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: pegasus on June 28, 2014, 10:23:36 PM
-
... Or that someone out of these 8 people had their phone pinging from near OC and then SUDDENLY ( means impossible to do the distance on foot) their phone pinged near the Smiths sighting. This is possible to establish if the OC and the Smiths sighting area are served by different phone towers.
The police would by now know through the phone records if something like this is possible. We cannot possibly know it because we don't have these phone records.
I think you are overestimating the ability of the current investigation to define a phones location to this accuracy within the town of PDL in 2007..
Yes I am aware of the great value of triangulation as used in other cases (including that case in Cambridgeshire).
However here in this PDL case:
1. The original 2007 cellphone analysis was headed by a British phone forensics expert provided via the Met.
2. In the 2007 cellphone analysis I have read every file and there is absolutely no use of triangulation (the comparision of signal strength received simultaneously at two or more towers from a single phone transmission).
3. Therefore the current investigation working from the same data used in 2007 is unlikely to be able to do triangulation as defined above, and I think unable to pinpoint a phone to anything better than something like "phone was in or near PDL".
108
-
I think you are overestimating the ability of the current investigation to define a phones location to this accuracy within the town of PDL in 2007..
I am not overestimating. I researched for a number of towers serving PDL in 2007 and they are at least 2.
We don't know where in PDL these two towers are based but they can record movements between them.
OC and Smitsh sighting areas are not very close so it is possible that these two places are served by different towers.
Not only that but I believe that SY have a sophisticated software which can even if these areas are not served by two towers calculate more precisely the location and movements of some people.
Why I am saying this is because I have some experience exploring this sort of data plus I know of at least 3 cases where this kind of information lead to an arrest.
For example:
A girl meets a guy on internet. She has 2 mobile phones. She leaves her country without telling anyone and arrives to London, UK to meet the guy. Soon he holds her prisoner, she tried using her phone and told her parents what happened but during this action the captor takes her phone and switches it off. The captor doesn't know she has a second phone on her but her parents know it. The police arrives to the door of this little apartment, apparently they 'found' the exact place of the signal of her second phone. This happened last year and it is a friend of a friend's daughter I am talking about.
The second case is the one I keep mentioning.. Joanna Yeates case. Her murderer changed towers while crossing a bridge in Bristol. Bristol is a small town but it happens that the two areas were served by different towers. His phone was there and he was not aware of the changing towers fact.
Etc etc
I know the principles of data exploration and analysis, I know how much they can stretch the info coming from the large amounts of data like the phone data, I used to work on a similar data for 6 years.. this is why I believe they can explore this data very well and it can give them great clues.
Oh I wish I had it too.. I would work on it day and night @)(++(*
-
What you are talking about is analysis of small amount of data in back in 2007. I think the amount the SY worked on during the last year and this year is much much larger and the areas of their new statistics are much wider.
We wait and see.. I am really waiting for the results of the new phone data investigation with keen interest. I've got a feeling it is going to produce a breakthrough..
-
@vixte: here is one of the cellphone towers it is up on the big hill zoom out to see location relative to town.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@37.0912412,-8.7168461,40m/data=!3m1!1e3
To understand what the UK top phone expert did in 2007 for Mr Amaral, and what SY can do in 2013 with the same data, you need to know stuff like where towers are, which UK providers roam on which which combinations of portuguese providers, whether passive ping data is available, and whether multiple cell signal strengths data is available for those passive pings.
-
@vixte: here is one of the cellphone towers it is up on the big hill zoom out to see location relative to town.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@37.0912412,-8.7168461,40m/data=!3m1!1e3
To understand what the UK top phone expert did in 2007 for Mr Amaral, and what SY can do in 2013 with the same data, you need to know stuff like where towers are, which UK providers roam on which which combinations of portuguese providers, whether passive ping data is available, and whether multiple cell signal strengths data is available for those passive pings.
I agree, and if the data didn't exist in 2007 it won't exist now.
-
Back in 2007 the data wasn't investigated very precisely.. I think the BBC reported on this.. I will try to find the link.
Another thing, which I know by chance is that the mobile phone companies charge a huge amounts for each persons phone calls. They do have a duty to keep the data but providing it to the police is charged in gold dust so probably back in 2007 not all of the data was acquired.
-
According to Scotland Yard, the phone records had been "looked at" during the initial Portuguese police investigation but not in detail.
"This is not just a general trawl," said Det Ch Insp Redwood.
"It's a targeted attack on that data to see if it assists us to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann at that time."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24386130
-
Back in 2007 the data wasn't investigated very precisely.. I think the BBC reported on this.. I will try to find the link.
Another thing, which I know by chance is that the mobile phone companies charge a huge amounts for each persons phone calls. They do have a duty to keep the data but providing it to the police is charged in gold dust so probably back in 2007 not all of the data was acquired.
So that's where all the millions are being spent. I did wonder.
-
So that's where all the millions are being spent. I did wonder.
Probably.. not to mention the translation of files fees the portuguese charge.. they charged the McCanns 100.000 pounds for the translation!
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24386130
...see
...a user's location can be identified to within a few hundred metres using triangulation techniques.
This is even less accurate with only 2 towers.
-
...see
This is even less accurate with only 2 towers.
I think you might be right about that. But this wouldn't explain multiple pings or conversations between people who had no reason to be there in PdL on that night. Unless they can explain.
-
I think you might be right about that. But this wouldn't explain multiple pings or conversations between people who had no reason to be there in PdL on that night. Unless they can explain.
