Author Topic: Forensics  (Read 8861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics/ Chalk Line
« Reply #300 on: January 29, 2018, 09:37:29 PM »
After I posted this...

I thought I would revisit this image...

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!!!

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #301 on: January 30, 2018, 11:46:18 AM »
Isabel Webster‏Verified account
Follow Follow @SunriseIsabel
#JoYeates boyfriend recalls they would always keep their front door double locked - whether in or out. Windows were also locked. #TabakTrial

Double Lock
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 ....

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #302 on: February 13, 2018, 10:39:09 AM »
Winch was needed... where was Joanna Yeates located?

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?

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?

Sunday Mirror‏
Follow Follow @TheSundayMirror
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??

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #303 on: February 13, 2018, 10:46:37 AM »
Was Longwood Lane area 'The Scene Of The Crime"??

From LGC's website:

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??

Offline Nine

Re: Ikea Bedding solves the crime !!
« Reply #304 on: February 17, 2018, 08:25:13 PM »
(29): Dr Kelly Sheridan (Fibre Analysis Expert)


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...

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..

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:
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

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..

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!!

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #305 on: February 19, 2018, 08:39:56 PM »
What were they looking for in the Tonnes of Rubbish??

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??

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #306 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!!

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!!

Offline AerialHunter

Re: Forensics
« Reply #307 on: March 04, 2018, 02:30:49 PM »
looks like a face mask with a plastic outlet valve to me.
There is none so noble or in receipt of his fellows unbridled adulation as that police officer who willingly deceives to protect one of his own kind and, by virtue of birthright, extends that privilege to his family.

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #308 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)

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...

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...

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...
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 ..

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?

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #309 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....

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....
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???

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #310 on: March 31, 2018, 10:47:16 AM »

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 )

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....

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #311 on: April 01, 2018, 09:34:25 AM »
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??

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....

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...!!

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #312 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??

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #313 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??

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

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....

Offline Nine

Re: Forensics
« Reply #314 on: August 16, 2018, 11:16:55 AM »
From an Article in the Guardian...

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 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.

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..

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!!...