UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: C.Edwards on April 15, 2013, 09:47:01 PM
-
Just as something else to debate, here's a post I made on another forum with some research and info on the call logs.
I'm doing some research into deleted calls from the phones of the McCanns. If anyone has any knowledge of the exact make and model phone that either McCann was using, please let me know and then I can do some research into the call log memory and manipulation capabilities of those phones. I can't find record of the types of phone anywhere and it seems impossible that the PJ didn't record this.
As you know by now, I prefer to rummage through the files where possible instead of relying on the "generally accepted truth" as we know that leads to all sorts of unsubstantiated misinformation. There's a piece on mccannpjfiles.co.uk (deleted calls (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm)) which, at first glance looks like it might be quite factual but then when you read through it, it soon becomes fairly obvious it has a distinct "anti" slant on it (a reference to "whoosh clunked" gives that away). I'm not saying it's wholly inaccurate but I have seen references to this piece elsewhere as though it is entirely factual and there's one, fairly crucial, bit of it that I can't find supporting evidence for and I don't know if I'm missing something or whether it's genuinely wrong.
My starting point was the belief I had that call records and/or text messages had been deleted but not entirely cleanly, thus leading to suspicion by the PJ that something was not quite right. Something along the lines of Amaral's book where he says:
The PJ check Kate and Gerry's phone records. Kate did not make any phone calls between the 27th April and the 4th of May which arouses suspicions. And hasn't received any between 11:22 on the 2nd of May and 23:17 of the 3rd. Gerry's phone has no record of calls before the 4th at 00:15. But there is a record on Kate's phone of a phone call from her husband on the 3rd May at 23:17. The same record doesn't exist on Gerry's phone. So the records were deleted. Why?
So, what do we know... In the files, we have the call log from Gerry's Phone as entered by the PJ:
Gerry's calls (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_85.jpg) - As mentioned by Amaral, no calls made/received before 4th May.
Calls made by him on the left, calls received on the right.
For Kate, this is the call record:
Kate's calls (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_83.jpg) - The calls of interest are bottom right two. A received call from Gerry and the "wrong number" from the UK on the 2nd.
Vodafone records
Gerry SMS in (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_141.jpg)
Gerry Voice in (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_097.jpg)
Gerry Voice out (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_037.jpg)
I can't find in the files the same records as above for Kate. The only details available are on antenna activations which don't differentiate between calls or texts in or out.
Kate antenna activations (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_TEL/OA_13_TEL_Page_169.jpg)
Where's the mistake?
My belief was (don't know where I got it from now) that Gerry had made 4 calls to Kate on the night of the 3rd. He deleted all records, she deleted all but one (shows in log above). I think it all stems from the "deleted calls" article I linked to at the top of the page in which it states:
It appears that he had deleted details of the four calls he made to her that night and she deleted just three
when referring to Kate & Gerry's phone records. I cannot see anything other than the two calls made at 23:14 and 23:17 so why does that article refer to four calls? It appears to be blatantly wrong to me. If anyone can point out something I'm missing, that'd help in trying to sort out this anomaly.
I'm not aware of the official interviews making many references to phone usage, so all there is to go on (unfortunately, as they're hardly reliable) is press reports... there's an article in the Mirror (link below) from May 2008 in which the following is reported:
They claim Gerry was sent 10 texts from an unknown number 24 hours before Madeleine disappeared.
And detectives say four messages arrived from the same mystery number the day after she went missing, according to court documents.
But Gerry and wife Kate have dismissed the claims as "utter rubbish".
A source close to them said: "They have had their phone records available for inspection for months. But the police never asked for them. And now they have formally asked, they have been refused.
"Any suggestion of Gerry receiving 10 texts the day before Madeleine disappeared are utter rubbish.
"He hardly used his phone during the holiday and most of the friends with them didn't even have mobiles.
"The only time his phone rang was when work called and he explained he was on holiday. There are no mystery texts. Gerry has nothing to hide. It's yet more nonsense coming from Portugal."
Gerry "furious" about story (Mirror, 29th May 2008)
Gerry's Fury (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gerry-and-kate-mccanns-fury-after-310627)
Utter rubbish? Well he wasn't sent 10 texts on the 2nd, it was 14. Hardly makes it utter rubbish. The texts were, however, all from the messaging service of vodafone telling him there was a voicemail. Seems a lot of voicemails. Maybe a work problem? It is, however, fairly accurate to say he hardly used his phone - the records show only a handful of calls, so can't argue with that. There is, however, the question of the call that Graham McKenzie overheard (see below) that was obviously not made on his phone. Did he have another phone? Did he borrow one from another member of the T9? No idea as yet.
As to the "most of the friends with them didn't even have mobiles" statement. That's baloney. They all did. Mobile antenna activations for the group (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_13_TEL.htm)
A missing call with no record?
After reading an article in the Express on 16th September 2007, Graham McKenzie comes forward: Graham McKenzie (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm)
He reports being around the McCann apartment at approx 23:00 on 3rd May and hearing a distraught Gerry talking on a mobile phone to someone. There is no record of this call - not on Gerry's phone (unsurprisingly if the call log has been deleted) and more tellingly, not on the Vodafone records. As we know Gerry's mobile was fine at around 23:17 when he definitively called Kate, it seems odd that he apparently wasn't using his mobile at the time Graham McKenzie heard him talking. Maybe it was "on charge" until he used it that little bit later? Who knows. Whose phone did he use instead? Not Kate's as there's no call record on her phone either.
What's the problem with deleted calls/texts anyway?
There's the million dollar question. According to those that support the McCanns, there is NOTHING suspicious in deleting SMS messages and call log records. In fact some question if it's even possible to delete call log records. (As Kate McCann has illustrated, quite obviously it is possible to do so - and selectively - on her phone model at least). Many McCann supporters will state, as corroborating evidence, that their own phone often has to be cleared down or deleted as otherwise they are unable to receive texts or calls.
Firstly what mobile phone on the planet would stop incoming or outgoing calls even if the call log was "full"? Can you imagine the lawsuits if someone couldn't make or take a call because they hadn't got the memory available? The phone would still work, it just wouldn't record the details! I've had dozens of mobile phones and my recollection of all call logs was that, when full, it would overwrite the memory starting with the oldest. Text messages, I agree, can get a full inbox and require deleting. Still shows, to me, remarkable poise at a moment of extreme stress for people to stop and think of deleting records on their mobile phones just in case the memory was nearly full. As with other things McCann, it all seems to come down to what agenda you have personally as to whether you recognise these actions as entirely innocent or somewhat suspicious.
Finally, what does it prove? Nothing much. As with most things surrounding the case it's all just more indications of strange behaviour and slightly intangible evidence (no direct quotes) of lies about mobile usage. Raises plenty of questions, for sure, and I don't subscribe to the point of view of those who support the McCanns when they claim the deleting of call records is an entirely normal thing to be doing when your daughter has just gone missing.
-
The police scrutinised the phone records did they not? What was their view?
That there was cause to question the McCanns' actions in tampering with their phones, according to Amaral's book. Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
-
The police scrutinised the phone records did they not? What was their view?
That there was cause to question the McCanns' actions in tampering with their phones, according to Amaral's book. Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
So did the police question the McCanns' actions re: their phones or not? What were their conclusions? Anything in the Files about it?
Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
-
The police scrutinised the phone records did they not? What was their view?
That there was cause to question the McCanns' actions in tampering with their phones, according to Amaral's book. Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
Amaral's book is simply a thesis according to Amaral himself. It is not a record of the work of the police most of which was carried out after Amaral disgraced himself and was booted off the case.
What was the actual view as recorded in the official police files.
For a response to the second part of your question see my next post.
-
The police scrutinised the phone records did they not? What was their view?
That there was cause to question the McCanns' actions in tampering with their phones, according to Amaral's book. Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
So did the police question the McCanns' actions re: their phones or not? What were their conclusions? Anything in the Files about it?
Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
I see. Reluctant to answer another of my questions CEdwards. I wonder why?
I find the McCanns behaviour well within the bounds of normal behaviour considering the circumstances. I don't consider deleting text messages to make space for new messages to be "altering records". However, perhaps you can point me at the police conclusions concerning this, as I'm pretty sure they spent a very long time analysing the McCanns phone records.
Martha... you've asked a question I cannot answer as I am not privy, surprisingly enough, to the innermost workings of the police investigation. Amaral is on record in an interview as saying "what is significant is that the messages were deleted". It's quite clear; he thought it significant.
Do you not see the irony in your snide comment about me not answering your question when I had to ask you twice after you ignored me the first time? Those who live in glass houses...
You make a supposition: that the McCanns were deleting texts to make room for new messages. You don't know that's what they were doing. Indeed as Kate herself has referred to Gerry hardly ever sending text messages, how plausible is it that his inbox was full? Why delete call log records? Do you think that this affects how the phone works? Let me tell you - it doesn't. People delete call log records when they want to stop someone finding out who they've been calling/receiving calls from.
If you actually take the time to read the post I made, you can see all the analysis you care to read about the McCanns and their phone calls.
It is entirely reasonable to believe that the McCanns, as affluent professionals, had up to date mobile phones. inbox issues, particularly for self-confessed light users, are not a problem in up to date phones, no matter how many times you chant the relevant passage from the instruction manual.
-
The police scrutinised the phone records did they not? What was their view?
That there was cause to question the McCanns' actions in tampering with their phones, according to Amaral's book. Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
Amaral's book is simply a thesis according to Amaral himself. It is not a record of the work of the police most of which was carried out after Amaral disgraced himself and was booted off the case.
What was the actual view as recorded in the official police files.
For a response to the second part of your question see my next post.
So what? Kate McCann's book is just a thesis according to Kate McCann herself. It's not necessarily a record of the truth and it comes after the parents disgraced themselves with their (lack of) parenting skills. It's hardly a record of her supposedly precious daughter as she spends less time talking about Madeleine (and the less said about p. 129 the better) and more about her sex issues with Gerry and me me me me me.
