————
http://www.justjustice.org/cheshire.html
Text messages from Danielle Jones
The conviction of Danielle Jones’s uncle Stuart Campbell for her murder was secured with evidence that included neither a body, nor a murder weapon, nor a murder scene, and with an assumption of murder that is based on a disappearance that is part of a series of similar murders. His pleas of innocence throughout have been repeatedly ignored.
During their investigation, the police questioned Campbell for sixty hours – the full legal allowance – twice, and two months apart. The first occasion was just five days after the disappearance, and the second arrest occurred two months later in August 2001, just when his bail was running out. The police charged him with murder at the very point when otherwise they must let him go. Throughout this period Campbell pleaded his innocence.
At each arrest the police announced to the press that they had received “significant” information in the case, which was followed by a worthless search of marshland in the neighbourhood in the first case, and a worthless search of Stuart Campbell’s building site in the second. The second arrest occurred after two consecutive days of witnesses coming forward to claim that they had seen a blue van and a white man in his thirties connected with the disappearance, and just a day after the police had begun their search of his building site. Their behaviour shows that they did not get their alleged breakthroughs from their interrogation of Campbell or from any useful source, and that they charged him with murder simply because they were running out of time with him and wished to close the case.
Like Ian Huntley, Stuart Campbell was prosecuted for murder because he was the last person known to have had any contact with the missing girl, and, like Roy Whiting, he was charged because he had a van that resembled in colour a van that was seen by eyewitnesses at the time of her disappearance.
The evidence that the prosecution used against him consisted of two text messages that he had received from Danielle’s mobile phone at around the time of her disappearance. The prosecution was based on the presumption that Danielle did not send these texts and that therefore the recipient had, and that he had access to her mobile phone at the time of her disappearance. These messages were transmitted on the day of her disappearance (18th June 2001) and the day after (19th June 2001). The first message ran:
“HI-YA STU WOT YOU UP IM IN SO MUCH TROUBLE AT MOMENT. EVONE HATES ME EVEN YOU WOT THE HELL HAVE I DONE Y WONT YOU JUST TELL ME. TEXT BCK PLEASE. DAN XXX.”
The second, sent the day after her disappearance, ran:
“HI-YA STU. THANKS FOR BEING SO NICE, YOU ARE THE BEST UNCLE EVER TELL MUM I’M SO SORRY LUV YA LOADZ DAN XXX”
The first of these is written in stress and worry, the source of which is evident in the message, and the second is written flowingly and happily, the source of which is in the message. There is nothing in the wording or mood to suggest that anyone but Danielle herself wrote them. As far as this goes the texts look authentic.
In the first message there are two instances of three consecutive letters dropping out of the message. These occur in the letters “THE” in “AT THE MOMENT”, and “ERY” in “EVERYONE”. There is another instance of a drop-out in the case of a “TO”. These drop-outs may be due to a technical fault in her mobile phone, or perhaps to her stress, which would confirm the authenticity of the message. The other drop-outs confirm that the missing “THE” was due to this technical fault. The second message has no such errors.
The prosecution case was that Danielle would not have written “AT MOMENT” without the “THE”, and that she tended to write this phrase as “at the mo” instead. However, if she had dropped the “the” in her message, she would have needed to write the word “moment” in full in order to recover the sense in her communication. The prosecution also claimed that when she texted friends she spelt “What” as “WAT” instead of as “WOT”. There is no evidence in these texts that Danielle’s uncle had written them himself, but the prosecution argued that it was not likely that an abductor would bother to do it himself.
The prosecution case against her uncle was that because of these drop-outs, someone other than Danielle had written these messages, that this person must have been Campbell himself, and that he had done it to deflect suspicion from himself over the abduction. However this is not consistent with subsequent events, because these messages provided the prosecution with the only evidence that it had to connect him with the abduction. It is understood by the media that Campbell was charged on the strength of this evidence, but the pattern of events leading to the charge suggests otherwise.
