against any sample...(imo)

But we remember Colin Pitchfork and The Mass DNA screening that was done to find The Murder of Lynda Mann and the programs made of this procedure when they caught a killer.... But that was way back in 1980's there was no precedence  set in law for taking sample of DNA from the general population and it was seen as a breakthrough and a believed way in which to eliminate anyone from any inquiry....

Now to not inform the public that such a screening would infringe on the rights of an Individual, they use the excuse (imo),... That cost is the reason for not doing such a screening, when  in reality I believe it is the Human Rights Act that prevents this intrusive procedure happening on a mass scale...

So as the media only need to refer to past events to make a public believe that mass Screening could be an option,It makes us believe they didn't need to do this as The Evidence they had against Dr Vincent Tabak must be so overwhelming that they didn't need to waste taxpayers money on such an exercise... Because this Mass screening didn't take place it supported the so called fact that the evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak must have been strong and every possible Investigation that another person could be the suspect has passed everyone by... Because if A Mass Screening didn't take place, then they must have conclusive proof Dr vincent Tabak was indeed their man....

This Case is Smoke and Mirrors...(imo) because whilst they had the public convinced that Dr Vincent Tabak could be the only person who could possibly have a DNA sample matching the sample found... A public remembers what has gone before and they can put 2 and 2 together to make 5.... It is easy to convince a public of someones guilt just by what is reported in the media... And I believe the media should also accept responsibility for the publics perception...

How many times do I have to say that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent and The Evidence didn't support his guilt... But a poor mans story of a possible scenario was told on the witness stand for a gullible public to believe, when they didn't even question why this man didn't start off with The Presumption of Innocence.... They were taken over by The Stardom of a Defence Lawyer and The Many High Profile Cases that he had been involved in rather than question his ability on the day...

All I can say is it didn't do what it said on the tin.... The Master Defender didn't perform to a standard that we should demand, we shouldn't just let the idea that he has been named this title throw our understanding of what is Just and fair.... Just because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck.... Doesn't make it so....

Take a look at Milli Vanilli... Just because they looked the part didn't mean that they sang on the records... But many were happy that the handsome duo performed and they could swoon all over them...

Well the Defence never made me swoon.... It was The Defences behaviour that first had me questioning Dr Vincent Tabak Guilt!!!!!

If I have somehow have misinterpreted the law on taking samples... Someone please correct me as to what they know the law to be ... As you all have more idea than me.... And I am just a mere member of the public ,who keeps questioning what The Truth of This Case really is....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_National_DNA_Database

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369062#msg369062

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8057.msg407073#msg407073
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 01, 2018, 09:34:25 AM
Quote
DCI Jones, from Avon and Somerset Police, said yesterday: 'I felt it could have been significant in that it was a trophy.

'I think he took the sock, and the pizza she had bought on her way home, because he was linked to those items evidentially.

'No other trace of him was found in the flat.'

DCI Phil Jones statement to The Press on the 1st November 2011 stays with the idea that the Sock and the Pizza were taken by the killer of Joanna Yeates and that the killer was evidentially linked to these items....

He must know something... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need to take either item??

Quote
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones revealed that the killer kept  the defenceless landscape architect's sock, after removing it during the attack at her Bristol flat.

How did he know it was removed during the attack??

If Joanna Yeates is attacked in her home and there is NO Forensic evidence linking or No trace of him found in the flat, what does DCI Jones mean by this statement??

A serious assault happened to Joanna Yeates... we had an attack take place and a struggle yet no Forensic evidence linking or trace of him found in the flat.... Who is DCI Jones referring too?? i don't believe that he is talking of Dr Vincent Tabak....

The only way that could be possible is if the Flat had been cleaned.... But if we leave the Pizza out of this for starters and concentrate on the "Missing Sock"  why would The Sock link Joanna Yeates and The Killer?? It cannot be because of it being a "Trophy" as DCI Jones first says in his Interview with the paper as he goes on to say that the killer was evidentially linked....

What is it about the Sock that would link the Killer to Joanna Yeates....??

We have to remember it is only "One " Sock, she is found with the other....  So what is the difference between the two socks????

Did someone cut themselves?? Did they bleed on this sock?? There has to be a difference between the two socks for it to be evidentially connected to the killer....