As I pointed out to your colleague Martha, the links are all in my initial post. Feel free to educate yourself by actually reading a few of them.
-
Do you find it perfectly normal behaviour for a couple in their position to spend time altering the records on their phones?
The simple answer to your question is YES, I find it perfectly normal.
To explain.
Those looking at this issue do so with clouded eyes.
They are used to telephones which hold thousands of numbers, thousands of call records and thousands of messages.
Things were simply not the same back in 2007.
For a start, unless you were a geek you tended to keep your phone at least two years and secondly unless you were a geek your phone had nothing like the memory that we see on the most basic non smart phones today.
I still have the phone which I bought in October 2005 and which I was still using till late 2007.
It is a Samsung A300. While it was by no means state of the art at the time, it was a very well respected phone and I know that at least two other colleagues (all of us at senior managerial level) had the same phone around that time).
I have charged it up to refresh my memory.
The memory capacity was/is as follows:
It will accept 100 phone numbers.
It stores
the 10 latest dialled calls,
the 10 latest received calls,
the ten latest missed calls and
the ten latest messages.
With regard to the messages, you cannot read a new message if you already have 10 in memory, therefore you have to delete messages to receive new ones.
I have no idea if this was the make of phone that the McCanns were using but I do know it was an extremely popular model and was similar in specification to a large number of phones around at the time.
Now with those figures in mind, I suggest people think seriously about the anti-McCann claims that it is somehow bizarre that the McCanns were deleting messages and phone calls.
I suggest people think seriously about how many people they would be phoning and even more importantly how many people would be phoning them.
Ten messages could be received in a matter of minutes or even less. Even if the limit was 15 or 20 as it was on many other phones how could they keep themselves informed without constant deleting of old messages?
I can recall how often I used to delete old messages and numbers and I did not have a major world news story to deal with.
100 numbers is nothing when you are dealing with dozens of relatives contacting you, media, police, taxis, Mark Warner people, travel agents, etc, etc. I have just looked at my phone and in my relatively calm circumstances I have 176 entries in the phone book. I think at least half of those have two numbers and many have three separate numbers (home, mobile and business). That makes at least 250 in total, possibly a good few more. And as I say. I live a quiet life.
If anyone really cannot see that it was absolutely necessary using mobiles of that vintage (whichever phone they actually had) to delete calls and messages and numbers as the tragedy took over their lives then you really are burying your head in the sand.
Just to add I changed provider in November 2007 and got hold of another Samsung, this time the D900. It was probably in its way the best phone I have ever had. It did everything I needed at the time, it was best phone in almost all reviews for 2006 and many colleagues recommended it.
That pretty much state of the art phone in early 2007 held just 30 dialled numbers, 30 received numbers and 30 missed calls and just 200 messages before you had to delete some from memory to get new ones to load.
So yes I really can see why they would be deleting on a regular basis.
-
I won't quote your entire thread gilet ( for sake of space )
It's makes sense to me though
... added to which, I cannot imagine that if the McCanns were 'guilty' in any way, they would be stupid enough to have incriminating messages on their phones at any time ... at all
-
A good post Gilet. Lots of people used to delete texts after they read them back in those days and as a habit formed they still do so even today with phones with much larger memory capacity. I don't see any suspicion in what he did, he probably wanted to ensure the memory wasn't clogged up. Regardless, deleted texts can be recovered by the service provider in most cases.
-
It's not that good a post that Gilet has made - in fact it's close to propaganda. Gilet's example phone - the Samsung A300 was released in 2001... is that representative of the sort of phone two doctors would have in 2007? Hardly. Was it even on sale 4 years later as Gilet claims to have bought it in 2005? I very much doubt it, but that's not the point here.
The clear implication is that mobile phones today are super great and snazzy and have loads of memory whilst back in 2006/2007 we were struggling along with bricks connected with pieces of string. This is inaccurate at best and downright misleading at worst. It's certainly disingenuous.
Firstly, just to state for the record and not be as presumptious as Gilet... I have no idea what make/model of phone each of the McCanns had. If we knew, we could knock this on the head once and for all. If the PJ recorded this information, they do not appear to have released it anywhere. I am only attempting to make reasonable assumptions and inferences.
I agree that it is possible the McCanns each may have been nearing the end of a two year contract on their mobile phones. It would, again, be a huge coincidence but it's possible. It's equally possible, wouldn't you agree, that they had both just started new mobile phone contracts and had up-to-date phones? Therefore let's pitch our technology milestone in the middle in 2006 as a reasonable halfway house.
So in contrast to the "Gilet way" I'll not refer to the type of mobile I had, rather refer to the list of top-selling phones around the middle of the year: http://www.mobilephones.org.uk/the-top-selling-mobile-handsets-in-august-2006/ (http://www.mobilephones.org.uk/the-top-selling-mobile-handsets-in-august-2006/). What can we reasonably expect medical professionals to have? Hard to say. Some may be luddites and have the lowest spec phone out there. Others may be gadget freaks and have the top of the range model. With Kate's mentioning of labels and clothing brands, she appears to be brand aware and I think it's reasonable to assume she'd have a relatively decent phone. Not top of the range, not bottom of the range. Gerry strikes me as the sort of person who'd like technology and would have a higher-spec phone, but that's pure supposition on my behalf, so we'll put him in mid-range too.
Here's the list:
1. Sony Ericsson K790i/K800i
2. Sony Ericsson W810i
3. Sony Ericsson K750i/D750i/W800i
4. Nokia 6230/6230i
5. Nokia 6280/6282
6. Motorola RaZr V3/ V3i /V3c
7. Nokia N70
8. HP Ipaq 2100/2400/2700
9. Nokia N73
10. Nokia 5140/5140i
Now some specs (all taken from http://www.gsmarena.com)
1. Sony K790
Memory Card slot Memory Stick Micro (M2), up to 2 GB
Phonebook 1000 x 20 fields, Photo call
Call records 30 received, dialed and missed calls
Internal 64 MB
2. Sony w810
Memory Card slot Memory Stick Duo Pro, up to 4 GB, 512 MB included
Phonebook 1000 x 24 fields, Photo call
Call records 30 received, dialed and missed calls
Internal 20 MB
3. Sony k750
Memory Card slot Memory Stick Duo Pro, up to 2 GB, 64 MB included
Phonebook 500 x 20 fields, Photo call
Call records 30 received, dialed and missed calls
Internal 38 MB
4. Nokia 6230
Memory Card slot MMC, 32 MB included
Phonebook 1000 entries, Photo call
Call records 20 dialed, 20 received, 20 missed calls
Internal 6 MB
- 150 short messages
- 16 voice commands, 25 voice dial slots
- 3 min voice memo
5. Nokia 6280
Memory Card slot miniSD, 64 MB included
Phonebook 500 x 16 fields, Photocall
Call records 20 dialed, 20 received, 20 missed calls
Internal 6 MB
6. Motorola Razr v3
Memory Card slot No
Phonebook 1000 entries, Photo call
Call records 10 dialed, 10 received, 10 missed calls
Internal 5.5 MB
7. Nokia N70
Memory Card slot RS-DV-MMC, 64 MB included
Internal 22 MB
8. HP Ipaq - no data shown
9. Nokia N73
Memory Card slot miniSD
Internal 42 MB storage, 64 MB RAM
10. Nokia 5140
Memory Card slot No
Phonebook 500
Call records 20 dialed, 10 received, 10 missed calls
- Editable message templates
- Up to 150 SMS messages
- Up to 50 MMS messages
- Max 64 kB Java apps.
Fortunately due to the way the phones are described at GSMarena we can see that even the low-end budget phone (the 5140) has copious memory. 500 number phonebook, 20 dialled, 10 received, 10 missed number storage on the call log and up to 150 SMS messages storable on the internal memory.
Starting to make Gilet's post look at bit questionable now? I'll go on. We *KNOW* from the document in my initial post that Gerry's phone, at least, can store 17 calls as that many were retrieved, so he has a reasonably capable phone even by 2006 standards. Many of you on here are treating it as perfectly normal that he's deleted text messages - we'll get on to that in a minute. He deleted call log records. Who here, be honest, has ever deleted call log records from their phone? I haven't. Who here can conceive of having the mental faculties to delete call log records at a time when your daughter has gone missing? I can't. How do we know this has happened? Gerry's network call records show two calls to kate on the night of the 3rd May. Those call logs have been deleted from his phone by the next day. Why would Gerry even have time to think of doing such a thing?
By the way, a full call log doesn't exist. It's a "last x numbers stored" situation with an overwritten list of the most recent calls. Nothing in the phone operation would be impeded by Gerry leaving his call log untouched. What reason can there be to delete call log records but to try and hide something?
Kate's phone record shows one of the calls from Gerry but not the other. She has selectively deleted call records, not even done a full "memory wipe". Again, why would you do this in the middle of a crisis?
On to text messages. Again, the low end phones have enough capacity for 150 SMS messages. Gerry was allegedly "sources close to the McCanns say..." a heavy user and yet you think it's reasonable to stop in the middle of a crisis and delete text messages "just in case" the memory is full? This was not a "bored sitting by the side of the pool" exercise, it was done within a day (hours?) of their child going missing. Remarkable, amazing coolness to stop and consider that the phone memory may be full - even though you don't use the phone much - and also that it's high time for a spring-clean of those pesky old call log records from, ooh, the day before perhaps?
The Samsung D900 was a top seller around that time. It had a pretty good memory. As all of these phones have a "memory full" alert and as you're assuming the McCanns would have to be aware of the memory limitation IF they were "making space" for the deluge of text messages about to arrive then they would also have had to have been aware of the "memory full" indicator that would have alerted them to this condition. They don't then lose the text message, it simply queues on the mobile system until it can be delivered.
