Author Topic: CCTV Images and Film  (Read 1896 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nine

CCTV Images and Film
« on: April 18, 2017, 11:25:01 AM »
The CCTV footage in this case has been sparse quite honestly (IMO)

We have been given contradictory statements in regards to this CCTV footage from the trial and media reports..

One of the Massive issues with the CCTV footage is the absence of timestamps and the absence of dates on some of them... Quite frankly I do not understand why???

Why if you have in your possession images of a Killer driving around would these not be fully Dated and Timestamped??

Why in most cases including the "Becky Watts Case" is all of the video presented in court Date and Time Stamped..
But with this case NOT...

Quote
21 February, Asda - Matthews and Hoare go to Asda in Bedminster and buy black bags, rubble sacks, rubber gloves, bleach and three rolls of cling film

Why in The Becky Watts Case can you see the Timestamp moving in the Bottom left hand corner, when they visit Asda in Bedminster... Yet when Dr Vincent Tabak goes to Asda in Bedminster the timestamp is mysteriously missing????



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmZTSzme4ro
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34812317

29

Offline Leonora

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2017, 08:04:14 AM »
I don't disagree with your exposure of the degree of tampering with the CCTV video clips at all, Nine. However, these iffy clips played no part in Vincent Tabak's conviction whatsoever, as he himself told the court that he strangled Joanna and dumped her body. The CCTV was mere window dressing.

Apart from VT'is own testimony, the only evidence needed was Greg Reardon's testimony to the strange movements in the flat, the iffy DNA evidence, and the pathologist's account of Joanna's injuries and his opinion about whether she could have been strangled inside 20 seconds or not. Nor were more than two days needed for the trial. All the rest was for show.

Well done for posting the CCTV video clip of Becky Watts's horrible killers buying their DIY body disposal kit, to show us how a "real" murder conviction is carried out! I am sure that this clip played its part in proving to the CPS and to the jury that these dreadful people did what they did to the man's step-sister - whom, of course, he knew well and lusted after. It was SO different from the Jo Yeates case, where the police wilfully ignored evidence that she was killed by someone she knew well, and focused on no fewer than two very improbable men whom she did not know well.

The evidence of CCTV-tampering that bugs you so much proves a conspiracy, and one that is more far-reaching than just the police's public manipulation of a suspect. So the iffy CCTV captions are all very valuable to us sceptics! IMO, however, it is the removal of the chroma component from the Ram pub video clips that is the biggest giveaway of all. It HAD to be done to prevent us from spotting that the blouse Joanna wore was quite a different top from the one found on her body. This suggests that she was killed much later than the court was told.

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2017, 08:08:01 AM »
The absence of timestamps from the CCTV in ASDA has always been something that made me very suspicious.

CCTV usually shows a timestamp as well as a datestamp, as far as I know.

Why didn't the police or the lawyers question this?  (I have my own ideas as to why, of course).


Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2017, 08:14:03 AM »
I'm going to post this here:

I was waiting on a new topic to be approved... seems to be taking a while...

I'll post this hope it's ok.....

The CCTV bothers me.... So many without timestamps... And the only one with a timestamp is the one with Joanna Yeates at Tesco's..

I keep looking at it.... it's wrong ... The frame rate is extremely slow... looks like 5 frames per second... Infact I'm sure it says it on the video...


Video Information

(1):  Self Serve

(2):  17-12-2010  FRI

(3):  20:36:56

(4):  0 .5P

(5):  PLAY


The Information on the Video  is wrong.... It's bugged me for ages...  It look legit... But nobody has really looked at it...
Number (1):   Why does it says Self Serve in such big letters??? The writing is taking away from the video!
Number (4):       0.5P... I think thats the frame rate..

 Number (5):   PLAY... where does it ever say the Word Play on any CCTV video Footage ?? It doesn't!

Which means the word PLAY shouldn't be there..........(IMO)

This Video as far as I can tell is NOT the Original Footage from the Tesco's CCTV....

I have 4 images.....  The First one I've circled the Info..
                              The Second one is unchanged

Now the Third one is an image taken from the Internet of a TimeStamp on a Tesco's CCTV..

