Author Topic: LM & Jodiís texts between 1634-1638 & LMís call to the Speaking Clock at 1654.  (Read 6461 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Apples

Nothing strange about it - other than the reason the data was deleted by LM, for it held incriminating evidence.

Like, for example, a text indicating an arranged meet between Luke and Jodi in Easthouses at that crucial timeframe between 1638 - 1720? Texts to his friends (eg, David High) urging them to meet him? Or even texts to his mother between 1730 and 1800 asking for her help as something terrible had happened (though I think Luke was too smart to send a message of this nature, even if he was in a state of panic or confusion)? Regardless, wouldnít the police have been able to retrieve all of Lukeís text messages between 2003 and 2004, from the operator/carrier he was using at the time? As for the phone logs, I canít see any significance attached to the outgoing/incoming phone register being deleted by Luke between 0031-0039 on 01.07.03 (Mr Morrisís testimony), especially as the police were with him then. Am I missing something? I once stumbled upon a forum that mentioned that Luke had tried to create an alibi by using his phone, but the poster couldnít remember what it was. Interesting. Any takers?

Btw, Parky41, you seem quite knowledgeable about this case . . . were you involved in it in some capacity? Or just been following it closely since it happened, as an armchair detective?

Offline Mr Apples

Actually, why didnít the police endeavour to retrieve those text exchanges between Luke and Jodi at 1634-1638? Even back then, in 2003, mobile phone operators retained this info for a year; Luke was arrested & charged on 14.04.04, so they still had at least 10 weeks to procure this info ó info that wouldíve severely bolstered the prosecutionís case.

Also surprising is the fact that police never found any incriminating dna on Lukeís phone; it wouldíve been a very tricky task to rid those chunky Ď03 phones of all blood traces, in the deep crevices of the buttons and such, would it not? And, of course, blood would inevitably have seeped through to the phoneís innards, into the electronic hardware? Police wouldíve surely dismantled the phone and forensically analysed it extensively for traces of blood? Strange that no incriminating dna was found, donít you think? Unless, of course, Luke had 2 mobile phones? Used the same SIM card in a different phone after the murder? Regardless, Iím surprised the police never extensively investigated his phone usage between 30.06.03 - 01.07.03, as it couldíve yielded more crucial circumstantial evidence for the prosecutionís case. Strange.

Offline faithlilly

Actually, why didnít the police endeavour to retrieve those text exchanges between Luke and Jodi at 1634-1638? Even back then, in 2003, mobile phone operators retained this info for a year; Luke was arrested & charged on 14.04.04, so they still had at least 10 weeks to procure this info ó info that wouldíve severely bolstered the prosecutionís case.

Also surprising is the fact that police never found any incriminating dna on Lukeís phone; it wouldíve been a very tricky task to rid those chunky Ď03 phones of all blood traces, in the deep crevices of the buttons and such, would it not? And, of course, blood would inevitably have seeped through to the phoneís innards, into the electronic hardware? Police wouldíve surely dismantled the phone and forensically analysed it extensively for traces of blood? Strange that no incriminating dna was found, donít you think? Unless, of course, Luke had 2 mobile phones? Used the same SIM card in a different phone after the murder? Regardless, Iím surprised the police never extensively investigated his phone usage between 30.06.03 - 01.07.03, as it couldíve yielded more crucial circumstantial evidence for the prosecutionís case. Strange.

Iíve made the very same points myself Mr Apples.

Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 ďBut whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.Ē

Letís count the months, shall we?

Offline rulesapply

Actually, why didnít the police endeavour to retrieve those text exchanges between Luke and Jodi at 1634-1638? Even back then, in 2003, mobile phone operators retained this info for a year; Luke was arrested & charged on 14.04.04, so they still had at least 10 weeks to procure this info ó info that wouldíve severely bolstered the prosecutionís case.

Also surprising is the fact that police never found any incriminating dna on Lukeís phone; it wouldíve been a very tricky task to rid those chunky Ď03 phones of all blood traces, in the deep crevices of the buttons and such, would it not? And, of course, blood would inevitably have seeped through to the phoneís innards, into the electronic hardware? Police wouldíve surely dismantled the phone and forensically analysed it extensively for traces of blood? Strange that no incriminating dna was found, donít you think? Unless, of course, Luke had 2 mobile phones? Used the same SIM card in a different phone after the murder? Regardless, Iím surprised the police never extensively investigated his phone usage between 30.06.03 - 01.07.03, as it couldíve yielded more crucial circumstantial evidence for the prosecutionís case. Strange.

I believe the police did everything in their power to retrieve all information. I believe the reason they couldn't was because everything was deliberately destroyed

Offline Bullseye

I believe the police did everything in their power to retrieve all information. I believe the reason they couldn't was because everything was deliberately destroyed

What makes you believe the police did all they could?

How do you mean everything was deliberately destroyed, can you elaborate? What was destroyed, by whom? How did this stop police getting the messages?