This all makes something of a mockery of the series of excuses you have come out with. EVEN IF the McCanns were "deleting to make space" then who, in a month of blue moons, has the presence of mind to do such a thing when they can't even remember which side of the road they were standing on and which door they came into the apartment through in the middle of a crisis? I can make a suggestion... people who want to hide information from the authorities would do such a thing.
-
The expectation of receiving loads of text messages is a complete red herring. Technically the phone does not stop working even if the memory is full, it alerts you, you delete messages, the waiting message come in. Your whole scenario for excusing their actions is based on a logical misunderstanding of how phones and messaging centres work. I hardly ever delete messages, have a phone that is > 3 years old and I have thousands and thousands of text messages on it. It would never occur to me to delete messages "just in case" lots were about to arrive and I would think that is the same for pretty much ANYONE except, of course, those who have a vested interest in making such actions (at any time) understandable, let alone at a time of emergency.
"Oh my god, our daughter's been abducted! Let's get out there and look for her!" "No, no... just hold on, need to just free up some memory here in case the phone gets busy."
You're being deliberately provocative about the police records and my knowledge thereof. You've also demonstrated once again that you've not bothered looking at the information in the first post as it shows all the details on the calls you're asking about. How do I *KNOW* from pure evidence what line of questioning the police intended to take given half a chance? Amaral referred to the deletion being "significant" so, yes, I fully believe they intended to ask more questions given half a chance. For all I know then maybe they have got more information that hasn't been released. You know no better than I, so to attempt to ridicule that possibility is making you look a bit desperate.
I'm not even wasting breath on the bit about irony of question answering! You have a strange way of looking at things is all I'll say!
-
This is ridiculous. I have never heard such a song and dance about absolutely nothing. I delete almost everything in my mail box as it happens, after I have read it, because there is nothing more boring than having to wade through and delete a pile of pointless messages later.
I don't have a mobile phone but will be getting one soon, and will do exactly the same on that.
And all of these messages can be recovered if Law Enforcement want to. Even I know that.
-
I think mobile phones are probably the same as computers, just because you can't see something and think it's deleted it's probably still there, thats why a lot of criminal get caught out because all they've done is put their activity somewhere else and the powers that be have the programmes to retrieve the information. The police (and the mobile phone companies) will know whats occuring because they have to charge the sender for whats being sent ie message, picture and/or phone call.
-
I delete my texts and calling history every day, unless it is an important text, usually just random nonsense from people.
-
The expectation of receiving loads of text messages is a complete red herring. Technically the phone does not stop working even if the memory is full, it alerts you, you delete messages, the waiting message come in. Your whole scenario for excusing their actions is based on a logical misunderstanding of how phones and messaging centres work. I hardly ever delete messages, have a phone that is > 3 years old and I have thousands and thousands of text messages on it. It would never occur to me to delete messages "just in case" lots were about to arrive and I would think that is the same for pretty much ANYONE except, of course, those who have a vested interest in making such actions (at any time) understandable, let alone at a time of emergency.
"Oh my god, our daughter's been abducted! Let's get out there and look for her!" "No, no... just hold on, need to just free up some memory here in case the phone gets busy."
You're being deliberately provocative about the police records and my knowledge thereof. You've also demonstrated once again that you've not bothered looking at the information in the first post as it shows all the details on the calls you're asking about. How do I *KNOW* from pure evidence what line of questioning the police intended to take given half a chance? Amaral referred to the deletion being "significant" so, yes, I fully believe they intended to ask more questions given half a chance. For all I know then maybe they have got more information that hasn't been released. You know no better than I, so to attempt to ridicule that possibility is making you look a bit desperate.
I'm not even wasting breath on the bit about irony of question answering! You have a strange way of looking at things is all I'll say!
I'm not sure that I follow your argument.
My old phone (different make, but similar to what Gilet described, and same era) only held 10 SMS messages. It was a pain as I was travelling quite a lot and my SMS allotment would be constantly clogged by roaming notifications and frequent reminders that I hadn't listened to a voice message.
-
I wonder in what circumstances (if any) the OP would consider it not suspicious to delete text messages from one's phone?
a) you keep ignoring the call log records
b) hmm, maybe not in the first few hours of your daughter going missing, perhaps?
-
I expect he thinks Kate and Gerry were discussing what to do with Madeleine's body, like people do in the middle of a Police Investigation.
-
I wonder in what circumstances (if any) the OP would consider it not suspicious to delete text messages from one's phone?
a) you keep ignoring the call log records
What do you mean by this? Incidentally, can you point me in the direction of the raw data showing the deleted call history? I have seen something which lists 4 calls to Kate, and their duration (very short, I think the longest is 20 seconds) but it is not clear from the list that these are deleted calls. This is not a trick question, I just would like to look at the "damning" evidence for myself.
b) hmm, maybe not in the first few hours of your daughter going missing, perhaps?
Why not? What would act as a trigger for you to decidde to delete your phone messages? You've made it clear that it certainly wouldn't be the expectation of receiving a large quantity of new messages, so what then?
You clearly think it is highly suspicious that Gerry deleted his call history of calls made to his wife on the night of the 3rd May. Can you suggest any reason why he would want to try and hide the fact that he called his wife from the authorities? I can't think of one (as far as I'm concerned he was probably out and about searching, calling back to Kate to see if Madeleine had been found) but then you're so much cleverer than I am so are bound to have a perfectly plausible theory for this nefarious act. 8((()*/
I can only believe you're being deliberately obtuse. I mention the call records as you were flippantly commenting about it not being suspicious to delete text messages - hence "you keep ignoring the call log records". You do understand the difference, right?
All the data relating to the calls is in my initial post. Is that the 4th or 3rd time I've mentioned that in this thread now? It shows the difference between Kate's retrieved calls from her phone memory and the ones actually made/received using the network provider's data.
You still can't see that anyone supposedly in grief and panic in the first few hours after the disappearance of their daughter wouldn't normally be worrying about deleting call records and/or text messages? Amazing.
I have NO idea why Gerry was hiding details of calls to his wife and calls to what I think turned out to be the hospital. I only know it appears he did it. I also have no idea why Kate deleted many more calls/text and yest left a couple. Maybe to try and make it look less suspicious? Who knows. There's also the issue of the "missing call record" when Gerry was seen/heard on a phone and there's no record of the call on the network logs. He was using someone else's phone and as he subsequently made a call to his wife, I find that odd as his was working perfectly normally. Taking all these things together I agree with the PJ finding it significant and I'm sure they intended doing a lot more digging.
I find you and your associates' dismissal of this as utterly incredible. If any of this kind of evidence existed against Amaral for one of your witch hunts you'd be burning effigies of him by now.
-
Some phones do automatically delete the oldest messages if the inbox or sent box gets full 8((()*/
-
Some phones do automatically delete the oldest messages if the inbox or sent box gets full 8((()*/
Thanks for the information. Trouble is it's got nothing whatsoever to do with what happened here.
-
I'm genuinely worn out here. It's like debating with a 6 year old who's being stubborn for the sake of it.
There is no magical document. You have to use your powers of reasoning and deduction. I appreciate this could be hard for you. In the initial post you will see that I've already dissed (some of) that blog post so you don't need to do the same again in the hope that it scores you a point. You'll also see a list of retrieved calls from Kate's phone, which I've handily labelled "Kate's calls" to try and avoid confusion, but it appears I overestimated some of my audience.
A little further down you'll find "Kate antenna activations" and this is what the network shows was happening with Kate's phone. Now here's the tricky part... compare and contrast the two records and then if you are unable to understand where the deleted call log point comes from, feel free to print out the sheet and make a paper hat out of it or something. Then you can maybe ask a responsible adult to explain it to you with diagrams or finger puppets?
Yes, I'm being patronising and sarcastic right back at you, Manuel (as I've now come to think of you) as you are unable to post a single response without lacing it with the same sort of crap. What goes round comes round and all that.
You just keep right on believing it's "not significant to the investigation". I imagine that you'd dismiss pretty much anything as not significant unless it fitted into your own theory of abduction so, to me, your dismissal is irrelevant.
-
No, just to clarify (for those of you with the required IQ), the evidence of deleted call records is all in the first post. All you have to do is look at the records retrieved from the phone and compare them with the records provided by the network.
See? I did that without smilies. It's not so hard.
-
OK - question for anyone other than CEdwards because he'll just use this as an excuse to abuse me - what's this?
http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/2009/10/lies-of-kate-and-gerry-mccann-deleted.html
Are those 4 calls to Kate Healey on the night of the 3rd the alleged deleted ones, or are they other ones?
Ah. If only the OP had thought to put in a section called "Where's the mistake?" about a third of the way down the original post that refers to this exact thing.
-
Right - on that list I posted he made 4 calls to Kate, so which ones were the deleted ones? This is not a trick question, just clarify it for me someone, without getting all nasty if possible.
How many times did I say it was all in the initial post? Are you telling me you've been arguing all this time without actually reading it? (any of it? Some of it?)
I think it's a myth that he called her 4 times, as I point out. I have yet to see anyone (anti or otherwise) show me I'm wrong with that supposition. There are two calls from Gerry's mobile - it's clear on the vodafone records. He has deleted both from his call log, she has only deleted one from hers. She also deleted loads of other calls/texts (it's hard to know which are which because of the gaps in the files not showing her detailed record) from the previous day.
-
Right - I have to bow out of this discussion as I am clearly too stupid or hallucinating or something. I posted this http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/SeocDnAHUFI/AAAAAAAARBE/CRq7GsB2E-0/s1600/mccann_phone_records.jpg which *seems* to show 4 calls to Kate from Gerry, but now CEdwards is telling me this is a myth. From confused.com this is goodbye.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_037.jpg (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_037.jpg)
Vodafone records. No idea what that is you've linked to and the timings on the two "other" calls seem very weird.
-
I really am struggling to understand the confusion.
In my first post is a link - "Gerry's calls" which leads here: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_85.jpg (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_85.jpg) and shows the call log retrieved from his phone. All good so far?
