Would this data still exist if it was from 2007 ?
European countries have been more interested in privacy than the UK for some time imo. For example, while the UK was adding CCTV everywhere, Portugal in 2007 didn't allow it except on private property and, I think, motorways.
.
A phone call was a pretty tenuous link to an alleged abduction and murder anyway imo, it seems now as if the BKA can't use that call if ever it was of use anyway.
It's proving ownership that could be the difficulty.
It's proving ownership that could be the difficulty.
Imo the only data available now is that gathered by the PJ at the time.
"all calls made in Praia da Luz during 2, 3 and 4 May 2007 based on information furnished by the
three phone companies."
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MOBILE_PHONE_ANALYSIS.htm
They also obtained similar information covering a longer period for the phone records of the T9.
I believe that obstacle might have been overcome in this instance. We know about the number and the thirty minute call which interested the police.
We really don't know what other numbers also unchecked at the time which might be of as much interest to the investigation.
I believe that obstacle might have been overcome in this instance. We know about the number and the thirty minute call which interested the police.
We really don't know what other numbers also unchecked at the time which might be of as much interest to the investigation.
I believe that obstacle might have been overcome in this instance. We know about the number and the thirty minute call which interested the police.
We really don't know what other numbers also unchecked at the time which might be of as much interest to the investigation.
What makes you think they may have identified the owner of the phone?
What is Meta Data?
https://www.callrail.com/blog/what-is-call-metadata/
Thank You. But not of much use according to some.
It prove a phone call took place at the time and in the general area of interest.
In itself it doesn't prove ownership of either phone nor content of conversation.
I assume that many similar calls must have been made that evening, so police need to prove the relevance of this call.
Good ?{)(**
It prove a phone call took place at the time and in the general area of interest.
In itself it doesn't prove ownership of either phone nor content of conversation.
I assume that many similar calls must have been made that evening, so police need to prove the relevance of this call.
That's precisely what the sum of the circumstancial evidence will aim to do
It remains to be seen if that is achieved or even achievable.
What makes you think they may have identified the owner of the phone?
Call log places ‘Christian B’ at scene of the crime in Madeleine McCann case
By Ali Condon -14/06/2020
The latest suspect in the Madeleine McCann case has been linked to the Praia da Luz resort after police traced his call log.
Christian B’s phone details, when run through a British call database, place the suspect at the scene of the crime around the time of Maddie’s disappearance.
German federal police officers obtained the convicted sex offender’s 2007 phone number, which placed him in the area of the McCann’s resort when cross-referenced with Scotland Yard data.
British police had already obtained all data from phone masts around Praia da Luz, which included a phone call in the area at 7:32pm to the suspect’s phone.
The call lasted until 8:02pm, then Madeleine disappeared at some point between 9:10pm and 10pm that evening.
German prosecutor Hans Christian Wolters told The Mail On Sunday how the UK and German police forces worked together in order to link Christian B to the scene.
‘[The suspect’s] telephone number comes from our investigation, but British police have a data pool from 2007 from Praia da Luz of all mobile numbers, so we put our telephone number to the data of the British police — and it matched,’ he said.
‘So we think that our suspect was, on the day Madeleine was kidnapped in Praia da Luz, near the apartment.’
Mr Wolters claimed that the German police force had further evidence that linked the 43-year-old suspect to the crime, which will remain a secret from the public for now.
https://extra.ie/2020/06/14/news/world-news/call-log-suspect-madeleine-mccann
As already said - the question is not whether investigators have information - it is whether or not they will be allowed to use it.
They sounded very sure in June 2020, didn't they?
They are still sounding very sure in June 2022 - and why wouldn't they be.
One data set from one investigative team matching another data set from another independent investigative team sounds pretty conclusive to me.
Certainly another piece in the jigsaw of circumstantial evidence.
But The Sceptics still won't have it.
I don't care anymore. But then I don't have to.
Do any of you realise of how ridiculous you are?
Judgment of the Constitutional Court can cause thousands of criminal cases to fall and ilibar thousands of defendants
CNN United Kingdom
7 May,
At issue is a ruling by the Constitutional Court prohibiting police from accessing telephone data and internet communications of criminal suspects
Thousands of criminal prosecutions could fall and thousands of defendants could be cleared, the Daily News reports. According to the newspaper, a judgment of the Court of Justice prohibited operators from storing the metadata of telephone and internet communications that the police could use in the investigation of serious crimes.
Metadata lets you know, among others, the identity of the phone or computer user, the duration and destination of the flames, and the location.
This decision has retroactive effect to 2008, the date of the law which required the storage of that information for one year.
In view of this decision, fourteen years of criminal proceedings may be at stake, including crimes such as terrorism, kidnapping, organised crime, drug and arms trafficking, corruption and money laundering, where the suspect's incrimination has been obtained from the operators.