I think the messages might have been deleted from both Lukeís phone and Jodiís mums phone (Jodi put her sim in her mums phone to send Luke the messages that afternoon I believe so understand why she would delete this) from what I understand Luke does not remember deleting the messages, also read some stuff was deleted while Luke was in custody so could not be Luke, but why could the police not get the message from the phone service provider is what I donít understand? Iím sure these messages would shed so much light on the case. Meet you at 5.30 at end of street after tea, or meet you at top of path soon as possible. Or maybe so much more, we will never know

Offline Bullseye

I remember reading an article years ago that said some messages were recovered.


Found this that shows some messages were retrieved from the Sim but nothing to say why others had not been, like the ones between Jodi and Luke. I guess the techniques back then were all new, they got what they could.

But if there was a way to somehow not just delete but to remove messages from the sim also back then, that would be interesting.  I canít remember, anyone else?

From article

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/


Mr Morris also described how he had carried out more sophisticated tests on the phone's SIM card to try to recover deleted messages.

Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke".

In questioning, Mr Findlay and Mr Morris agreed that text messages on Jodi's mother's mobile had also been deleted and there was nothing unusual about people doing that.

Offline rulesapply

What makes you believe the police did all they could?

How do you mean everything was deliberately destroyed, can you elaborate? What was destroyed, by whom? How did this stop police getting the messages?

I think the messages might have been deleted from both Lukeís phone and Jodiís mums phone (Jodi put her sim in her mums phone to send Luke the messages that afternoon I believe so understand why she would delete this) from what I understand Luke does not remember deleting the messages, also read some stuff was deleted while Luke was in custody so could not be Luke, but why could the police not get the message from the phone service provider is what I donít understand? Iím sure these messages would shed so much light on the case. Meet you at 5.30 at end of street after tea, or meet you at top of path soon as possible. Or maybe so much more, we will never know

Because they were investigating the murder of a child.

Offline Bullseye

Because they were investigating the murder of a child.

And thatís your answer? They were investigating the murder of a young child so they should have done all they could but going by what has been said about the handling of the crime scene itís clear they didnít do everything they could, so makes you wonder what else they could have done. I donít know anything about what info the police could or could not have got at the time, it appears they received some message from lukes sim but not others. I wonder if the mobile phone company were contacted and if they were able to provide information back in 2003? But you said about stuff bring deliberately destroyed, can you clarify what you mean, by whom? Are you saying Luke somehow destroyed the messages between him and Jodi? They still should have got info from Jodiís sim, that couldnít have been deliberately destroyed or are you saying that was too?

Offline rulesapply

And thatís your answer? They were investigating the murder of a young child so they should have done all they could but going by what has been said about the handling of the crime scene itís clear they didnít do everything they could, so makes you wonder what else they could have done. I donít know anything about what info the police could or could not have got at the time, it appears they received some message from lukes sim but not others. I wonder if the mobile phone company were contacted and if they were able to provide information back in 2003? But you said about stuff bring deliberately destroyed, can you clarify what you mean, by whom? Are you saying Luke somehow destroyed the messages between him and Jodi? They still should have got info from Jodiís sim, that couldnít have been deliberately destroyed or are you saying that was too?

Yes, that's my answer. I don't have anything lengthy to write. I believe the police would have investigated as thoroughly as they could have given that a child had been murdered and mutilated. I have no idea why a tent wasn't erected immediately at the crime scene but iIF mistakes were made there, I still don't have reason to believe everything else they did was a mistake too. If the messages on Luke's phone were deleted then they could have been destroyed and most of them were. They were deliberately destroyed. No mystery there I don't think.

Offline Mr Apples

Just quickly chiming back in to this thread because I think I may have overlooked something previously. In an old Herald article (provided at the bottom), it was mentioned that the police had contacted Lukeís mobile phone operator (no exact date was mentioned when they contacted the operator) and as a result of this were able to ascertain that he had made a call to his mother at 0031 on 01.07.03 from his mobile phone. He had also made a call to his mother at 0039 that same morning, which the police said was the only call that was registered in Lukeís call logs when they first checked his phone on the morning of 01.07.03 at DPS. So, putting these two pieces of information together, the police concluded that LM had deleted his calls log between those two times, because the last 10 calls were missing when they checked his phone on 01.07.03. So what? Given that they (Derek Morris) had contacted LMís mobile phone operator (presumably on 01.07.03 as well), why didnít they reveal which numbers were deleted? Why did they only mention the one call that had been deleted? The phone operator surely had this info? Or was it a case of there were no other calls that the police thought were incriminating enough? Or perhaps Luke had made a string of phone calls late that night/early that morning but they never connected and thatís why the operator couldnít retrieve the info? Luke got lucky? I donít get it. Besides, LM was in police custody when those 2 calls were made early that morning? What masterplan could he devise from there? Unless, the policeís view was that LM was panicking because he was guilty and owed to this guilt he decided to delete everything Ďjust to be safeí? Who knows.  Also, while the police were liaising with the phone company, why didnít they ask them to retrieve all of LMís text messages for 30.06.03 & 01.07.03? Surely those wouldíve contained more incriminating evidence, wether they knew it at the time or not? Anyone got any ideas? Iím confused slightly by the policeís tactics here.