In my first post is a link - "Gerry Voice out" which leads here: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_037.jpg (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA_VOD/OA_11_VOD_Page_037.jpg)
Look at the 3rd and 4th lines of the official vodafone page (2nd link, for the avoidance of doubt). See that number ending 188? That's Kate, that is.
Look at the first link now. When do Gerry's call logs start? Three minutes past midnight of the 4th. Where are the calls to Kate in the hour before that? Gone, disappeared, abducted, whoosh-clunked, call it what you will. They ain't there. Don't be daft enough to claim his phone obviously only stores the last 17 calls made/received or the last 9 calls made or the last 8 calls received please.
-
Some people, like me, delete automatically. It saves so much time later.
-
Some people, like me, delete automatically. It saves so much time later.
Really? You delete your call log after every call? Amazing.
Even if you do, I don't. How do you know your habits are any more usual than mine? How do you know what the McCanns do/don't do? You don't, do you?
-
I delete all my e-mails and texts from my phone as soon as I read them so does that make me suspicious?? Course not silly.
-
I delete all my e-mails and texts from my phone as soon as I read them so does that make me suspicious?? Course not silly.
It makes your post irrelevant. Why are you lot unable to differentiate between call logs and texts? It's like trying to discuss technology with my mother in law!
-
Some people, like me, delete automatically. It saves so much time later.
Really? You delete your call log after every call? Amazing.
Even if you do, I don't. How do you know your habits are any more usual than mine? How do you know what the McCanns do/don't do? You don't, do you?
I don't have to know what The McCanns did. I only have to know that some normal people do it.
-
Some people, like me, delete automatically. It saves so much time later.
Really? You delete your call log after every call? Amazing.
Even if you do, I don't. How do you know your habits are any more usual than mine? How do you know what the McCanns do/don't do? You don't, do you?
I don't have to know what The McCanns did. I only have to know that some normal people do it.
And some normal people don't. I don't believe you delete your call log history anyway. I bet you'd struggle to even find the feature, personally. It's my belief that you're saying this in the mistaken belief it enhances your argument about it being a natural thing for the McCanns to do.
As I said on the other thread, done with you now.
-
Look at the first link now. When do Gerry's call logs start? Three minutes past midnight of the 4th. Where are the calls to Kate in the hour before that? Gone, disappeared, abducted, whoosh-clunked, call it what you will. They ain't there.
OK, but then but what of the print-out I linked to which shows those calls to Kate on the 3rd May, in the evening? What is that? How do we know that the Vodaphone print out isn't just for calls made on the 4th May and that there isn't another page for calls made on the 3rd May? Maybe this is a stupid question and you've already explained it and I've missed it.
The vodafone printout shows calls from the 2nd May onwards. His call log is all that was retrieved from the phone by the PJ on the 4th May when inspecting his phone. Kate's call log record has calls from before the 4th May.
Are we there yet?
-
Some people, like me, delete automatically. It saves so much time later.
Really? You delete your call log after every call? Amazing.
Even if you do, I don't. How do you know your habits are any more usual than mine? How do you know what the McCanns do/don't do? You don't, do you?
I don't have to know what The McCanns did. I only have to know that some normal people do it.
And some normal people don't. I don't believe you delete your call log history anyway. I bet you'd struggle to even find the feature, personally. It's my belief that you're saying this in the mistaken belief it enhances your argument about it being a natural thing for the McCanns to do.
As I said on the other thread, done with you now.
A typical Hate Fest Trick. Abuse someone when you can't give a sensible argument. I am really surprise by the fact that you were banned from Not Bennett's Forum. Give it another go. They will probably let you back in. Anything as long as it gets you off here.
-
I delete all my e-mails and texts from my phone as soon as I read them so does that make me suspicious?? Course not silly.
It makes your post irrelevant. Why are you lot unable to differentiate between call logs and texts? It's like trying to discuss technology with my mother in law!
Us people? Who are you then?
The same applies to call logs but they are usually deleted every few days or weekly by anyone who likes to keep their phone records to a minimum. Everyone is different and each to their own habits.
Regardless of this, phone call logs can be provided by the mobile phone and terrestrial telephone providers. They can even determine roughly where the caller was when he or she made the call.
Sorry to hear about your mother in law, she sounds like a tolerant soul.
-
I'll have a look later... I'm sure I did years ago, but I can't remember now.
I started, but haven't got much further.
NB: Did Paulo Reis and associates ever publish the results of the independent forensic ink analysis of the creche records?
That was four years ago. Surely it would have been completed by now?
-
It's not that good a post that Gilet has made - in fact it's close to propaganda. Gilet's example phone - the Samsung A300 was released in 2001... is that representative of the sort of phone two doctors would have in 2007? Hardly. Was it even on sale 4 years later as Gilet claims to have bought it in 2005? I very much doubt it, but that's not the point here.
There is no aspect of my post which even remotely resembles propaganda. It is simply a record of fact. Your implication that I am lying is abusive and utterly wrong. Why you are so offensive I can only guess. But it is an objectionable aspect of your posting.
The clear implication is that mobile phones today are super great and snazzy and have loads of memory whilst back in 2006/2007 we were struggling along with bricks connected with pieces of string. This is inaccurate at best and downright misleading at worst. It's certainly disingenuous.
What I posted was simple fact. Neither disingenuous nor misleading.
Firstly, just to state for the record and not be as presumptious as Gilet... I have no idea what make/model of phone each of the McCanns had. If we knew, we could knock this on the head once and for all. If the PJ recorded this information, they do not appear to have released it anywhere. I am only attempting to make reasonable assumptions and inferences.
Again you are being downright offensive and are again wholly incorrect in your claims. I did not make any presumptions or suggest that I knew what phones the McCanns had. Your implication otherwise is simply untrue. If you had actually bothered to read properly you would have noticed I did in fact write, "I have no idea if this was the make of phone that the McCanns were using".
I agree that it is possible the McCanns each may have been nearing the end of a two year contract on their mobile phones. It would, again, be a huge coincidence but it's possible. It's equally possible, wouldn't you agree, that they had both just started new mobile phone contracts and had up-to-date phones? Therefore let's pitch our technology milestone in the middle in 2006 as a reasonable halfway house.
Unlike you I have not attempted to guess anything. All I have done is state facts. It is a fact that during that period I had a Samsung A300. You are making assumptions not me.
So in contrast to the "Gilet way" (my way being the posting of facts and yours being the posting of speculation) I'll not refer to the type of mobile I had, rather refer to the list of top-selling phones around the middle of the year: http://www.mobilephones.org.uk/the-top-selling-mobile-handsets-in-august-2006/ (http://www.mobilephones.org.uk/the-top-selling-mobile-handsets-in-august-2006/). What can we reasonably expect medical professionals to have? Hard to say. Some may be luddites and have the lowest spec phone out there. Others may be gadget freaks and have the top of the range model. With Kate's mentioning of labels and clothing brands, she appears to be brand aware and I think it's reasonable to assume she'd have a relatively decent phone. Not top of the range, not bottom of the range. Gerry strikes me as the sort of person who'd like technology and would have a higher-spec phone, but that's pure supposition on my behalf, so we'll put him in mid-range too.
Here's the list:
1. Sony Ericsson K790i/K800i
2. Sony Ericsson W810i
3. Sony Ericsson K750i/D750i/W800i
4. Nokia 6230/6230i
5. Nokia 6280/6282
6. Motorola RaZr V3/ V3i /V3c
7. Nokia N70
8. HP Ipaq 2100/2400/2700
9. Nokia N73
10. Nokia 5140/5140i
Now some specs (all taken from http://www.gsmarena.com)
1. Sony K790
Memory Card slot Memory Stick Micro (M2), up to 2 GB
Phonebook 1000 x 20 fields, Photo call
Call records 30 received, dialed and missed calls
Internal 64 MB
2. Sony w810
Memory Card slot Memory Stick Duo Pro, up to 4 GB, 512 MB included
Phonebook 1000 x 24 fields, Photo call
Call records 30 received, dialed and missed calls
Internal 20 MB
3. Sony k750
Memory Card slot Memory Stick Duo Pro, up to 2 GB, 64 MB included
Phonebook 500 x 20 fields, Photo call
Call records 30 received, dialed and missed calls
Internal 38 MB
4. Nokia 6230
Memory Card slot MMC, 32 MB included
Phonebook 1000 entries, Photo call
Call records 20 dialed, 20 received, 20 missed calls
Internal 6 MB
- 150 short messages
- 16 voice commands, 25 voice dial slots
- 3 min voice memo
5. Nokia 6280
Memory Card slot miniSD, 64 MB included
Phonebook 500 x 16 fields, Photocall
Call records 20 dialed, 20 received, 20 missed calls
Internal 6 MB
6. Motorola Razr v3
Memory Card slot No
Phonebook 1000 entries, Photo call
Call records 10 dialed, 10 received, 10 missed calls
Internal 5.5 MB
7. Nokia N70
Memory Card slot RS-DV-MMC, 64 MB included
Internal 22 MB
8. HP Ipaq - no data shown
9. Nokia N73
Memory Card slot miniSD
Internal 42 MB storage, 64 MB RAM
10. Nokia 5140
Memory Card slot No
Phonebook 500
Call records 20 dialed, 10 received, 10 missed calls
- Editable message templates
- Up to 150 SMS messages
- Up to 50 MMS messages
- Max 64 kB Java apps.
Fortunately due to the way the phones are described at GSMarena we can see that even the low-end budget phone (the 5140) has copious memory. 500 number phonebook, 20 dialled, 10 received, 10 missed number storage on the call log and up to 150 SMS messages storable on the internal memory.