Blood spots were found...  were they all Joanna Yeates ??? Another DNA profile was also found but was never made public as to whom this profile belonged too.... So is the DNA profile they found linked to The Missing Sock???

Did someone wash Joanna Yeates... I have always wondered if that had been the case with the lack of body fluids found surrounding her body and on her clothing....

If they they have always believed that this was a sexually based Murder, then i would add that together with the idea that the "Sock was a trophy"... And The Sock would have evidential evidence of The Killer....

Quote
TOP DEFINITION
trophy sock
sock that a man masturbates into without washing enough times that it can stand on it's own like a trophy.
Jimmy finally got his reward for jacking off so many times. Now a trophy sock sits on his dresser

Couple that Urban Dictionary definition with the statement of DCI Phil Jones and you have an evidential connection to the killer and the Sock...( You Have your Trophy) You also have the Possible source of the DNA profile they found that they could revealto us of whom it belonged to.... The Defence should have been all over this other profile, using it as an alternative suspect to this crime....

So is this why they have always pushed that this was a Murder motivated by Sex??

Back to the Pizza... The only way in which the killer could have been connected to the Pizza is that he ate it.... They shared the Pizza?? I cannot think of anything else.... Unless it is someone connected to Tesco's... There is a man in the CCTV of Joanna Yeates that never gets a mention.... Or is it again a Sexual Reference??

Why do we have all of these supermarkets mentioned... I find that strange.... Or is it not realistically anything to do with the fact that they are to do with Supermarkets persay , but that they are chains??

We appear to have subtle clues that link to bondage all the time.... And i do not know why.....

Bondage and Sex.... Were made key when it came to vilifying Dr Vincent Tabak at the end of the trial.... I therefore believe that it has to be important, and not Dr Vincent Tabak being the reason.... Realistically the events that apparently took place in the Flat by the hand of Dr Vincent Tabak should have left further evidence of him being there... And there is NO Evidence of Joanna Yeates being inside Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat either....

Pizza... again references Sex... Pizza Parties where the Pizza would definitley be unwrapped and cooked.... The Pizza really should be made to be a major clue if it had been put into the rubbish as finding it would not connect the killer to Joanna Yeates unless the same fate happened to the Pizza as What made the Sock a trophy!

If there had been some kind of sexual event taken place why wasn't more evidence of this brought to trial to support that Dr Vincent Tabak was a sexual deviant...

The CCTV of Joanna Yeates buying a Pizza doesn't have the original timestamp upon it... which has always concerned me... But the action of Joanna Yeates buying a Pizza is there for all to see.... Whether she actually bought that Pizza on Friday 17th December 2010 at around 8:37 pm or not....

The police play their cards close to there chest and i cannot believe that they revealed everything to the media about this case... There has to be other evidence that clearly connects the killer to the Murder of Joanna Yeates ...

That's why a confession is as only as good as the evidence that supports it.... And nothing of an evidentuary value was presented at trial to support that Dr Vincent Tabak was the killer of Joanna Yeates....

For instance... If Joanna Yeates had had her hair cut and only the Police were aware of this fact and the killer, when it came to trial the killer states he cut a chunk of hair to keep as a trophy and this info had been kept from the media and the public... Then that would support an idea that the killers confession and the facts of the case were connected....

But the story told at trial doesn't support anything... It's a scenario of a possible outcome of what may or may not have taken place... It doesn't satisfy the people who had so many questions about this case... The Cider bottle that had been drunk from were never brought to trial...

For instance... even if what we know as Greg had drunk from this Cider bottle and the killer had drunk from this Cider bottle.. then there should have been mixed DNA left either around the rim or in the bottom of the bottle where saliva may have slipped inside the bottle....

Were the cider bottles ever forensically tested??? They never mention that they are.... But they should have been....

There are far too many unanswered questions in this case and The Pizza and The sock need further scrutiny....

Another point I will add... To me the statement that DCI Jones makes, tells us what happened in a sense... Couple his statements with a Crime Scene that has had the cleaners in and you have your answer....