Also, can someone remind me .... how did the police ascertain that Jodi had texted Luke on 30.06.03 between 1634-1638? Who gave that evidence? Was it Luke himself? Backed up by Judith? My memoryís a bit fuzzy on this.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/












Offline Mr Apples

What SL typed on a message board circa 2012:

ĒLuke phoning the speaking clock - the mobile records show a large number of calls to the speaking clock. I have never claimed he made these calls from any particular place, as I simply don't know. However, the ones prior to 8.30am on schooldays would, presumably, have to be made from home, as he didn't leave for school until 8.30am. The ones between 4.15pm and 5pm are less certain, but, as his habit was to return from school and cook the dinner for his mum coming in, it seems likely that these were made from the house as well. There are a number of witnesses who attested to the fact that Luke cooked the dinner most nights, not just Corinne and Shane.Ē

Offline Mr Apples

I'll ask this yet again: how was is ascertained that Jodi texted Luke at 1634 and 1638 on 30.06.03 from Judith's phone (Jodi's phone was broken at the time)? These are very specific times. Did the police contact Judith's mobile phone operator for proof?  Or contact Luke's? Generally, phone companies in the UK store records of incoming calls, texts and other messages (but not the content of them) for a 12-month period only. They don't provide details of incoming calls or messages older than 12 months, and won't provide details of incoming calls unless they have a court order. However, it differs in some instances and all depends on the phone operator. Or did they guesstimate the times of 1634 and 1638 from information provided by Luke & Judith?

Would be very interested in your thoughts on this.

Offline Parky41

It was shown at the trial that LM deleted the data from his phone and no one else. Evidence heard from the people who carried out all checks on retrieving data and so forth. It is a myth, a blatant lie that the police or anyone else deleted LM's data. - Remember, these are the very enablers who tell you he was whisked off immediately, stripped and forensically examined within an hour - This has been proven beyond all doubt to be blatant lies from the enablers.

Also shown by the same means that data had been retrieved to show those texts (not contents) exchanged between LM and [Name removed]. Where does the changing sim come from? It was shown from [Name removed]'s mothers number and not her own?

Mr Apples - All attempts were made to retrieve data (as above). - The absolutely foolish notion, this constant application of some giant conspiracy to just get LM at any cost for no bloody reason. What a bloody hoot! Can people actually hear themselves at times?

Still those phone records remain hidden - The promise over years to put those calls to the speaking clock out there, still not happened. Why? It was certainly entered by DF that LM had indeed used this service at others times, quickly touched into base by the Crown - They went through the times of those calls which were consistent with times LM would have been out and about. They in no way showed they were all made from his home.

Forensics - You are told that everything was botched up, just not all those tests directly carried out with LM, his home and so forth, these you are told were executed to perfection. And not one sits up and thinks, wait a minute here? You are telling us they fitted LM up, they bent, manipulated, twisted every single thing to do so, just not anything directly pertaining to him? Have a word, give your head a good bloody shake for goodness sake!

The latest around those very forensics. You are told there was some "hidden folder" found, pertaining to "untested samples" In this ever expanding giant conspiracy nonsense. SL in her latest live, does she mention they are looking to test those claimed "hidden, untested samples?" No, what she says is, that they are trying to work out which samples they will ask for re-testing, which would be viable for doing so. And still the penny does not drop? These would surely be those claimed "hidden" and "untested" ones - There is only one conspiracy going on here, the one which is constantly set to pull the wool over! ------

What does it all matter? - The new narrative is that the police with the Jones family earlier in the evening of June the 30th, all sat together and conspired to "lure" LM to the path, to frame him together. So whilst you are soaking up and adding to the conspiracy, why even bother discussing any rational behind anything else?

Rather odd you mention those big push buttons on his phone Mr Apples yet do not mention make and model of any phone he had? Go to some lengths to show why he would have no DNA upon him but there you have it, nothing on that phone - Could not possibly have been him then? I can think of several reasons for there being no DNA, can you? What were the test results for it? Do you even know this?

Offline Nicholas

It was shown at the trial that LM deleted the data from his phone and no one else. Evidence heard from the people who carried out all checks on retrieving data and so forth. It is a myth, a blatant lie that the police or anyone else deleted LM's data. - Remember, these are the very enablers who tell you he was whisked off immediately, stripped and forensically examined within an hour - This has been proven beyond all doubt to be blatant lies from the enablers.

 8((()*/
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?Ē Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Chris_Halkides

Remember, these are the very enablers who tell you he was whisked off immediately, stripped and forensically examined within an hour - This has been proven beyond all doubt to be blatant lies from the enablers.
His hair and fingernails were examined.  The police also examined his shins, indicating that he partially or completely removed his trousers.  There are forensic reports concerning his clothing, indicating that they were taken.  Maybe you can be a bit more specific about what you claim is true and what you claim is a lie.