Starting to make Gilet's post look at bit questionable now? (Hardly, no matter what the list contains the facts in my post remain!)I'll go on. We *KNOW* from the document in my initial post that Gerry's phone, at least, can store 17 calls as that many were retrieved, so he has a reasonably capable phone even by 2006 standards. Many of you on here are treating it as perfectly normal that he's deleted text messages - we'll get on to that in a minute. He deleted call log records. Who here, be honest, has ever deleted call log records from their phone? I haven't. Who here can conceive of having the mental faculties to delete call log records at a time when your daughter has gone missing? I can't. How do we know this has happened? Gerry's network call records show two calls to kate on the night of the 3rd May. Those call logs have been deleted from his phone by the next day. Why would Gerry even have time to think of doing such a thing?
I certainly delete call records. I find the call records is a very useful mini phonebook of recent contacts but only when it isn't clogged with duplicates. I delete duplicates there. I also tend to delete all missed calls and all calls which though answered came from numbers which are not identified.
As for what I would do in a situation of panic, I really do not know. If I knew that my phone had a restrictive memory and I was expecting to receive lots of calls which could lead to the discovery of my missing daughter, then I might well do some deleting. I guess Gerry might have done so as well. But I am pretty sure thats as far as we will get. You guess he wouldn't delete for that reason. I guess he may have deleted for that reason. What more can be said really? Your implication just as with my earlier post is that he had some ulterior motive. It is your right of course to think that but there is no proof, only your opinion.
By the way, a full call log doesn't exist. It's a "last x numbers stored" situation with an overwritten list of the most recent calls. Nothing in the phone operation would be impeded by Gerry leaving his call log untouched. What reason can there be to delete call log records but to try and hide something?
I have just given a genuine reason above.
Kate's phone record shows one of the calls from Gerry but not the other. She has selectively deleted call records, not even done a full "memory wipe". Again, why would you do this in the middle of a crisis?
Again it may have been to ensure that only one copy of the name was in that list as duplicates would have reduced the number of potential names held there.
On to text messages. Again, the low end phones have enough capacity for 150 SMS messages. Gerry was allegedly "sources close to the McCanns say..." a heavy user and yet you think it's reasonable to stop in the middle of a crisis and delete text messages "just in case" the memory is full? This was not a "bored sitting by the side of the pool" exercise, it was done within a day (hours?) of their child going missing. Remarkable, amazing coolness to stop and consider that the phone memory may be full - even though you don't use the phone much - and also that it's high time for a spring-clean of those pesky old call log records from, ooh, the day before perhaps?
Only two of the phones you listed have sms numbers attached. How do you know that others had the facility for more than 150 messages? And if you look carefully, one has the detail listed as "up to 150" suggesting that the number possible was related to memory available. As to your loaded questions about Gerry's behaviour we clearly disagree because I think that it is a perfectly natural thing to do when you anticipate a flood of messages about something desperately important not one of which you wish to be delayed or to be missed.You are constantly making assumptions as to what Gerry or Kate would have thought and should have done. I am merely stating that it is perfectly possible that they did and there are reasons why they may have done these things. Again, I doubt you or I will never know the reason no matter how many call records you look at. Motive can only be guessed at.
The Samsung D900 was a top seller around that time. It had a pretty good memory. As all of these phones have a "memory full" alert and as you're assuming the McCanns would have to be aware of the memory limitation IF they were "making space" for the deluge of text messages about to arrive then they would also have had to have been aware of the "memory full" indicator that would have alerted them to this condition. They don't then lose the text message, it simply queues on the mobile system until it can be delivered.
I am assuming nothing. You are. I have simply stated what my position is and was. Just because there is a memory full alert does not preclude them dealing with the situation before that alert is reached. You are merely assuming that they would not do so.
This all makes something of a mockery of the series of excuses you have come out with.
I do not agree with that conclusion of yours and having read other posts I know others do not do so either.
EVEN IF the McCanns were "deleting to make space" then who, in a month of blue moons, has the presence of mind to do such a thing when they can't even remember which side of the road they were standing on and which door they came into the apartment through in the middle of a crisis? I can make a suggestion... people who want to hide information from the authorities would do such a thing.
Your connecting the phone situation to the road comment is ridiculous. And your suggestion is simply a wild guess.
-
Must admit this topic confuses me. I wonder why there were no calls on G and Ks phones when they spent half the night ringing relatives and friends. Kate Mccanns mum says they rang her about 11 30, John Mccann says he was rung at 11.40 and was texted beforehand asking him to pray. Maybe Dave Payne was eight when he said they had no chargers so they used others phones. Did they know all those numbers off hand? Oh well, quiet here tonight, tara.
-
I am bumping this old thread because I am wondering if it has a new significance in light of recent developments
All the papers are currently running the story that Scotland Yard are carrying out a forensic examination of all moblile phone details on the day/night Madeleine disappeared
Does that mean that the question of the deleted texts on the McCann phones will finally be answered ?
-
I am bumping this old thread because I am wondering if it has a new significance in light of recent developments
All the papers are currently running the story that Scotland Yard are carrying out a forensic examination of all moblile phone details on the day/night Madeleine disappeared
Does that mean that the question of the deleted texts on the McCann phones will finally be answered ?
Not the Vodafone voicemail reminders again...
-
Not the Vodafone voicemail reminders again...
You must acknowledge that a question mark has always hung over the phone/text messages the McCanns sent that night ... especially the deleted ones
Will the forensic investigation of mobile phone data currently underway finally answer the questions ?
That will be a good thing for the McCanns if the deleted texts were entirely innocent
-
BUMP
With thanks to Wonderfulspam for the link
-
Sometimes when you are waiting anxiously for some news and you want to kill time....you might just decide to clear all those unwanted messages from your phone...could be a simple as that
-
Sometimes when you are waiting anxiously for some news and you want to kill time....you might just decide to clear all those unwanted messages from your phone...could be a simple as that
Oh yes while he was waiting for someone someone else to find his daughter....
-
Oh yes while he was waiting for someone someone else to find his daughter....
It is definitely the kind of thing one does in an idle moment, not in the grip of panic.
Anyway, I stand by my statement that phones could hold at least a hundred messages back in the day.
-
It is definitely the kind of thing one does in an idle moment, not in the grip of panic.
Anyway, I stand by my statement that phones could hold at least a hundred messages back in the day.
Its the sort of thing someone who is trying not to panic might do in order to distract themselves...I don't expect those who doubt the mccanns to accept this possibility but it makes a lot of sense to me
-
It is definitely the kind of thing one does in an idle moment, not in the grip of panic.
Anyway, I stand by my statement that phones could hold at least a hundred messages back in the day.
A hundred messages is not a lot considering how many people Gerry McCann would be trying to communicate with simultaneously.
-
http://www.shinyshiny.tv/2007/01/top_10_mobile_p.html (http://www.shinyshiny.tv/2007/01/top_10_mobile_p.html)
Note the iPhone.
-
It is definitely the kind of thing one does in an idle moment, not in the grip of panic.
Anyway, I stand by my statement that phones could hold at least a hundred messages back in the day.
Yes, therefore Mr McCann was controlling the situation enough to realize it was not a good idea to keep a record of him claiming that the shutters, window and door had been forced.
-
Yes, therefore Mr McCann was controlling the situation enough to realize it was not a good idea to keep a record of him claiming that the shutters, window and door had been forced.
It appears Trish had a record of it.
"They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id31.html
-
A hundred messages is not a lot considering how many people Gerry McCann would be trying to communicate with simultaneously.
Within an hour? actually, I don't know the exact time that the msgs/calls were deleted. It might have been two hours.
I have to say, I think that I wouldn't be contacting everyone I know to panic them were I in a foreign country and they had no way of getting to me. Especially if my child could turn up at any moment.
I may call my parents, but I would be very aware of the stress it would cause them. I can't imagine using 100 msgs.
I'd probably be a bit busy looking for my child anyway.
-
As everyone keeps reminding me, he was a cardiologist involved in research. He HAD no emergencies to attend to, so was not getting hundreds of calls or texts. Probably zero from his workplace whe he's out of the country on leave.
-
Within an hour? actually, I don't know the exact time that the msgs/calls were deleted. It might have been two hours.
I have to say, I think that I wouldn't be contacting everyone I know to panic them were I in a foreign country and they had no way of getting to me. Especially if my child could turn up at any moment.
I may call my parents, but I would be very aware of the stress it would cause them. I can't imagine using 100 msgs.
I'd probably be a bit busy looking for my child anyway.
Indeed, Cariad, indeed.
-
I've always thought the phone calls odd.
I went overseas and the first day my neighbour called me to tell me my cat was lost.
She wasn't of course, just hiding.
It still nearly ruined my holiday. When I got back I asked her, why did you call? It was bad news that could've waited. I could do nothing about the problem so why ruin my day?
Narcisists need attention tthough, like the rest of us need air. An audience must be summoned for every calamity, large or small.
-
I've always thought the phone calls odd.
I went overseas and the first day my neighbour called me to tell me my cat was lost.
She wasn't of course, just hiding.
It still nearly ruined my holiday. When I got back I asked her, why did you call? It was bad news that could've waited. I could do nothing about the problem so why ruin my day?
Narcisists need attention tthough, like the rest of us need air. An audience must be summoned for every calamity, large or small.
How gracious to say that to her after she had taken the trouble to call you. 8)-)))
-
I've always thought the phone calls odd.
I went overseas and the first day my neighbour called me to tell me my cat was lost.
She wasn't of course, just hiding.
It still nearly ruined my holiday. When I got back I asked her, why did you call? It was bad news that could've waited. I could do nothing about the problem so why ruin my day?
Narcisists need attention tthough, like the rest of us need air. An audience must be summoned for every calamity, large or small.
Lack of imagination. It is not considered a flaw though. Yet..
-
How gracious to say that to her after she had taken the trouble to call you. 8)-)))
Typo.
I called her.
I was o.s and she didn't know where.
Yes I thought it delightful that she informed me of a non event on the very first day too. NOT.
-
Within an hour? actually, I don't know the exact time that the msgs/calls were deleted. It might have been two hours.