The person that killed Joanna Yeates had help.... I believe it is extremely possible that the Flat was cleaned and staged to make it look like the Flat did when Greg returned home... With items being left around the Flat in various Places... I believe the items are the staging.... And an extensive cleaning up had taken place.... For no Forensic Evidence of The killer to be retained inside the Flat....

The Knickers by The surf board in the hallway... The earring under the duvet.. The other earring under a pile of clothing...( Were these the clothes that Joanna Yeates had worn to The Ram?? She is found in different clothing) Broken pieces of plastic not brought to trial... The apron...  The printed out recipe.....  All there to give us an impression of what Joanna Yeates was doing and what the killer was doing.....

The earring in the bed has to be the most bizzare clue... That in itself suggest that sexual activity took place, and as Dr Vincent Tabak says he placed her on the bed the earring should never have found its way under the duvet cover.. But that is not challenged in anyway... But explained away as something Dr Vincent Tabak wanted to hide...

It would have been far easier for Dr Vincent Tabak to say that it was a sexual encounter that went wrong...  And that would explain away more of the evidence...  And a manslaughter plea could have been understood... The Ikea bedding was tested, I have posted on this... But this bedding is not brought to trial as evidence.... Why test bedding if they believed no sexual encounter took place??

That is why I believe the earring was placed under the duvet to suggest that the killing was motivated by sex.... There is no evidence on the Ikea bedding... But there is an earring under the duvet... That suggest staging to me....

So why would Dr Vincent Tabak want to place Joanna Yeates earring under a duvet cover?? If he was trying to distance himself from this crime he would leave nothing, not stage a flat to make it look like an encounter of a sexual nature had taken place.... Especially as at trial he stated that it wasn't sexual....  But we have knickers left in the hallway also... That suggest a sexual event also....

So we have a ....
* Sock Trophy
* Pizza
* Knickers in the Hall
* Earring under the duvet
* Earring under a pile of clothing (suggesting Joanna Yeates had taken her clothes off)
* A Christening ( another sexual term)I remember originally Greg apparently went to sheffield to ski
* And The Prosecution insisting that this was a sexually motivated attack... But No evidence presented at trial to
  support this idea...

Are the Police withholding the information as to why this is a sexually motivated attack on Joanna Yeates ??? Because as we all know.. The Police do not reveal everything they know about a case no matter what is leaked to the press...!!


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-cops-arrest-105731

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trophy%20sock

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055938/Vincent-Tabak-kept-sick-trophy-murder-Jo-Yeates-4ft-wall-helped-captured-killer.html#ixzz5BOv3xcJ0


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on April 07, 2018, 10:53:51 AM
We don't know what the analysis of the contents of her stomach and intestines showed, because the expert witness from Glasgow who carried out the analysis did not actually tell the court. She explained that she was trying to find out when Joanna had suffered "trauma", i.e., died. She told the court that Joanna's last meal had been cheesy chips and Cola. They already knew that, because her boyfriend had already testified to the lunch Joanna had eaten that day. The expert witness did not bother to tell the court that the chips and Cola would have disappeared from the victim's digestive system long before she even left the Bristol Ram pub. The only reason the expart witness could claim that it was Joanna's "last meal" was because the court had heard Counsel for the Prosecution tell them that the defendant had killed her and stolen the uneaten pizza. Some expert witness, wouldn't you say?

There is evidence that this grisly evidence was removed from the body and submitted to the Scottish expert on 17th January, and her "findings" - that Joanna did not eat the pizza - reported without attribution in the press the day before Vincent Tabak's arrest. If Joanna had died more than 9 hours after eating the pizza, of course, it would be impossible to tell from an analysis of her digestive system. In my opinion this unhelpful gastroarcheologist was engaged to prevent the independent pathologist who would be hired by Vincent Tabak's first set of lawyers from being able to perform his own analysis and identifying traces of pizza, or even unexpected delights such as bacon and egg, champagne and caviar.

last meal cheesy chips........


leonora.... We are guessing that Joanna Yeates stomach contents were empty.... Dr Miller was never cross examined... What if the stomach contents were not empty.... What if pieces of these chips were visible....  The expert witness is only testifying to what she saw?? tested??

This is confusing leonora....  If the analysis was to do with trauma, then this should prove when she died... And Dr Millers examination should determine that.....

