Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest > The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010.
Establishing Their Roles.....
[...]:
(33): Scott Fulton, Head of E-services for Avon and Somerset Police
Little is mentioned about Scott Fulton's role in this enquiry and I would have hoped that as the head of E sevices he would have given a statement at least with reagrds this case ...
--- Quote ---Proactive and Reactive Digital Communications
Scott Fulton
Scott is the Head of eServices for Avon and Somerset Police. He has over 15 years experience
managing digital services in the police service. His team’s work has been recognised and
awarded for best practice at a national level, receiving Home Offi ce and international recognition,
for example their in house development of TrackMyCrime.
--- End quote ---
https://www.lincs.police.uk/media/130036/pp56-police-communicators-course.pdf
--- Quote ---Scott Fulton, head of e-services for the force, said: "Social media is growing rapidly and has become a daily factor in most people's routine.
"On this inquiry alone we have had shares of the story from the force's Facebook page of 24,220. Additionally there have been over 63,000 views of the news updates on our website, a further 18,000 on the dedicated Jo page and over 70,000 views of the CCTV clips on our YouTube channel.
--- End quote ---
What involvement with the CCTV Footage did Scott Fulton have, as the head of e- services ??
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-murder-police-launch-facebook-plea-2175687.html
EDIT.....
--- Quote ---Head of Digital Services (Agile Product Manager)
Company Name6000+ Employee Company
Dates EmployedOct 2009 – Present Employment Duration7 yrs 8 mos
LocationBristol, United Kingdom
--- End quote ---
He seems like he's an independant ....
--- Quote ---n addition to my current day job, I was nominated to lead and advise on national social media strategy due to my recognised achievements in digital engagement and social media marketing.
--- End quote ---
https://www.linkedin.com/in/fultons/
I was under the impression that he actually worked and was a Policeman... but that isn't the case...
--- Quote ---Tracy Hayler MBA
Change Management and Strategic Development specialist
February 13, 2009, Tracy was senior to Scott but didn’t manage directly
Scott is an outstanding manager of internet services. He has led the development of the Avon and Somerset Constabulary, and Police Authority eServices, to high acclaim.
--- End quote ---
Leonora:
--- Quote from: Nine.. Again on May 09, 2017, 01:30:29 PM ---(26): Ray Palmer....
PUBLISHED: 00:00, Wed, Jan 5, 2011
Whilst looking for Ray Palmer I believe he may have done the FIBRE Analysis as it is part of his field..... I am not 100% sure if he did any analysis or because as he could have stopped working as Principal Forensic Scientist by 2010 as quoted below... The Article was published Wed, Jan 5, 2011... I wondered if they talked to him at the scene or had just asked his advice... not sure... Or was he at Canygne Road using the Laser equipment??
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/221187/Joanna-Yeates-Crucial-work-of-forensic-teams
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmsctech/610/610vw12.htm
Ray Palmer may have had a bigger role with this case, but I do not know if he was brought to trial... (I may be mistaken).. He wrote this PDF which I haven't managed to obtain.. but I'll post the link.. It may pertain to Joanna Yeates..
http://www.academia.edu/1074661/R._Palmer_G._Polwarth_2011._The_persistence_of_fibres_on_skin_in_an_outdoor_deposition_crime_scene_scenario._Science_and_Justice_10_May_2011_10.1016_j.scijus.2011.04.001_
Was Ray Palmer the Forensic Scientist who tested the black coat fibres???
Another publication states that the FFS were not involved with the Investigation at the bottom of their article..
http://swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-forensic-experts-continue-to-examine-canynge-road-properties-12949/
Again...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/289435/jos-body-was-missing-one-sock/
But then a find a spanner thrown in the works and go back to believing he had some connection to the case..
Jun 16, 2015 00:00 BST
http://newsroom.northumbria.ac.uk/pressreleases/hair-and-textiles-go-under-the-microscope-at-gathering-of-forensic-science-specialists-1194413
He does various talks.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKB6eElsH3U
--- End quote ---
On the first day of the trial, the court heard:
On being told that police could link him forensically to the body, Vincent Tabak had accused what Mr. Lickley called “the Forensic Science Service” of “forgery and taking bribes”.
I think the barrister was mistaken, and that it was LGC Forensics and their friends who got all the contracts on the Joana Yeates case. I am quite sure there were a lot of unsavoury deals going on. LGC were very successful at getting publicity out of the case, AND out of the release of the landlord. They got The Mail on their side. I am sure that Forensic Science Services Ltd was miffed.
I don't believe for one moment that Ray Palmer got a fee for fibre analysis. If he had done, his statement would have been read in court. As you know, the so-called fibre evidence was "admitted" - which I interpret to mean that it was in the same category as the bad character evidence (porn & prostitutes).