The information on that is Completely different... It has The Camera Number which is missing from the Joanna Yeates Tesco one... Its' smaller writing and it's on the top edge of the video.....


The writing on a CCTV camera Video is never as Large as it is on the Joanna Yeates one...that I am aware of..

This Video cannot be the original footage from Tesco (IMO)... So how do we Know that the Time Stamp is correct ??

We don't.... how is this video evidence that Joanna Yeates was in Tesco's at around 20:40pm on Friday 17th December 2010?? 
It can't be if it's not the original Video! (IMO)

The fourth image I have rotated because I believe this looks like the correct way up for the video.... Has this video been changed???  (IMO) It has!

The Date/ Time etc should all be one line of information.... Not done like someone has pressed return on the keyboard to put the Time in the next line...

 Don't know what anyone else thinks..
 Can someone tell what editing suite may have been used??
 I'm sure there are some video experts on here.....

The Third image doesn't says self service... But it Does have the camera Number... This image is also in a Tesco's store...


If you look again at The Joanna Yeats Tesco Image The Information which is Date Time 0.5P... It takes up 3 white tiles on the floors worth of space...  Thats Not right!

 I'll ask the Defences next question:
 What Time was Joanna Yeates In Tesco???? Because Rebecca Scott says she rang Joanna Yeates at 8:30pm and talked for 15 mins... well that's seeming more accurate.. It's this video that doesn't appear to be (IMO)


EDIT:... Could Joanna Yeates Have been in Tesco's Later ?? After she spoke to Rebecca Scott??

Also if you look at image 3... the video seems the correct way up!! So how much manipulating has been done to The Joanna Yeates video?

Changes everything... Think all the CCTV needs looking at!!!
Modify message

Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2017, 08:14:40 AM »
I don't disagree with your exposure of the degree of tampering with the CCTV video clips at all, Nine. However, these iffy clips played no part in Vincent Tabak's conviction whatsoever, as he himself told the court that he strangled Joanna and dumped her body. The CCTV was mere window dressing.

Apart from VT'is own testimony, the only evidence needed was Greg Reardon's testimony to the strange movements in the flat, the iffy DNA evidence, and the pathologist's account of Joanna's injuries and his opinion about whether she could have been strangled inside 20 seconds or not. Nor were more than two days needed for the trial. All the rest was for show.

Well done for posting the CCTV video clip of Becky Watts's horrible killers buying their DIY body disposal kit, to show us how a "real" murder conviction is carried out! I am sure that this clip played its part in proving to the CPS and to the jury that these dreadful people did what they did to the man's step-sister - whom, of course, he knew well and lusted after. It was SO different from the Jo Yeates case, where the police wilfully ignored evidence that she was killed by someone she knew well, and focused on no fewer than two very improbable men whom she did not know well.

The evidence of CCTV-tampering that bugs you so much proves a conspiracy, and one that is more far-reaching than just the police's public manipulation of a suspect. So the iffy CCTV captions are all very valuable to us sceptics! IMO, however, it is the removal of the chroma component from the Ram pub video clips that is the biggest giveaway of all. It HAD to be done to prevent us from spotting that the blouse Joanna wore was quite a different top from the one found on her body. This suggests that she was killed much later than the court was told.

We already have Dr Delaney description of her Flower Patterned Pink Top Leonora, when she clearly is wearing a plain top at the Ram!

So that evidence in itself should be enough to show the TimeLine has changed and so had here movements...

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2017, 08:21:49 AM »
For my own interest, I have been comparing the Joanna Yeates case with the Becky Watts case for some time. Both crimes occurred in Bristol and were tried at Bristol Crown Court. Both defendants pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and were subsequently found guilty of murder. That is where the similarities end.

Becky's father wrote a book about the case (his name is Darren Galsworthy, but I cannot remember what the book is called). It was clear, from what he had to say, firstly, that Nathan Matthews did not like Becky (probably, he was jealous of her: his mother was Becky's stepmother, Becky had suffered from anorexia, and had received more attention from her stepmum than Nathan would have liked, IMO). 

