Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest > The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010.

CCTV Images and Film

<< < (3/11) > >>

[...]:
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?

[...]:
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



[...]:
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.
--- End quote ---


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.
--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

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.
--- End quote ---

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/

[...]:

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.
--- End quote ---

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

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

mrswah:

--- Quote from: Index on May 08, 2017, 11:58:47 AM ---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

--- End quote ---

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version