Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

[butchersapron]

Also hang on...we don't know the storage capacity of the voice mail system either

 

[butchersapron]

Surrey Police at least had a legitimate reason to monitor those messages.

Not having a pop at them, just working through the possibilities.

 

[London_Calling]

If you were the killer, and you had a girl still alive in the boot, with a working mobile phone, what would you do after you killed her?

 

[butchersapron]

I bow to your vast experience

 

[London_Calling]

I've never worked in a mobile phone shop.

 

[butchersapron]

You just said that you'd kill a girl to save your skin btw.Ain't you a clever one?

 

[London_Calling]

And I thought I just posed a question. Nabbed again by Inspector Clouseau.

 

[butchersapron]

And I thought I just posed a question. Nabbed again by Inspector Clouseau.

About what to do after you killed her.

Just a question?

 

[London_Calling]

Unless Bellfield puts his hands up and in a convincing way, no one will ever know how they came to be accessed - and therefore deleted. Not worth speculating.

 

[butchersapron]

Unless Bellfield puts his hands up and in a convincing way, no one will ever know how they came to be accessed - and therefore deleted. Not worth speculating.

What?

 

[killer b]

gut feeling is that a vicious child killer would have more important things to worry about than checking her voicemails. i dunno though.

in case anyone missed it, here's nick davies' (rather defensive) take on what's happened

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/12/phone-hacking-milly-dowler?newsfeed=true

 

[Ted Striker]

Is there not a delicious irony, that the whole paper got hanged on a story that wasn't strictly true then?

 

[killer b]

yeah, i've been chuckling all day because of it - it makes everyone look shit. only note of caution is if anyone gets off the hook now as a result...

 

[butchersapron]

Nick Davies doing a Blair on C4 -all the evidence we had at that time led us to believe (they had WMDs ans were willing to use them within 15 mins) -pathetic.

 

[London_Calling]

If the Features Desk at NotW thought it was Mulcaire or friends, and The Guardian wasn't buying info from phone company employees .....

What is your frame of reference for investigative journalism in the UK?

 

[killer b]

perhaps 'if you aren't certain, don't say you're certain'.

 

[agricola]

Nick Davies doing a Blair on C4 -all the evidence we had at that time led us to believe (they had WMDs ans were willing to use them within 15 mins) -pathetic.

If you are going to use that business, then surely Davies is much more of a Gilligan here? After all, his story was broadly right, it was just one small detail that he couldnt prove.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't need to. Davies was wrong, embarrassingly so, militantly so-and the guardian's response has been pathetic.

 

[marty21]

Is there not a delicious irony, that the whole paper got hanged on a story that wasn't strictly true then?

yes

 

[London_Calling]

I don't need to. Davies was wrong, embarrassingly so, militantly so-and the guardian's response has been pathetic.

In effect, the NotW was even more wrong on that exact point because they believed their own people must have done it - had they known otherwise, the Murdoch's would surely have said so, probably as a fait acomplis at the Hoc Committee they attended - no doubt before insisting their bid for BSkyB be allowed and this witchhunt against them end.

Even worse for NotW, all this comes to light (now) from internal NotW emails. In other words, they could have handed Tom Watson and the whole show its own arse on a plate, missed it totally, closed NotW and lost BSkyB. Genius.

Huge facepalm for the Murdochs.

 

[butchersapron]

The NOTW didn't publish a story saying that they had done. The guardian did.

Did the NOTW ever say yes they did delete them?

 

[London_Calling]

The NOTW didn't publish a story saying that they had done. The guardian did.

Did the NOTW ever say yes they did delete them?

Do you think accepting the consequences - inc. the public humiliations, losing BSkyB, closing the NotW, etc - was other than an admission of responsibility? They lost all that for shit and giggles?

 

[butchersapron]

What?

 

[two sheds]

They could hardly say 'no we didn't delete the messages, we did all the illegal stuff with the hacking and bribes and blackmail and shit but we didn't delete the messages'.

 

[London_Calling]

What?

This your argument; Nick Davies is crap because

(a) he was unaware of information the Murdoch's themselves were not aware of (the emails that have recently come to light proving Mulcaire wasn't responsible for the tipping point deletions), and
(b) he believed what the NotW's own staff believed was the case (that they were responsible for the deletions)

In other words, you think Davies should have known what the Murdoch's themselves, and NotW, didn't know about their own practices.

Go and boil yer head.

 

[agricola]

I don't need to. Davies was wrong, embarrassingly so, militantly so-and the guardian's response has been pathetic.

Not really sure why you are so anti-Davies on this. He has possibly been wrong about one aspect (albeit the one that sparked this whole conflagration) of this story, but right on the rest of it; plus of course it is almost entirely down to him (and a very small number of others) that any of this has been exposed at all.

 

[butchersapron]

This your argument; Nick Davies is crap because

(a) he was unaware of information the Murdoch's themselves were not aware of (the emails that have recently come to light proving Mulcaire wasn't responsible for the tipping point deletions), and
(b) he believed what the NotW's own staff believed was the case (that they were responsible for the deletions)

In other words, you think Davies should have known what the Murdoch's themselves, and NotW, didn't know about their own practices.

Go and boil yer head.

No. My argument is that Nick Davies was wrong a few key points.One of them being the key point about about this case in the public image - the consistently wrong report you can read linked to above.

Neither of your points are really relevant to anything that i've posted.

 

[laptop]

Ermmm...

The Scotland Yard version was challenged by David Sherborne, representing the Dowlers. He pointed out that every single voicemail had been apparently deleted at once on 24 March 2002. This could not have been the result of automatic deletions of each message after 72 hours, he said, because the Dowlers had left a series of anxious messages on the phone in preceding days. Sherborne said someone else must have been accessing and deleting messages between 21 and 24 March. He pointed the finger at "a journalist at the NoW" who was also in possession of Milly's phone number and pin number: "The Surrey police know the identity of the journalist," he alleged.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/12/leveson-inquiry-milly-dowler-voicemail

So back to my first thought, when I'd read only the headline: this declaration is some kind of damage-limitation by (an element within) the Met. And, if the above is true, a false declaration.

 

[London_Calling]

No. My argument is that Nick Davies was wrong a few key points.One of them being the key point about about this case in the public image - the consistently wrong report you can read linked to above.

Say again, key points -specifics, please.

I don't want more and more fucking links, make your argument.

 

[butchersapron]

1) The key point - the one in the public image-they they deleted specific messages
2 )That he joined in with this pathetic guardian defence over the last two days

Again, tell me how your two points mean anything to anyone?