Author Topic: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003  (Read 311077 times)

1 Member and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis! Testing the actual phone for trace evidence would simply tell you the phone had been used by Luke, unless Jodie's blood was on it - however, the lack of such doesn't mean he didn't kill her. You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages. One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off so they have limited time to look through the data.

I can't see why the police would delete the messages and don't believe they did.

(1) Police officers are trained in policing, not forensic analysis. They are supposed to be trained in preserving crime scenes for forensic analysis, not actually carrying it out.

(2)
Quote
You don't need to be an expert in phone forensics (and they would have been few and far between in 2002), to check for text messages.

Jodi died mid 2003. Mobile phone experts had been around for 8 - 10 years by then. Tell everyone here exactly how you would have "check[ed] text messages, retrospectively, in 2003" - step by step, if you don't mind.

(3)
Quote
One thing forensics do like to do, is make sure the phone isn't switched off )

So the officer who "seized" Luke's phone, in the back of the police vehicle, while Luke's mum was trying to call him, didn't "switch it off" and then have to "switch it back on" 5 minutes later in order to get Luke to dial his mum's number so that the officer could call Luke's mum to tell her they were taking Luke to the police station (the only legal obligation police officers in Scotland had at the time)?






Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 583
I said trained in BASIC forensic methods!!

I’m sorry but your way off here and no officer will be trained basic anything when it takes more than the basics to make this investigation right.

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 583
Sandra was there any forensics that came back from the mobile phone itself? Was it tested?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23518
(1) Police officers are trained in policing, not forensic analysis. They are supposed to be trained in preserving crime scenes for forensic analysis, not actually carrying it out.

(2)
Jodi died mid 2003. Mobile phone experts had been around for 8 - 10 years by then. Tell everyone here exactly how you would have "check[ed] text messages, retrospectively, in 2003" - step by step, if you don't mind.

(3)
So the officer who "seized" Luke's phone, in the back of the police vehicle, while Luke's mum was trying to call him, didn't "switch it off" and then have to "switch it back on" 5 minutes later in order to get Luke to dial his mum's number so that the officer could call Luke's mum to tell her they were taking Luke to the police station (the only legal obligation police officers in Scotland had at the time)?

I didn't say they were trained in forensic analysis, I said they take part in basic forensic methods - securing a crime scene is part of that, collecting evidence is another BUT as far as mobile phones are concerned they most certainly do extract data or are you suggesting they don't in the face of all of the information available to the contrary? In 2003 I would imagine they looked at the information on the phone itself and just photographed it. In thus case when they realised the texts had been deleted, they passed it to an "expert" to try and recover it - however, given that mobile forensics had only been a field of study dating back to the late 1990's/early 2000's such experts would have been few!

You're asking me how I would have checked text messages in 2003? Seriously? Well, I would make sure my phone was switched on, navigate to 'text messages' and then read them. Much the same as I do now. Why? How do you check yours?

As for your last point, I have no idea what the police officer did with Luke's mobile phone, nor did I suggest I did. My post was general NOT specific!

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23518
I’m sorry but your way off here and no officer will be trained basic anything when it takes more than the basics to make this investigation right.

I'm not talking about testing the phone for DNA etc. I'm talking about the data!

Offline gordo30

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 583
Maybe you should read up on the BASICs these officers hould be schooled in then, they fucked up big time on this one .

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23518
Maybe you should read up on the BASICs these officers hould be schooled in then, they fucked up big time on this one .

So people keep saying and yet post no proof. Where is the proof that police deleted Luke's text messages?

Offline TheArmchairDetective

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
I see we are still debating this.  Let’s face it, we know what the truth is anyway.

- Mitchell done it
- Bryson seen him
- Nobody was ever identified or came forward to suggest it was someone else
- He is, and always has been, emotionless
- It was him
- Game over

Mr Stoneman was arrested and charged for all the right reasons.  His lack of emotion has been noted time and time again, as has his failure to show or prove to anyone he’s innocent.  His satanism and poems about death were not a teenage life stage as stated by Sandra in a YouTube comment due to his adult requests and interests.

The murder was satanic

Her eyelids and throat were mutilated

He shows no emotion and prefers to keep trophies of it.

This debate is pointless.

It was him.

I rest my case.

Have a nice day.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 06:57:AM by TheArmchairDetective »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Well, that'll be that, then. We can all rest easy because an anonymous poster decides what's fact and what isn't based on ... well, whatever!

Gordo asked
Quote
Sandra was there any forensics that came back from the mobile phone itself? Was it tested?