The prosecution claimed that Danielle tended to text her friends with lower-case letters, but her phone defaulted on capital letters and these were used for these messages.
The case against Stuart Campbell looks like a case of convenience all the way through, while commonsense is left with the mystery of what had happened to Danielle while these texts were being sent. His conviction raises another mystery, which is why Stuart Campbell should have used these texts to connect himself to the abduction and then presented the evidence to everyone while pleading Not Guilty.
Another Murder Case Linked To Phone Hacking
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/another-murder-case-linked-to-illegal-phone-hacking-2308184.html
——-
Following Taken frm..
http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2011/07/notw-danielle-jones/
Bloggerheads
Tim Ireland on corruption in politics and the media
EXCLUSIVE: News of the World and the ‘hacking’ of Danielle Jones
Posted on July 14, 2011 by Tim Ireland
This entry was posted on
Thursday, July 14th, 2011 at
10:33 am and is filed
under Old Media, Rupert ‘The Evil One’ Murdoch, Tories! Tories! Tories!.
Yesterday, the Telegraph published a database of News of the World articles relating to phone/text messages, including the Dowler article I blogged about yesterday morning. Like me, they’ve been doing some research at the British Newspaper Library in Colindale, and I applaud their efforts, but their collection is short one vital article, which enters the public domain this morning for the first time since it was originally published by News of the World on July 15, 2001.
Before you read this article (in the scan/graphic below), I ask that you consider the following:
1. Rebekah Wade/Brooks and Andy Coulson have repeatedly sought to shelter themselves behind a denial that they were not aware of what was going on in their own newsroom. As so many of the smoking guns have been relatively minor/diary pieces in the back pages, this tactic has been largely successful, if a little pyrrhic (i.e. leaving Wade/Brooks and Coulson in a position where they are merely incompetent as far as anybody knows, and not corrupt).
2. Scotland Yard confirm that Danielle Jones’ name and/or other details are included in relevant evidence held by police. This is just one published source:
The investigation into the death of Essex teenager Danielle Jones could be re-examined after the inquiry into the voicemail hacking scandal found that mobile phones linked to her may have been targeted by a private investigator working for the News of the World…. (Chris Bryant) told the Commons yesterday that evidence suggesting Danielle’s phone and others linked to her were targeted by Mulcaire had been discovered by Operation Weeting, the inquiry into phone hacking. Police sources confirmed details of the phones had been found and said the information was being assessed for potential impact on the original murder investigation. – Independent, 7 July 2011
Which leads us neatly to…
3. The prosecution of the killer of Danielle Jones relied a great deal on evidence involving falsified text messages sent from Danielle’s phone by the murderer (context). If staff from News of the World are found to have compromised or undermined this evidence in any way, it could conceivably lead to a challenge against the relevant conviction.
Now, take a look at the scan of the original article (below), which (a) dominated Page 11 of the newspaper, (b) is clearly based on text messages sent to Danielle Jones’ phone, (c) makes that same point ab-so-lute-ly clear in a headline that you would have to blind – or on holiday – to miss, and (d) appears to actually express disappointment that police would not allow the release of further/outgoing messages!
It is also hard to see what ‘public interest’ defence exists for the publication of these texts. It appears to me to be an entirely emotional element that served no other purpose beyond sensationalising an already traumatic event.
We are expected to believe that editors were not aware of any of this, before or after publication. This is a claim I reject, especially now that I have seen this evidence. It is also highly unlikely that Essex Police failed to raise the issue of the sensitivity of text messages with editors, because their concerns about the importance of text messages as evidence are right there in the article approved for publication.
Rebekah Wade/Brooks and/or Andy Coulson cannot have been unaware of this published article, or its origins, or of the dangerous implications. If they were given no specific warning about the use and potential consequences of ‘hacking’ by Essex Police, then serious questions need to be asked about their competence.