I can only go from what I have seen leonora...  The case of Donald Bent springs to mind.... And the way in which it was determined that he killed his wife was that she had chips visible in her stomach and she had frozen after being kept outside in a car boot and the chips hadn't digested.... The chips were visible in her stomach even showing signs  of been cut with a knife, this came from Dr Michael Baden whom examined her.... (image attached) So was the trauma of strangling and the time of death revealed by the chips in her stomach...??

So my question is where the chips visible in Joanna Yeates stomach and did she die earlier or did she eat more chessy chips later ??

If Dr Miller was using the contents of her stomach to determine when the trauma/strangling had occurred... then it is a possibility that she could see the chips in her stomach... Otherwise if the stomach was empty she would not be able to determine when she died.... (imo)

She could have died the morning after if she had drunk copious amounts of alcohol and not eaten, possibly giving her an empty stomach and still alcohol in her system....  So how would Dr Miller determine that Joanna Yeates last meal was cheesy chips if the contents of her stomach were empty??

As you say the test were not done until 17th January 2011, then if cheesy chips had been visible, others should be aware of that fact as they would need to take the stomach contents out to send to Glasgow... Also... If there were indeed evidence of chips still in her stomach, who's to say she didn't have some when she got home... Is there a takeaway on her route home, she may have visited... Did they look at other places??

Dr Vincent Tabak himself was charged between the 16th December to the 19th December 2010, when he first went to court I believe the dates were from 16th December to the 26th December 2010, which has always struck me as odd.. Do they have a baring on the time that Joanna Yeates was killed??

Unless we see a proper report into Joanna Yeates stomach contents, we cannot determine when she was killed, and if the stomach contents indeed show us Chessy Chips (visible).. It brings many unanswered questions...

If as I have been lead to believe that once someone admits Manslaughter, then the Investigation stops.... Did that therefore mean they couldn't look for anymore CCTV.... ?? 

It cannot be coincidence that the stomach contents were sent so far away... There has to be a valid reason to do so... And the only valid reason I can think of was that there would be an independent report into what was inside Joanna Yeates stomach, leaving many more unanswered questions... As we know The Inquest was opened and closed and that didn't reveal anything.... Someone is going to great lengths to not reveal everything about Joanna Yeates..
The Inquest should have told us all we need to know.... But It doesn't happen fully... We instead have to determine what possibly took place with the little information divulged by Dr Miller, Dr Delaney and Dr Carey... And if Dr Delaney has shown us that Joanna Yeates had different clothing on than what we see her wearing at The Ram... Is Dr Millers evidence also telling us something we didn't know or realise??



http://crimedocumentary.com/autopsy-confessions-medical-examiner-1994/
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on August 09, 2018, 04:46:47 PM
I was looking at the roles of the Forensic Pathologists whom performed examinations on Joanna yeates body...
We are aware that Dr Russel Delaney was the attending forensic pathologist and Dr Nat Cary carried out an examination for the defence.....

So when is a defence council's forensic examiner/pathologist truly independent??

https://www.forensicequity.com/forensic-pathology

Quote
A second independent post mortem conducted by one of our Home Office registered pathologists could reveal new information or lead to a different interpretation regarding:
The estimated time of death.

Alternative medical cause(s) of death.

Determine whether any competing explanations for the death are consistent with the findings.

An understanding of the, or provision of an alternative, mechanism(s) of death.

Contribution of any underlying natural disease(s).

Assessment of other unusual findings such as positive toxicological results.

The reasons for arranging to have the primary evidence independently examined
The involvement of a second independent pathologist is to ensure that there has been no unwarranted emphasis on one of several possible interpretations of the significance of the findings at the first post mortem examination. In addition it should look to ensure that both positive and negative findings have been reported.


There may also be cases where there are immediate concerns as to the reliability, completeness and robustness of the findings of the first post mortem and where, therefore, there is the need for a second post mortem examination to be carried out.

This should be what everyone expects... Someone truly independent... But i do not know what consitutes truly independent??

Is it that each pathologist works independently of each other?  That they have no connection whatsoever?? What is it that makes them set apart from each other and what would a defence team look for in an independent forensic pathologist? Or is there at anytime a conflict of interests an issue in such cases as Dr Vincent Tabak's case for instance?