From memory, the phone wasn't tested for forensic material, it was only the data that was examined. I've had a mobile phone expert tell me there is no way, with the style of phone (push button keypad) that all forensic traces could be removed. The prosecution claimed Luke's calls to Jodi's mum's landline at 5.30 and again at 5.38 were to "cover his tracks," yet, by their own timings, Luke would still have been at the murder scene at 5.30pm - If Jodi was killed at 5.15pm, the stripping, tying and mutilation of her body had to take place thereafter. The claim has always been that the murderer became extremely calm, inflicting post mortem injuries with some deliberation, so not in any rush.

That being the case, if he then used his phone, it seems reasonable to assume the phone would harbour trace evidence of the murder - even the police themselves at the time said the murderer would have been heavily bloodstained.

But no other phones were ever tested for forensic traces either (again, from memory). We know Ferris and Dickie had phones on them that afternoon. We know the bike, by their own admission, was at the V point at 5.15pm but they couldn't say where they were. Wouldn't it have seemed obvious to check out their phones for forensic traces, if for no other reason than they couldn't remember where they were at such a critical time? Of course, by the time they figured out these two had lied about the time they were on the path, there would be no guarantee they still had the same phones anyway (and just about everyone connected to the investigation, except Luke, had at least two mobile numbers - who would ever have been able to tell which phones were in use that evening?)

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14407
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
I see we are still debating this.  Let’s face it, we know what the truth is anyway.

- Mitchell done it
- Bryson seen him
- Nobody was ever identified or came forward to suggest it was someone else
- He is, and always has been, emotionless
- It was him
- Game over

Mr Stoneman was arrested and charged for all the right reasons.  His lack of emotion has been noted time and time again, as has his failure to show or prove to anyone he’s innocent.  His satanism and poems about death were not a teenage life stage as stated by Sandra in a YouTube comment due to his adult requests and interests.

The murder was satanic

Her eyelids and throat were mutilated

He shows no emotion and prefers to keep trophies of it.

This debate is pointless.

It was him.

I rest my case.

Have a nice day.

dna evedence and forensics say otherwise your not much of a detective if you cant look those issues.

and brson did not cliam to have seen him see him she couldent identify him in court if you cliam to be a detective do some basic resarch.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 12:28:PM by nugnug »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 791
Caroline said:

Quote
Of course police are trained in basic forensic analysis!

Four and a half hours later, Caroline said:

Quote
I didn't say they were trained in forensic analysis, I said they take part in basic forensic methods

Does Caroline not read his/her own posts?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23518
dna evedence and forensics say otherwise your not much of a detective if you cant look those issues.

and brson did not cliam to have seen him see him she couldent identify him in court if you cliam to be a detective do some basic resarch.

What do the forensics say?

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 14407
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
What do the forensics say?

well theres several dna profiles none of the them belong to luke.

thers also the fact that luke had not washe or changed clothe that day.

theres also the fact that jodi back agianst her attacker ut luke dident have a mark on him.


Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23518
Caroline said:

Four and a half hours later, Caroline said:

Does Caroline not read his/her own posts?

Firstly Caroline didn't 'say', Caroline 'wrote' - however. funny you didn't highlight the word 'basic'. I think you know exactly what I meant - they have 'some' training in the basics of forensics. Playing aspects of my posts down doesn't make you right. I live about two miles from the police forensic training college - it's called Harpley Hall. They run various courses from the basics to fully qualified CSI.
https://www.college.police.uk/News/archive/2014jul/Pages/Police-forensics-inder-the-microscope.aspx

By the way, I see you have ignored the FACT that police do indeed extract data from mobile phones - such extraction is part of the forensic process albeit basic is function. Deeper analysis of the data would be done by a lab.

Also, why would I read my own posts? I'm not that self obsessed and how many men do you know called Caroline?

I have already stated that I don't know much about this case but I can already see that it attracts the same kind of zealots as the Bamber case, I was intending to ask you some questions to learn more but I don't think I'll bother because you're too emotionally involved to just present facts! If you want to hurl crap back and forth, I can do that all day but it won't further your mission to prove Luke is innocent. I had an open mind to learn more - now I just can't be arsed - I'm not here to feed your ego!
« Last Edit: July 13, 2019, 03:09:PM by Caroline »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23518
well theres several dna profiles none of the them belong to luke.

thers also the fact that luke had not washe or changed clothe that day.

theres also the fact that jodi back agianst her attacker ut luke dident have a mark on him.

DNA from where?

How is it known that he didn't change his clothes and wasn't there something about a parka?