Call me stupid, but I never understood why you thought the police had access to VT's black coat BEFORE they arrested him. I always imagined that they impounded his black coat AFTER his arrest, together with his bicycle and laptop, satisfied themselves that it was just an ordinary woollen coat capable of shedding fibres, and on the second day of his arrest alleged that tests had shown that fibres from it had been found on Jo's body. There probably were indeed all sorts of ordinary fibres on Jo's body. In the unlikely event of William Clegg ever actually being called to defend VT properly, Ray Palmer, if presented with a suitable fee, would probably have been able to show that there was a match between some fibres, but that it was statistically so weak as to be inconclusive.
[...]:
--- Quote from: Leonora on May 11, 2017, 02:08:00 PM ---
Call me stupid, but I never understood why you thought the police had access to VT's black coat BEFORE they arrested him. I always imagined that they impounded his black coat AFTER his arrest, together with his bicycle and laptop, satisfied themselves that it was just an ordinary woollen coat capable of shedding fibres, and on the second day of his arrest alleged that tests had shown that fibres from it had been found on Jo's body. There probably were indeed all sorts of ordinary fibres on Jo's body. In the unlikely event of William Clegg ever actually being called to defend VT properly, Ray Palmer, if presented with a suitable fee, would probably have been able to show that there was a match between some fibres, but that it was statistically so weak as to be inconclusive.
--- End quote ---
Because of what Lyndsey Lennen said in her interview :....
--- Quote ---Joanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
--- End quote ---
So I'll take out the important bit..
--- Quote ---Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
--- End quote ---
She clearly has stated
(1): Clothing........... Must be Joanna Yeates
(2): Swabs......... DNA they had already collected
(3): Suspects Clothing Must be Dr Vincent Tabak
(4):All turned around in 48 hours
She has to be bragging about Dr Vincent Tabak as this interview is after his incarceration.....
Tuesday 17 January 2012 19.45 GMT
But she forgot we all ready new that they had tested against the national data base early on...
--- Quote ---The move will also be seen as controversial – especially as the Daily Mail understands that the sample has already been run through the national DNA database without finding a match.
--- End quote ---
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 16:12, 14 January 2011
If she is saying it was all tuned around in 48 hours that surely means they had all the items together .. testing them in the same 48 hour period....
So.... if they have discounted people in the National data base by the 14 January 2011...
How could they have Dr Vincent Tabak's CLOTHING to test before he was arrested on the 20th January 2011
Also I do remember one of Joanna Yeates friends being tested early on.... I'll see if I can find the article,,...
I've attached 2 images from a Press Reader Article.... Interestingly they didn't think it was worth doing a mass trawl of DNA test... They never even tested her work colleagues.... Did that mean the sample on her body being "PARTIAL was USELESS!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346996/Jo-Yeates-murder-Better-street-lighting-tracing-
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20110114/289132904583479
Leonora:
--- Quote from: Nine.. Again on May 11, 2017, 02:31:45 PM ---
Because of what Lyndsey Lennen said in her interview :....
So I'll take out the important bit..
She clearly has stated
(1): Clothing........... Must be Joanna Yeates
(2): Swabs......... DNA they had already collected
(3): Suspects Clothing Must be Dr Vincent Tabak
(4):All turned around in 48 hours
She has to be bragging about Dr Vincent Tabak as this interview is after his incarceration.....
Tuesday 17 January 2012 19.45 GMT
But she forgot we all ready new that they had tested against the national data base early on...
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 16:12, 14 January 2011
If she is saying it was all tuned around in 48 hours that surely means they had all the items together .. testing them in the same 48 hour period....
So.... if they have discounted people in the National data base by the 14 January 2011...
How could they have Dr Vincent Tabak's CLOTHING to test before he was arrested on the 20th January 2011
Also I do remember one of Joanna Yeates friends being tested early on.... I'll see if I can find the article,,...
I've attached 2 images from a Press Reader Article.... Interestingly they didn't think it was worth doing a mass trawl of DNA test... They never even tested her work colleagues.... Did that mean the sample on her body being "PARTIAL was USELESS!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346996/Jo-Yeates-murder-Better-street-lighting-tracing-
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20110114/289132904583479
--- End quote ---
Oh that's ridiculous. The court was told by DC Thomas UNDER OATH that she made Vincent Tabak a suspect during the interview at Schiphol - and that he was also reluctant to give a swab for DNA profiling at that time. Because DC Thomas was testifying as a witness, this admission carries infinitely more weight than Lindsay Lennen's off-the-cuff brag to The Gruniad - which in any case does not merit such deep critical scrutiny when it can be tested against other facts that we believe we know.
Since the official police line is that Vincent (1) had not been tested for DNA and (2) was not a suspect until 31 Dec 2010, Lindsay Lennen MUST be referring to Christopher Jefferies (if she means only one suspect), or CJ plus some of Joanna's friends, relations and others whose DNA might have been found in the flat (if she means suspects in the plural). It depends on where the apostrophe really belongs in article in The Gruniad.