Secondly, Nathan had a history of being sexually interested in underage girls. Even his co-defendant, Shauna, was underage at the time they first met. His stepdad was very unhappy about this, and banned these girls from the house until they were sixteen.

Yes, the police interviews with Nathan and Shauna are available on line. The CCTV of them buying rather "incriminating" goods is online too, and has a timestamp as well as a date stamp.

All in all, Nathan Matthews had a motive to kill Becky, and what we see him buying at B&Q (I think!) provides rather good evidence that he had committed the crime.

Vincent Tabak had no motive to kill Joanna Yeates, (at least, as far as we know), and there is nothing suspicious about a man buying beer and crisps in ASDA. 

And, of course, we have never been able to watch his police interviews.

Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2017, 04:38:32 PM »
The Bags she carries.... Now the one I noticed at bargain booze is a Black bag which looks like it has a skull or a white pattern thing on it.... So I went to see if I could see it on the Waitrose Video or Tesco's video ....


Then we go to Waitrose... Now on the pavement shes carrying her rucksack on her left should ....

 When she goes in Waitrose..... its circled and again one shoulder only with the Ruck sack....         

She walks past the fridge its still on her left shoulder .........                                                       

How does she suddenly have two straps visible from behind as if she has her rucksack on two shoulders.

Then it disappears again and is only on one shoulder.................                                                                         


 






Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2017, 04:42:47 PM »
And when she's in Tesco's her rucksack is on her right shoulder... ..

Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2017, 09:16:01 PM »
Why is it when channel 4 show the video of Joanna Yeates in Tesco it is at a different angle... Then the Avon and somerset one has been turned around???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhCLCAhDQzs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeW_Jwn43g0

Why did they move the cctv about... I said something before about the time stamp etc.....

The Channel a video is a more natural angel ...

Offline Leonora

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2017, 09:33:20 PM »
The Bags she carries.... Now the one I noticed at bargain booze is a Black bag which looks like it has a skull or a white pattern thing on it.... So I went to see if I could see it on the Waitrose Video or Tesco's video ....

Then we go to Waitrose... Now on the pavement shes carrying her rucksack on her left should ....

 When she goes in Waitrose..... its circled and again one shoulder only with the Ruck sack....         

She walks past the fridge its still on her left shoulder .........                                                       

How does she suddenly have two straps visible from behind as if she has her rucksack on two shoulders.

Then it disappears again and is only on one shoulder.................                                                                         
She could have changed the bags round; but what you are really suggesting is that these video clips were not all captured on the same occasion, aren't you? In that case, the police have been leading us all up Joanna's garden path, in a manner of speaking. Why would they fabricate this evidence, even while she was a missing person?

That would explain the discrepancy with the snow outside Waitrose, and the mystery of the contents of the black bag. The mystery is that there is no mystery - she just didn't carry that black bag on the evening in question. Maybe the pizza was also bought on an earlier occasion, and that is why it was never found?

Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2017, 09:48:17 PM »
No... I was wondering if she got home.... then went to tescos??

If the channel 4 report is correct.. shes near home when Rebecca Scott rings... Does she drop something off or turn around and then goes to Tescos?

I don't know .... Does she go to meet someone?

Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #11 on: April 28, 2017, 06:14:55 PM »
CCTV without Timestamps:.....

(1): Bargain Booze

(2): The Ram

(3): Waitrose

(4): CCTV of Joanna Yeates near home

(5): Asda

(6): Dr Vincent Tabak on Park Street


CCTV missing altogether:

(1): Clifton Suspension Bridge

(2): CCTV from Canygne Road that showed people and cars up and down all Friday and Saturday

(3): CCTV from A38

(4): CCTV Dr Vincent Tabak at the Railway station

(5): CCTV showing Dr Vincent Tabak sitting on Clifton Downs for 20 mins




Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #12 on: May 03, 2017, 06:31:37 PM »
From :

Quote
Video Recordings
Video recorded evidence is admissible in evidence in the same way as photographic or audio taped evidence is admissible.