Not knowing how this works, I am just asking questions...

The reason for my question was something I discovered and was surprised by... I didn't know what boards or what rules these Forensic pathologists abide by...  And I have discovered that there is a "Pathology Delivery Board".. 

Dr Nat Cary and Dr Russell Delaney are on this board together....

PDF from
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/256756/PDB_Minutes_Mar_2011.pdf

The letter is headed NPAI (National Policing Improvemnet Agency)

Does this mean that Dr Nat Cary works for the Police as well as Dr Russell Delaney??  I don't know... If that is the case why is Dr Nat Cary performing another autopsy for the defence??

I am unsure about this maybe someone could clarify....







[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Forensics
Post by: [...] on August 16, 2018, 11:16:55 AM
From an Article in the Guardian...

Quote
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics

Quote
     
This is Vincent Tabak pictured the night before he was arrested on suspicion of killing next-door-neighbour Joanna Yeates.

The 32-year-old Dutchman is captured on CCTV walking past Cotham Stores in Abbotsford Road, Clifton, Bristol, at 6.15pm last Wednesday. Within hours he would be arrested over the murder of the architect.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html

Now a problem is starring us in the face immediately...  If everything is turned around in 48 hrs, how can the coat be Dr Vincent Tabak's Coat that Lyndsay Lennen tested as Dr Vincent Tabak is still wearing it on the 19th January 2011..

The 48hrs has to be before CJ is released, as they released him because his DNA didn't match.... So those tests that Lyndsey Lennen speaks of are done by the 1st January 2011... meaning which ever coat she tested could not have been Dr Vincent Tabak's coat..

The  Guardian article goes further..

Quote
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."

So no further testing.... Did she every test Dr Vincent Tabak's coat after he was arrested?? Did LGC test anything after Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested??

Lets go back to that quote... With the Killers confession.... What confession?? He hasn't confessed to anything... There was the unsubstantiated confession to a man whom assumed the role of Chaplain, but without a confirmation from Dr Vincent Tabak that he did indeed confess he killed Joanna Yeates to Brotherton, then it isn't solid evidence....  And we only get Dr Vincent Tabak's story of what took place at trial in October 2011.... That being the only time anyone could call something a confession... But I call it a story.....

So when was the evidence from Dr Vincent Tabak's person , house, or anything tested??  They had been to Holland to obtain a DNA sample from him on the 31st December 2010, that could have been tested within the 48 hour period that Lyndsay Lennen refers too...

Lyndsey Lennen wasn't robustly cross examined... It wasn't established which DNA sample was used at trial... The one that they had collected in Holland or the one they took from him on his arrest on the 29th January 2011??

And I believe it has to be the one from Holland.... But that is my opinion.... No further testing was done, according to the interview with Lyndsey Lennen, and that in turn tells us what we need to know....

But no-one appears bothered by this obvious problem.... And they should be.... we all should be (imo)..

I'll just add, that the coat is the only thing that we know that Dr Vincent Tabak wore on that evening as we are shown CCTV of him wearing this coat, and no-one can confirm what other items of clothing Dr Vincent Tabak wore that night.... He could have left those clothing items in Holland for all we know...  Tanja Morson doesn't appear in court to confirm or deny anything... So what did he wear when he killed Joanna Yeates??

We don't know... We know he was at home for an hour with her apparently in his Flat, so he could have had a shower and changed his clothing in that hour, because the next images are of Dr Vincent Tabak in Asda??  Which leaves the only item of clothing possible is Dr Vincent Tabaks black coat, as he apparently lifts Joanna Yeates out of the boot of his car to leave her on Longwood Lane.... And we all can see that on the 19th January 2011 he still wears this Black Coat....  So who proved that the fibres from the Black Coat Dr Vincent Tabak wore were left at the scene of Crime??
Were there any fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak at the scene of Crime?? 

If we do not have Dr Kelly Sheridan at trial the fibre expert whom has talked of an ikea duvet being tested... Then who's items were actually tested?? It cannot be Dr Vincent Tabak, as I keep saying he wasn't arrested until after the testing had apparently been completed....

Doesn't this bother anyone??    It should!!...





[attachment deleted by admin]