I have to say, I think that I wouldn't be contacting everyone I know to panic them were I in a foreign country and they had no way of getting to me. Especially if my child could turn up at any moment.
I may call my parents, but I would be very aware of the stress it would cause them. I can't imagine using 100 msgs.
I'd probably be a bit busy looking for my child anyway.
But we know that several overseas calls were made, including calls to the McCanns' parents.
Perhaps not everyone would have done that - not to worry them, as you say - but Gerry did.
And if Gerry McCann was not spending much time looking for his child -as some claim - then presumably he would have had plenty time in which to delete messages.
-
I've always thought the phone calls odd.
I went overseas and the first day my neighbour called me to tell me my cat was lost.
She wasn't of course, just hiding.
It still nearly ruined my holiday. When I got back I asked her, why did you call? It was bad news that could've waited. I could do nothing about the problem so why ruin my day?
Narcisists need attention tthough, like the rest of us need air. An audience must be summoned for every calamity, large or small.
Are you seriously comparing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with the temporary misplacement of a cat?
(With all due respect to your cat).
-
Are you seriously comparing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with the temporary misplacement of a cat?
(With all due respect to your cat).
Essentially yes.
Madeleine could have been asleep under a bush too.
Am I the only one who thinks it selfish and rude to alert overseas family at 2am of something said family can do nothing about? Except ruin their sleep and cause them enormous (perhaps unnecessary) trauma?
Especially when the missing individual can turn up by morning, wondering g what all the fuss is about?
-
Essentially yes.
Madeleine could have been asleep under a bush too.
Am I the only one who thinks it selfish and rude to alert overseas family at 2am of something said family can do nothing about? Except ruin their sleep and cause them enormous (perhaps unnecessary) trauma?
Especially when the missing individual can turn up by morning, wondering g what all the fuss is about?
When my father died, in the middle of the night and at 2000 km from where I was, my mother waited the rising of the sun to call me on the phone.
-
When my father died, in the middle of the night and at 2000 km from where I was, my mother waited the rising of the sun to call me on the phone.
Precisely.
That's how I was raised too.
Be careful and considerate on how you announce bad news.
Doing so in the middle of the night before you are even SURE there's a crisis, is typical narcisstic behaviour.
Its all about THEM.
Surely they didnt think Madeleine could have teleported herself back to Rothley so there was ZERO need to spend searching time on he phone to the rellies. What could they do, apart from providing attention?
-
Essentially yes.
Madeleine could have been asleep under a bush too.
Am I the only one who thinks it selfish and rude to alert overseas family at 2am of something said family can do nothing about? Except ruin their sleep and cause them enormous (perhaps unnecessary) trauma?
Especially when the missing individual can turn up by morning, wondering g what all the fuss is about?
I agree with you, Silkywhiskers, about the wisdom of waking people when there is nothing they can do and when only distress would be caused.
The McCanns were likely so traumatised by events that normal protocols went out the window.
Having said that, the next day the media, politicians and others were called, and Mark Warner was already sending their PR person from England. So this case became an ' international' matter from a very early stage. It was not viewed, apparently, by the McCanns or by anyone else, as likely that things would quickly sort themselves out and Madeleine would come walking back to the apartment like a lost cat.
-
Most parents can never accept they've lost their child, even years later.
The McCann's apparently not only accepted it, they diagnosed the cause and spent precious searching time embroidering tales of jemmied windows.
I am seriously starting to wonder what universe YOU live in, where this is normal acceptable behaviour.
Its not. Maybe with time but not within a couple of hours of her disappearing.
Clearly you've never misplaced a child but I can assure you calling overseas would be the LAST thing on your mind.
I actually said in my earlier post that the McCanns' behaviour with regard to accepted protocols was probably not normal! At a time of extreme difficulty, so-called normality often goes out of the window.
And I am not so sure that I would't call my family overseas if something terrible like that happened. I live in a different country from my family and call them very regularly, so not calling them at an important time would seem counterintuitive on both sides. But everyone's circumstances are different.
The McCanns certainly seem to have been a close family and I do not think it at all odd that GM would have wanted to touch base with them.
-
Are you seriously comparing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann with the temporary misplacement of a cat?
(With all due respect to your cat).
In both cases the assumption was not that the frightened little thing got sick of being left behind and nipped out for a wander....the assumption, based on nothing more than an empty bed, was that Irreversible Disaster had struck with all the accompanying hysteria, inappropriate phonecalls, and dramatic leaps to judgement.
My neighbour was an underemployed drama queen with a martyr complex. I don't know what the McCann's excuse was but I wouldn't want either of them to stick a needle into me as they're obviously deeply strange people.
I don't get it, on the one hand the supporters are telling us how cool and calm they are but in he next breath they're hysterical and not thinking straight.
It can't be both so make up your minds - praying Arabs, hysterical searching, or calmly deleting call records as though they have time to kill in an airport.
-
I actually said in my earlier post that the McCanns' behaviour with regard to accepted protocols was probably not normal! At a time of extreme difficulty, so-called normality often goes out of the window.
And I am not so sure that I would't call my family overseas if something terrible like that happened. I live in a different country from my family and call them very regularly, so not calling them at an important time would seem counterintuitive on both sides. But everyone's circumstances are different.
The McCanns certainly seem to have been a close family and I do not think it at all odd that GM would have wanted to touch base with them.
He finds his little girl has disappeared into the night ... and you speak of Gerry wanting to "touch base" about it with his relatives ?
That's the second time in as many days that you have used a turn of phrase that is almost McCann'esque in it's inappropriate nonchalance !
-
I actually said in my earlier post that the McCanns' behaviour with regard to accepted protocols was probably not normal! At a time of extreme difficulty, so-called normality often goes out of the window.
And I am not so sure that I would't call my family overseas if something terrible like that happened. I live in a different country from my family and call them very regularly, so not calling them at an important time would seem counterintuitive on both sides. But everyone's circumstances are different.
The McCanns certainly seem to have been a close family and I do not think it at all odd that GM would have wanted to touch base with them.
Hmmm....have you ever lost something valuable?
Was your reaction
A. Go searching.
Or.
B. Call your sister/mother/member of parliament/priest?
I rest my case.
-
Hmmm....have you ever lost something valuable?
Was your reaction
A. Go searching.
Or.
B. Call your sister/mother/member of parliament/priest?
I rest my case.
They did search. After they established Madeleine wasn't in the apartment or in the surrounding area they were waiting for the police to arrive and after that they were being interviewed by the police. In the meantime they knew that MW had organised people to search.
You say your holiday was nearly ruined over the possible disappearance of a cat! - and yet you can't see what a terrible affect the disappearance of a CHILD would have on the parents? Unbelievable.
Which Member of Parliament did the McCanns call? Or is that yet another myth you would like to import into this forum.
-
Hmmm....have you ever lost something valuable?
Was your reaction
A. Go searching.
Or.
B. Call your sister/mother/member of parliament/priest?
I rest my case.
Telling stories is a thing, faking to search another one.
-
Telling stories is a thing, faking to search another one.
So now you accuse them of two lies:
1) Telling stories
2) Faking a search
Pull yourself together, Anne. I remember you boasting in the early days of this forum that you would lie to get your friend out of trouble with the Police.
Not everyone lies, even if you think it is OK.
-
So now you accuse them of two lies:
1) Telling stories
2) Faking a search
Pull yourself together, Anne. I remember you boasting in the early days of this forum that you would lie to get your friend out of trouble with the Police.
Not everyone lies, even if you think it is OK.
'Child 7, Carolina Santos, WAS abducted. She was walked off some considerable distance before her parents luckily came out of their cafe and saw her being walked off, hand in hand, with a man who had told her that he had a little girl or children to play with.
They started after her and called her back. The man walked around the corner and vanished.
Thank God they came out when they did.'
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3542.195
&
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2866.0
-
He finds his little girl has disappeared into the night ... and you speak of Gerry wanting to "touch base" about it with his relatives ?
That's the second time in as many days that you have used a turn of phrase that is almost McCann'esque in it's inappropriate nonchalance !
Sorry, you're quite correct. I'll blame that on the twee Americanisms I'm bombarded with every day here.
Though in my defense I was supporting the idea that it would be very normal for Gerry McCann to call home at a time of distress.
Some other people are suggesting that those overseas calls are suspect.
Now that would be inappropriate nonchalance in my book!
-
Hmmm....have you ever lost something valuable?
Was your reaction
A. Go searching.
Or.
B. Call your sister/mother/member of parliament/priest?
I rest my case.
You rested your case before you got the answer!
-
Sorry, you're quite correct. I'll blame that on the twee Americanisms I'm bombarded with every day here.
Though in my defense I was supporting the idea that it would be very normal for Gerry McCann to call home at a time of distress.
Some other people are suggesting that those overseas calls are suspect.
Now that would be inappropriate nonchalance in my book!
I like it Sherlock.
At least it isn't pretentious. We all understand what it means.
Apologies not needed
-
Though in my defense I was supporting the idea that it would be very normal for Gerry McCann to call home at a time of distress.
Some other people are suggesting that those overseas calls are suspect.
Now that would be inappropriate nonchalance in my book!
I afraid it would be the last thing I would want to do, ring up the Grandparents and tell them you've lost their Granddaughter. At least wait until the morning and the search has been going on for sometime.
-
I afraid it would be the last thing I would want to do, ring up the Grandparents and tell them you've lost their Granddaughter. At least wait until the morning and the search has been going on for sometime.
Yeah, I'd have thought pretty much the same.
-
I'm not altogether sure what I would do in similar circumstances. It comes down to a balance but in those circumstances the balance of ones mind is disturbed thus why people do some strange things. The wailing on the reception floor and on the bed in the children's bedroom being two classic examples. Someone in that situation doesn't want their nearest and dearest back home to hear about it first on breakfast news with Eamonn Holmes but then again one doesn't want to alarm the grandparents in case it is a false alarm...a balance is needed but not always possible.
-
Yeah, I'd have thought pretty much the same.