It is one thing to take a swab for elimination purposes from people who "have nothing to hide" (as CJ evidently put it), but testing their clothing would have been a much bigger, more provocative task, as there would be no indication which of their clothes they might have been wearing. You cannot really see CJ letting them test his entire wardrobe on the off-chance, can you? Lindsey Lennen really wasn't thinking when she claimed that any testing of suspects' clothing was done within 48 hours, even though the police had one suspect we got to know about, and others whom we can infer from what they and CJ said, and what would have been normal.
I repeat: VT's black coat was mentioned as a source of fibres because the jury saw him wearing it in Asda, so it fitted the story the prosecution wanted to tell. This is not incompatible with their having tested it after arresting him, and the jury was fully entitled to believe that is what they did. But I do not believe they tested it for a moment - and neither should you.
You have correctly deduced that the police had already targeted VT as a person of interest well before Schiphol - but not as a publicly acknowledgeable suspect.
[...]:
--- Quote from: Leonora on May 11, 2017, 04:37:20 PM ---Oh that's ridiculous. The court was told by DC Thomas UNDER OATH that she made Vincent Tabak a suspect during the interview at Schiphol - and that he was also reluctant to give a swab for DNA profiling at that time. Because DC Thomas was testifying as a witness, this admission carries infinitely more weight than Lindsay Lennen's off-the-cuff brag to The Gruniad - which in any case does not merit such deep critical scrutiny when it can be tested against other facts that we believe we know.
Since the official police line is that Vincent (1) had not been tested for DNA and (2) was not a suspect until 31 Dec 2010, Lindsay Lennen MUST be referring to Christopher Jefferies (if she means only one suspect), or CJ plus some of Joanna's friends, relations and others whose DNA might have been found in the flat (if she means suspects in the plural). It depends on where the apostrophe really belongs in article in The Gruniad.
It is one thing to take a swab for elimination purposes from people who "have nothing to hide" (as CJ evidently put it), but testing their clothing would have been a much bigger, more provocative task, as there would be no indication which of their clothes they might have been wearing. You cannot really see CJ letting them test his entire wardrobe on the off-chance, can you? Lindsey Lennen really wasn't thinking when she claimed that any testing of suspects' clothing was done within 48 hours, even though the police had one suspect we got to know about, and others whom we can infer from what they and CJ said, and what would have been normal.
I repeat: VT's black coat was mentioned as a source of fibres because the jury saw him wearing it in Asda, so it fitted the story the prosecution wanted to tell. This is not incompatible with their having tested it after arresting him, and the jury was fully entitled to believe that is what they did. But I do not believe they tested it for a moment - and neither should you.
You have correctly deduced that the police had already targeted VT as a person of interest well before Schiphol - but not as a publicly acknowledgeable suspect.
--- End quote ---
Maybe you misunderstand my meaning.....
I'm fully aware that what Lyndsey Lennen was probably refering to, would be CJ... But she dosen't admit to this... she allows us to think she means Dr Vincent Tabak... As he's the one in prison for this crime...
But either way it makes no difference... it's not about the fibres of the clothing as far as I am concerned... Fibre analysis can easily be discounted...
It's her Admission that they had Joanna Yeates DNA sample available to test against in 48 hours...
They have made various videos and statements that claim this sample took weeks to produce because it was so small..
And that is their reason why they say they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak on the 20th January 2011...
The DNA sample they took from him in Holland on 31st December 2010 would be tested on their return... In turn means that Dr Vincent Tabak should have been arrested within days... long before they made the Appeal for the "Missing Sock"..
So there had to be planning in Dr Vincent Tabak's Arrest... The question is when ?? The CPS said late December 2010 they advised The Police ... So who is responsible for the planned arrest and incarceration of Dr Vincent Tabak....Without the evidence to arrest him??
If he was a match when they came back from Holland as they have claimed his DNA was upon Joanna Yeates... Why did they waste Public Money doing Appeal's for "Missing Socks"??
Why did they allow the PUBLIC to think that there was a KILLER on the Loose in Bristol... Why for at least 17 days di they continue a charade with the public by telling them they had no idea who had killed Joanna Yeates ..
How much MONEY and MAN POWER did Avon and Somerset Police use and spend continuing to advertise for help in finding Joanna Yeates KILLER when as "Lyndsey Lennen" says... they turned it all around in 48 hours... And at that point would have had Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA swob...!!
Even if nobody believes that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent... shouldn't there at least be a PUBLIC INQUIRY Into the misuse of PUBLIC funds that they obviously wasted if "Lyndsey Lennens" statement is TRUE!!!
Lyndsey Lennen's statement confirms they had no evidence whatsoever on Dr Vincent Tabak... From the day they got his DNA sample to the day the arrested him.....
But someone obviously wanted The Dutchman to take the fall (IMO)
Somewhere on this thread is the video link... I think it might be Judge Rinder... DCI Phil Jones states that they got the results from Joanna Yeates on the 20th January 2011 and arrested Dr Vincent Tabak on the 20th January 2011... anybody can see that doesn't make sense...
It would be interesting to see if these people had to stand up in court today and all their untruths could be uncovered for all to see...
And DCI Phil Jones should have his turn in the Box!!
Because again untruths have been told.....
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version