Forensics

[[...]]

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....

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

[mrswah]

They had made no enquiries abroad-------yes, a bit of a fib, that one, is it not?

[[...]]

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)!!

[[...]]

A slight puzzler here....

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 !!!

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

[Leonora]

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.

[[...]]

                                       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.

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/

[[...]]

Lyndsey Farmery is A:..

Criminal Intelligence Analyst Lyndsey Farmery

This is what a Criminal Intelligence Anaylst does:

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

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 :

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 ??

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

[[...]]

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]

[AerialHunter]

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.

[Leonora]

"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.

[AerialHunter]

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.

[[...]]

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]

[[...]]

And heres a different Police officer..  All these images have no links anymore...??

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Leonora]

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".

[mrswah]

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.