AS John has said....it would have been on breakfast news...not a good way for garndparents to find out
-
It is definitely the kind of thing one does in an idle moment, not in the grip of panic.
Anyway, I stand by my statement that phones could hold at least a hundred messages back in the day.
My phone back then most definitely didn't - it wasn't a new model by any means, but it carried on working.
-
I rest my case.
Some cases are best rested ...
-
This probably won't help one iota,but back in 2007 before the release of the original iphone,the most popular models of mobile phones were the LG and the Motorola Razor series.
-
Just out of interest, do you know what model it was?
http://www.gsmarena.com/ericsson_t39-252.php
I didn't get it until around 2004-2005 (it was cheap by then). It still works, amazingly enough.
-
http://www.gsmarena.com/ericsson_t39-252.php
I didn't get it until around 2004-2005 (it was cheap by then). It still works, amazingly enough.
I think gerry was just killing time..hoping to get some news re Maddie
-
Wonder what the implications of this development may well be...
--
PORTUGAL RESIDENT ARTICLE, MAY 21, 2015
Text messages and calls “can now be submitted in court as evidence”
In a historic ruling, Évora’s court of appeal has clarified that text messages (even if they are not read) and mobile phone records can now be used in criminal cases and do not require any authorisation by a judge.
But emails - which can be accessed by mobile phones - can only be used if the person to whom they have been addressed has read them.
The decision was announced in today’s Diário de Notícias which claimed the law up until now has been “unclear in this context”.
Indeed it could have changed endless police investigations in the past - not least the original Madeleine McCann inquiry.
As TVI24 reveals, in 2007 Portimão Judge Pedro Frias “refused the PJ the right to look at text messages on Kate McCann’s mobile phone”, justifying his decision on the basis that “telephonic interceptions could not be authorised after the event”, and that he “could not authorise the consultation of written messages sent and received before receiving a request” to this effect.
Indeed TVI has run an exposé on the “controversial judge” (see our story elsewhere), adding that in 2007 “there were many voices” speaking out against this decision.
Now, as a result of the appeal court’s decision, the PJ would have had a great deal more investigative freedom.
Évora’s judges were asked to rule on the law following a case of theft in Serpa where the suspect had “inadvertently” left his mobile phone at the scene of the crime.
To find out who he was, police had gone through the man’s text messages and phone records.
The Public Ministry had argued that this was the kind of action that only a judge could authorise, but the panel defended that, “in essence”, a message kept in digital support “had the same protection as a written letter received in the post that had been opened and then filed in a personal file”.
Referring specifically to the case in Serpa, which DN stressed “should now apply to other cases”, the use of this kind of material should not require “previous intervention by a judge” to be authorised as proof.
--
END.
-
Wonder what the implications of this development may well be...
--
PORTUGAL RESIDENT ARTICLE, MAY 21, 2015
Text messages and calls “can now be submitted in court as evidence”
In a historic ruling, Évora’s court of appeal has clarified that text messages (even if they are not read) and mobile phone records can now be used in criminal cases and do not require any authorisation by a judge.
But emails - which can be accessed by mobile phones - can only be used if the person to whom they have been addressed has read them.
The decision was announced in today’s Diário de Notícias which claimed the law up until now has been “unclear in this context”.
Indeed it could have changed endless police investigations in the past - not least the original Madeleine McCann inquiry.
As TVI24 reveals, in 2007 Portimão Judge Pedro Frias “refused the PJ the right to look at text messages on Kate McCann’s mobile phone”, justifying his decision on the basis that “telephonic interceptions could not be authorised after the event”, and that he “could not authorise the consultation of written messages sent and received before receiving a request” to this effect.
Indeed TVI has run an exposé on the “controversial judge” (see our story elsewhere), adding that in 2007 “there were many voices” speaking out against this decision.
Now, as a result of the appeal court’s decision, the PJ would have had a great deal more investigative freedom.
Évora’s judges were asked to rule on the law following a case of theft in Serpa where the suspect had “inadvertently” left his mobile phone at the scene of the crime.
To find out who he was, police had gone through the man’s text messages and phone records.
The Public Ministry had argued that this was the kind of action that only a judge could authorise, but the panel defended that, “in essence”, a message kept in digital support “had the same protection as a written letter received in the post that had been opened and then filed in a personal file”.
Referring specifically to the case in Serpa, which DN stressed “should now apply to other cases”, the use of this kind of material should not require “previous intervention by a judge” to be authorised as proof.
--
END.
None whatsoever I confidently predict. 8)--))
-
V. good development for the Policia Judiciaria, I predict. It's one thing knowing what happened in a case, it's another proving it. And that balance between civil liberties on the one hand, and justice on the other, is often skewed in favour of a guilty party.
-
I'm not altogether sure what I would do in similar circumstances. It comes down to a balance but in those circumstances the balance of ones mind is disturbed thus why people do some strange things. The wailing on the reception floor and on the bed in the children's bedroom being two classic examples. Someone in that situation doesn't want their nearest and dearest back home to hear about it first on breakfast news with Eamonn Holmes but then again one doesn't want to alarm the grandparents in case it is a false alarm...a balance is needed but not always possible.
They rang all their relatives and some friends before midnight and before the PJ got there and said Madeleine was abducted when she may have been nearby
-
V. good development for the Policia Judiciaria, I predict. It's one thing knowing what happened in a case, it's another proving it. And that balance between civil liberties on the one hand, and justice on the other, is often skewed in favour of a guilty party.
You do know that the PJ were able to gain access to the contents of the deleted messages and deemed the contents to be of little relevance to the case, right?
-
You do know that the PJ were able to gain access to the contents of the deleted messages and deemed the contents to be of little relevance to the case, right?
I have to admit to a level of incredulity that despite the current developments in the Madeleine McCann investigation there are still people who view life through the prism that 'all roads lead to the McCanns'.
-
You do know that the PJ were able to gain access to the contents of the deleted messages and deemed the contents to be of little relevance to the case, right?
Cite
-
Topic. Please. It is only 10am. We have a long day in front of us.
-
I presume it is still on topic to prompt for the cite?
-
I presume it is still on topic to prompt for the cite?
Providing it is not a spurious request.
-
I presume it is still on topic to prompt for the cite?
I'm presuming this was the cite - from a convo between Levy, GA and others - on a sceptic site?
Quote
DL: Did the PJ ever read the contents of those text messages?
GA: Yes it did. Later on, when it was not very interesting anymore.
Q: Did the content of the 14 text messages have any relevance to the case?
A: No
Unquote
However, I notice the last two lines are no longer there!
-
Cite
Interview(s) with Gonc available to read on McCannfiles - will find for you later 8((()*/
-
I don't know if the texts were ever read, but they certainly existed, despite denials;
No one has ever asked to see any of my text messages. There is no way that there 16 messages on that day or even the day after, you know. you know, the day after, you know that we got…” Kate McCann came to his rescue and interrupted; “Gerry hardly ever sends text messages until the day after, the day after Madeleine was taken”. Gerald McCann continued: “so you know that it is actually rubbish
-
From the horse's mouth ...
Title: 3A Kazlux Meeting with GOncalo AMaral & Sofia Leal
Q: Did the content of the 14 text messages have any relevance to the case?
A: No. But what IS relevant is that they deleted calls from their mobile phones.
So, what is the problem?
Mr Amaral has said the erased messages were irrelevant to Madeleine McCann's case ... people routinely delete unwanted messages from phones ... but if the McCann's do so ... it is a cause célèbre.
Now why should that be?
-
The source numbers of these txts are not in that list but are in other versions of the list in the files. They will be the numbers of UK SMS centres. So you can find which UK network each txt came from.
-
I don't know if the texts were ever read, but they certainly existed, despite denials;
No one has ever asked to see any of my text messages. There is no way that there 16 messages on that day or even the day after, you know. you know, the day after, you know that we got…” Kate McCann came to his rescue and interrupted; “Gerry hardly ever sends text messages until the day after, the day after Madeleine was taken”. Gerald McCann continued: “so you know that it is actually rubbish
Who is denying what, in your opinion?
-
The source numbers of these txts are not in that list but are in other versions of the list in the files. They will be the numbers of UK SMS centres. So you can find which UK network each txt came from.
There's a thread somewhere about the Vodafone voicemail reminder.
-
I have to admit to a level of incredulity that despite the current developments in the Madeleine McCann investigation there are still people who view life through the prism that 'all roads lead to the McCanns'.
I agree...anything showing the mccanns are not involved ...any success for the McCanns such as the trial is totally ignored
-
There's a thread somewhere about the Vodafone voicemail reminder.
The txts are probably reminders like you say, that leaves only the brief calls at 23:14 and 23:17 and they might be just like "coming up from reception with police now".
-
The txts are probably reminders like you say, that leaves only the brief calls at 23:14 and 23:17 and they might be just like "coming up from reception with police now".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2089.240
-
In 2007 could mobile phones make videos?
-
In 2007 could mobile phones make videos?
Yes, judging by this NHS directive dated May 2007.
http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/images/Using_Mobile_Phones_in_NHS_Hospitals.pdf
-
Yes, judging by this NHS directive dated May 2007.
http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/images/Using_Mobile_Phones_in_NHS_Hospitals.pdf
Thanks.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2089.240
Worth bumping for information, thanks Carana
Albym cracked that one years ago.
An old post from 3a:
The number that sent the 14 received text messages is: +44781852****
This is a Vodaphone voice mail service number - I rang it and that's what it says.
They will be messages notifiying him of a voicemail message being left.
Gerry (or someone) checked his voicemail twice in the evening by dialling 91121 (Vodafone voicemail).
So Gerry was getting voicemail throughout the day from one or more callers.
He didn't respond to any of them using his mobile on the 2nd or 3rd of May.
He got no voicemail messages on May 3rd.
He got 4 on May 4th.