Where the video evidence is obtained by the police and produced to the CPS, it is and it remains the responsibility of the police to ensure that the video evidence has been viewed and that any sensitive or personal information in relation to any person shown therein is edited. Personal or sensitive information includes, but is not limited to names, addresses, dates of birth and any other material that may identify any person shown therein, such as (in the case of CCTV) vehicle registration details of third part vehicles where that information is not relevant to the investigation. The police should take steps to pixilate or otherwise disguise and obscure those details prior to providing discs to the CPS. Where more than one copy of a disc is provided, each copy needs to be checked and edited prior to providing each disc to the CPS.

If the video is destroyed, the court may consider that the loss of the recording requires that the criminal proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process, but only where the loss is such that it means that the accused will not be able to have a fair trial - see Abuse of Process.

Video recorded evidence may be used in a number of different ways:

As the evidence in chief of a young witness, see Children as Victims and Witnesses
As direct evidence of the events which are captured on the video recording either to set the scene of an incident in general terms or to show what was done by a particular offender.
As a means of putting a context to the evidence of witnesses in the same way as a plan or photographs of the scene would be used. In this case the video recorded evidence is likely to have been taken after the incident that is the subject of the case.
To assist with identification of an offender.

In terms of proving the authenticity of the video recording, the Prosecution must be able to show that the video film produced in evidence is the original video recording or an authentic copy of the original and show that it has not been tampered with. In order to do so statements must be available which produce the video evidence as an exhibit and which cover its continuity and security, unless it is agreed by the Defence that this is not an issue. If the Police retain the original video film then a statement from the person who took the film (together with continuity statements) will be sufficient to produce the video recorded evidence as an exhibit. In respect of evidence obtained from automatic video recording systems e.g. shop security video systems a statement should be obtained from the person responsible for operating the video equipment. The statement should include a description of the system used and explain how it works. If the original film is not available or is not in a playable format then the prosecution must establish that the copy produced is an authentic copy of the original recording and if the original is not available that the police do not have possession of it.


When did the Defence question the validity and the authenticity of the CCTV video recordings??

Quote
In terms of proving the authenticity of the video recording, the Prosecution must be able to show that the video film produced in evidence is the original video recording or an authentic copy of the original and show that it has not been tampered with.

Well (IMO) the Tesco video is not in it's original state and format....

They image has been rotated and the Time Stamp doesn't look original...

Quote
Personal or sensitive information includes, but is not limited to names, addresses, dates of birth and any other material that may identify any person shown therein, such as (in the case of CCTV) vehicle registration details of third part vehicles where that information is not relevant to the investigation. The police should take steps to pixilate or otherwise disguise and obscure those details prior to providing discs to the CPS. Where more than one copy of a disc is provided, each copy needs to be checked and edited prior to providing each disc to the CPS.

Think this was meant for Car Registrations Not Time Stamps!!

Quote
In terms of proving the authenticity of the video recording, the Prosecution must be able to show that the video film produced in evidence is the original video recording or an authentic copy of the original and show that it has not been tampered with. In order to do so statements must be available which produce the video evidence as an exhibit and which cover its continuity and security, unless it is agreed by the Defence that this is not an issue.

So did the Defence decide that the CCTV authenticity wasn't an issue????

These CCTV recordings were paramount to the trial... why would the Defence not want these recordings verified and Time Stamped????




http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/

Offline Nine

Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #13 on: May 08, 2017, 11:58:47 AM »

I wonder what happened to these two individuals???

Quote
Meanwhile a new, grainy CCTV image emerged of a woman who could be Yeates on the night she disappeared. Two other figures were around 50 metres behind her but the suggestion by the tabloid newspaper that published the image taken from a pub CCTV system that the pair may be suspects is being played down by the police.

are they the people that CJ saw at the gate???

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/04/joanna-yeates-police-questions-investigation

Offline mrswah

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Total likes: 371
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: CCTV Images and Film
« Reply #14 on: May 08, 2017, 02:00:33 PM »
I wonder what happened to these two individuals???

are they the people that CJ saw at the gate???

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/04/joanna-yeates-police-questions-investigation

Who knows?
Did the police ever investigate who these people might have been? Could be entirely innocent, of course: they might have been walking behind Joanna, but they were not necessarily following her.

I do wonder whether there was ever any investigation into the identities of whom CJ claimed to see at the gate.