According to the newspaper, the use of metadata constitutes "evidence of much of the investigations" and the Ministry of Justice has already acknowledged that this decision may have "a significant impact on the investigation, detaining and prosecution of serious crimes".
https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/justica/tribunal-constitucional/acordao-do-tribunal-constitucional-pode-fazer-cair-milhares-de-processos-crime-e-ilibar-milhares-de-arguidos/20220507/627648ba0cf2ea367d3a6bbc
Will this affect a case from 2007..
They are still sounding very sure in June 2022 - and why wouldn't they be.
One data set from one investigative team matching another data set from another independent investigative team sounds pretty conclusive to me.
Certainly another piece in the jigsaw of circumstantial evidence.
Wolters is on record on tape on ch5 telling MWT he cannot place CB in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007 so how is that sure ?
Yes, the 'facts' of the phone being Brueckner's and of the call placing him outside 5A gradually became much less factual.
Will this affect a case from 2007..
One must applaud the chutzpa with which the advent of this "get out of jail free card" might allow the escape from justice for the vilest of criminals.
There are few modern criminal cases which don't rely on metadata for solution.
One must applaud the chutzpa with which the advent of this "get out of jail free card" might allow the escape from justice for the vilest of criminals.
There are few modern criminal cases which don't rely on metadata for solution.
Wolters is on record on tape on ch5 telling MWT he cannot place CB in Luz on the night of 3/05/2007 so how is that sure ?
Yes, the 'facts' of the phone being Brueckner's and of the call placing him outside 5A gradually became much less factual.
If CB told the BKA in 2013 he wasn't in Luz, and Wolters tells us now he can't place CB in Luz, then the two tie up imo. Strangely they questioned CB when he wasn't "the" prime suspect but now he is they won't.
IMO the silver lining in this particular case may be that in order for the defence to apply to have mobile phone metadata showing location/time on a specific day excluded from trial would be an admission that the suspect did, in fact, own that phone at the time. Otherwise there could be no invasion of privacy.
I think I now understand why BKA appealed for a physical witness to place the *680 number in Brueckner's possession at 7.32pm on 3/5/07. If the handset and/or SIM card was later found at another site in Germany which also belonged to or was related to Brueckner then it would add to the circumstantial evidence against him, especially if BKA retrieved photos or videos of Madeleine from the device. The metadata would not then be crucial for achieving a conviction.
I think this is a useful read (consisting of four pages) which clarifies much of the situation.
Snip
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
Government Note on the European Court of Justice Judgment
Communications data is used to piece together the activities of suspects, victims and vulnerable people: it proves and disproves alibis, it identifies links between potential criminals, it ties suspects and victims to a crime scene and helps locate vulnerable people at risk of imminent harm.
The recent judgment of the European Court of Justice which struck down the Data Retention Directive explicitly recognised the importance of data retention in preventing and detecting crime. This Bill is essential to ensuring that this crucial data is available to law enforcement in the future as it has been in the past and unless companies are required to retain that data, much of it would no longer be available.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/331106/DRIPgovernmentNoteEC[Name removed]udgment.pdf#:~:text=The%20recent%20judgment%20of%20the%20European%20Court%20of,of%20data%20retention%20in%20preventing%20and%20detecting%20crime.
No longer available (in maroon)
Jeez, that' pretty quick!
Is there something in there that we are not allowed to see (by certain persons)? Or is it only my computer?
The link doesn't work for me either. If the link below is copied and pasted into a new tab, however, the document comes up. Your attribution bias is, as usual imo, unfounded.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/331106/DRIPgovernmentNoteEC[Name removed]udgment.pdf
The link doesn't work for me either. If the link below is copied and pasted into a new tab, however, the document comes up. Your attribution bias is, as usual imo, unfounded.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/331106/DRIPgovernmentNoteEC[Name removed]udgment.pdf
Sadie looks at the evidence and draws her conclusions... That's what everyone does including you. I don't think you are in any position to accuse anyone of affirmation bias... I don't sre any difference between you and Sadie in that respect
Where's her evidence that someone's trying to stop people from reading that document?
Not interested in a discussion as you dont supply decent evidence for things you claim. I think Sadies theory is more believable than things you and other sceptics come up with
That some malevolent people spend their time altering the colour of folders, the content of videos and destroying internet links?
It'll be them Russians.... or more likely the Mysterons.
That some malevolent people spend their time altering the colour of folders, the content of videos and destroying internet links?
That is not part of sadies Theory as you must well know.
The three things that you mention are observations that all members should be aware of ... and for the sake of Justice complaining about, but everyone seems very laid back about this altering of facts. Few seem to complain, so I have to. I would prefer not to have to do it, but I can't stand lies and injustices standing.
I know that, and I never said it was. It was another member who mentioned your theory.
The reason no-one else mentions your 'altering of facts', imo, is that you're the only one who thinks it's happened.
Any chance we can now continue discussing the thread topic?