**** I just took off the last 4 digits.
Whether Vodafone still does this or not, many operators did at the time: they'd send you frequent reminders by SMS to remind you to consult your voicemail, whether it was one voice message or several.
Gerry said that his phone only held 10 messages (mine only held 10 back then as well.) Damned annoying if you've left your phone on standby and find all these reminders for what may be for the same message that you'd hadn't listened to. And when you're on roaming you pay each time.
-
Worth bumping for information, thanks Carana
Albym cracked that one years ago.
An old post from 3a:
The number that sent the 14 received text messages is: +44781852****
This is a Vodaphone voice mail service number - I rang it and that's what it says.
They will be messages notifiying him of a voicemail message being left.
Gerry (or someone) checked his voicemail twice in the evening by dialling 91121 (Vodafone voicemail).
So Gerry was getting voicemail throughout the day from one or more callers.
He didn't respond to any of them using his mobile on the 2nd or 3rd of May.
He got no voicemail messages on May 3rd.
He got 4 on May 4th.
**** I just took off the last 4 digits.
Whether Vodafone still does this or not, many operators did at the time: they'd send you frequent reminders by SMS to remind you to consult your voicemail, whether it was one voice message or several.
Gerry said that his phone only held 10 messages (mine only held 10 back then as well.) Damned annoying if you've left your phone on standby and find all these reminders for what may be for the same message that you'd hadn't listened to. And when you're on roaming you pay each time.
There's Albym and there's those incompetent dunderheads of Portuguese prosecutors who could neither find anything amiss with telephone communications:
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
If only these people had the acumen and wisdom of posters on this site ....
-
Worth bumping for information, thanks Carana
Albym cracked that one years ago.
An old post from 3a:
The number that sent the 14 received text messages is: +44781852****
This is a Vodaphone voice mail service number - I rang it and that's what it says.
They will be messages notifiying him of a voicemail message being left.
Gerry (or someone) checked his voicemail twice in the evening by dialling 91121 (Vodafone voicemail).
So Gerry was getting voicemail throughout the day from one or more callers.
He didn't respond to any of them using his mobile on the 2nd or 3rd of May.
He got no voicemail messages on May 3rd.
He got 4 on May 4th.
**** I just took off the last 4 digits.
Whether Vodafone still does this or not, many operators did at the time: they'd send you frequent reminders by SMS to remind you to consult your voicemail, whether it was one voice message or several.
Gerry said that his phone only held 10 messages (mine only held 10 back then as well.) Damned annoying if you've left your phone on standby and find all these reminders for what may be for the same message that you'd hadn't listened to. And when you're on roaming you pay each time.
Just for clarification: I should have differentiated my comment from Albym's post. My comment on that starts towards the end: "**** I just took off the last 4 digits."
-
Text Messages and calls ‘can now be submitted in court as evidence’
21st May 2015
In a historic ruling, Évora’s court of appeal has clarified that text messages (even if they are not read) and mobile phone records can now be used in criminal cases and do not require any authorisation by a judge.
But emails - which can be accessed by mobile phones - can only be used if the person to whom they have been addressed has read them.
The decision was announced in today’s Diário de Notícias which claimed the law up until now has been “unclear in this context”.
Indeed it could have changed endless police investigations in the past - not least the original Madeleine McCann inquiry.
As TVI24 reveals, in 2007 Portimão Judge Pedro Frias “refused the PJ the right to look at text messages on Kate McCann’s mobile phone”, justifying his decision on the basis that “telephonic interceptions could not be authorised after the event”, and that he “could not authorise the consultation of written messages sent and received before receiving a request” to this effect.
Indeed TVI has run an exposé on the “controversial judge” (see our story elsewhere), adding that in 2007 “there were many voices” speaking out against this decision.
Now, as a result of the appeal court’s decision, the PJ would have had a great deal more investigative freedom.
Évora’s judges were asked to rule on the law following a case of theft in Serpa where the suspect had “inadvertently” left his mobile phone at the scene of the crime.
To find out who he was, police had gone through the man’s text messages and phone records.
The Public Ministry had argued that this was the kind of action that only a judge could authorise, but the panel defended that, “in essence”, a message kept in digital support “had the same protection as a written letter received in the post that had been opened and then filed in a personal file”.
Referring specifically to the case in Serpa, which DN stressed “should now apply to other cases”, the use of this kind of material should not require “previous intervention by a judge” to be authorised as proof.
Within hours of running the story, DN had received a number of commentaries both for and against.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/text-messages-and-calls-“can-now-be-submitted-in-court-as-evidence”
-
Text Messages and calls ‘can now be submitted in court as evidence’
21st May 2015
In a historic ruling, Évora’s court of appeal has clarified that text messages (even if they are not read) and mobile phone records can now be used in criminal cases and do not require any authorisation by a judge.
But emails - which can be accessed by mobile phones - can only be used if the person to whom they have been addressed has read them.
The decision was announced in today’s Diário de Notícias which claimed the law up until now has been “unclear in this context”.
Indeed it could have changed endless police investigations in the past - not least the original Madeleine McCann inquiry.
As TVI24 reveals, in 2007 Portimão Judge Pedro Frias “refused the PJ the right to look at text messages on Kate McCann’s mobile phone”, justifying his decision on the basis that “telephonic interceptions could not be authorised after the event”, and that he “could not authorise the consultation of written messages sent and received before receiving a request” to this effect.
Indeed TVI has run an exposé on the “controversial judge” (see our story elsewhere), adding that in 2007 “there were many voices” speaking out against this decision.
Now, as a result of the appeal court’s decision, the PJ would have had a great deal more investigative freedom.
Évora’s judges were asked to rule on the law following a case of theft in Serpa where the suspect had “inadvertently” left his mobile phone at the scene of the crime.
To find out who he was, police had gone through the man’s text messages and phone records.
The Public Ministry had argued that this was the kind of action that only a judge could authorise, but the panel defended that, “in essence”, a message kept in digital support “had the same protection as a written letter received in the post that had been opened and then filed in a personal file”.
Referring specifically to the case in Serpa, which DN stressed “should now apply to other cases”, the use of this kind of material should not require “previous intervention by a judge” to be authorised as proof.
Within hours of running the story, DN had received a number of commentaries both for and against.
natasha.donn@algarveresident.com
http://portugalresident.com/text-messages-and-calls-“can-now-be-submitted-in-court-as-evidence”
Yes, certainly would have been useful for these communications:-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm
*snip*
In the timing diagrams (Annexes 5, 6 and 7) calls on days 2, 3 and 4 May were reviewed and analysed.
All phones were identified where possible, whether Portuguese, English or other nationality. Telephone lists from PT, TMN, VODAPHONE and OPTIMUS [the four service operators] were used. Collaboration from officers of the UK police was relied on to identify telephones of that country. Similarly, they correlated all the phone numbers in the inquiry and the calendars under review.
It was sought to compare and to correlate, whether through the flow charts of calls, or through the cell masts activated by the mobile phones, by place/time, the declarations made by each one of those seen.
No discrepancies were found between the time line (statements of RM, MW and SM) and the timing diagram, either in terms of the time that calls were made or received, or in terms of masts activated. But there were omissions, due to forgetfulness or intent.
In this way, one realises, only for him, it is not proven, for determined periods of time, where Robert Murat was located, specifically in the period in which Madeleine disappeared.
[At this point the report lists various calls made and received on RM's mobile and his (and his mother's) fixed service number on 2 and 3 May.
The report continues:]
Observation:
There should be new inquiries made of Robert and Michaela in order to clarify the calls between them on 3 May from 20h15 to 20h25 (fixed), from 23h20 to 23h29 (mobile), from 23h55 to 23h37 (mobile), 23h40 to 23h47 (mobile) and from 23h53 to 24h01 (fixed).
And the call of 30 seconds from Robert to Sergey at 23h39 ' the only such call on those days.
In the flow charts (Annexes 8, 9, and 10) there were considered and analysed connections on days 1, 2, 3 and 4 May 2007, relating to each telephone.
In the flow chart (Annexe 11 - combination of call in Annexes 8, 9 and 10) there were considered and analysed connections on the days 1, 2, 3 and 4 May 2007, together with the target numbers.
- In the period under review, calls by phone and SMS between RM and MW are demonstrated, ether by mobile or fixed service phones.
- No calls are recorded between MW and SM. Between RM and SM only one call is recorded.
- No common numbers are shared between SM and RM, nor between SM and MW.
- Only one common number was found between RM and MW 707960000 UZO (Call Centre
-
Heriberto Janosch has just completed a brand new analysis of the phone calls.
I have taken little notice of this thread because I dont even use a mobile, but it seems to me that Heri has collated some pretty impressive stuff which may mean loads to some of you
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2015/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-analysis.html
Hope that it helps
-
Heriberto Janosch has just completed a brand new analysis of the phone calls.
I have taken little notice of this thread because I dont even use a mobile, but it seems to me that Heri has collated some pretty impressive stuff which may mean loads to some of you
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2015/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-analysis.html
Hope that it helps
I'm a numpty when it comes to 'pings' and things, Sadie, thanks for the update ... Heri always explains things so succinctly so I'll see if he is able to explain it all even to me.
-
Heriberto Janosch has just completed a brand new analysis of the phone calls.
I have taken little notice of this thread because I dont even use a mobile, but it seems to me that Heri has collated some pretty impressive stuff which may mean loads to some of you
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2015/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-analysis.html
Hope that it helps
It does, Sadie, it does. I'm not sure Heriberto is accurate, but the Optimus info is worth its weight in gold.
-
Really interesting, both Blogs. I have had some vague idea of how it works for some time, but now it is much more clear.
Thanks to both.
-
Really interesting, both Blogs. I have had some vague idea of how it works for some time, but now it is much more clear.
Thanks to both.
http://espacioexterior.blogspot.com.es/2015/06/the-madeleine-mccann-abduction-analysis_5.html
Heri has added part 2 ... all explained in language that even I understand ... so he is good!! ... and there is more to come ~