But how can you discount explanations such as "Went to the pub", "Had a walk on the beach" etc. it is supposed to be a pretty holiday resort?
-
I think you might be right about that. But this wouldn't explain multiple pings or conversations between people who had no reason to be there in PdL on that night. Unless they can explain.
Its a free country and people are free to go where they please without explanation.
-
But how can you discount explanations such as "Went to the pub", "Had a walk on the beach" etc. it is supposed to be a pretty holiday resort?
I think, although I could be wrong, that these were local people from villages nearby. So why would they want to be phoning each other if they were in the same place for innocuous reasons. Why not meet up for a pint?
-
Its a free country and people are free to go where they please without explanation.
I agree. If they make them arguidos they can just refuse to answer anyway.
-
I think, although I could be wrong, that these were local people from villages nearby. So why would they want to be phoning each other if they were in the same place for innocuous reasons. Why not meet up for a pint?
You would like to live in a police state where you have to justify every phone call?
-
I agree. If they make them arguidos they can just refuse to answer anyway.
And a jolly good thing too.
-
I agree. If they make them arguidos they can just refuse to answer anyway.
As did Mrs McCann.
-
In 2007 they obtained lists of all calls and txts where at least one party was a mobile using a PDL mast.
From that large amount of data they extracted calls and txts where not just one, but both parties were mobiles using PDL masts.
They then targeted in particular (a) the time around the JT sighting, and (b) the time around the Smith sighting.
What SY did is widened the time period looked at beyond those two short periods.
AFAIK there is no passive ping data and no signal strength data.
The real actual lists of calls and txts for those two target periods are in the published files.
-
I think, although I could be wrong, that these were local people from villages nearby. So why would they want to be phoning each other if they were in the same place for innocuous reasons. Why not meet up for a pint?
It is frequent practice for people to call and text while actually going to meet each other. In the olden days, we used to say to friends "I will meet you in the Black Bull at 7:30", nowadays, it is more like "I will see you in town about 7, will call when there."
-
In 2007 they obtained lists of all calls and txts where at least one party was a mobile using a PDL mast.
From that large amount of data they extracted calls and txts where not just one, but both parties were mobiles using PDL masts.
They then targeted in particular (a) the time around the JT sighting, and (b) the time around the Smith sighting.
What SY did is widened the time period looked at beyond those two short periods.
AFAIK there is no passive ping data and no signal strength data.
The real actual lists of calls and txts for those two target periods are in the published files.
Not exactly a smoking gun then.
-
It is frequent practice for people to call and text while actually going to meet each other. In the olden days, we used to say to friends "I will meet you in the Black Bull at 7:30", nowadays, it is more like "I will see you in town about 7, will call when there."
These days people are never off their phones. Some even use them to send messages to others in the same building.
-
You would like to live in a police state where you have to justify every phone call?
I eventually acquired a Cell Phone this last year. I have no idea how to turn it on or off. But I am aware of the fact that my Cell Phone can be tracked.
Most people didn't know this back in 2007. Which is why so many people have been caught.
I have absolutely no worries of being tracked since I have no intention of committing a Crime. And I wouldn't take the phone with me if I did. That's progress. And hardly a Police State.
-
I eventually acquired a Cell Phone this last year. I have no idea how to turn it on or off. But I am aware of the fact that my Cell Phone can be tracked.
Most people didn't know this back in 2007. Which is why so many people have been caught.
I have absolutely no worries of being tracked since I have no intention of committing a Crime. And I wouldn't take the phone with me if I did. That's progress. And hardly a Police State.
It would be if you were made to explain why you made phone calls.
Even in this country, which has some pretty draconian laws, police aren't permitted to do this sort of thing without strong reason.
I think you might be surprise at how many people knew about phone tracking, even back in 2007.
-
It would be if you were made to explain why you made phone calls.
Even in this country, which has some pretty draconian laws, police aren't permitted to do this sort of thing without strong reason.
I think you might be surprise at how many people knew about phone tracking, even back in 2007.
So what is your point? They obviously do it in Portugal, and rightly so, as far as I can see.
The fact that The McCann Phone Messages and Texts were not allowed to be used was a decision of a Portuguese Judge who must have seen them.
-
Not exactly a smoking gun then.
The whole concept is based on the assumption that there were two (or more) perps.
If there were, it is a reasonable conjecture that they might have communicated by mobile
- while both were in PDL - and close in time to (shortly before, during, or shortly after) the time of the crime.
So the data gets sensibly refined to pull out just those calls and txts where BOTH parties were using pdl masts.
UK experts in 2007 sensibly targeted especially the times of the two uncontained carrying sightings.
-
So what is your point? They obviously do it in Portugal, and rightly so, as far as I can see.
The fact that The McCann Phone Messages and Texts were not allowed to be used was a decision of a Portuguese Judge who must have seen them.
I'm not aware that the PJ have questioned people over their phone calls and demanded explanations as to why they made them.
They have studied the data, courtesy of UK experts, but it doesn't appear to have led to anything.
-
I'm not aware that the PJ have questioned people over their phone calls and demanded explanations as to why they made them.
They have studied the data, courtesy of UK experts, but it doesn't appear to have led to anything.
The Porto PJ haven't stated who they've interviewed since they reopened their investigation. And, hopefully, neither will they be leaking to the tabloids.
-
...see
This is even less accurate with only 2 towers.
I was hoping that the second tower is near the Smiths sighing.
Also we don't know if there is a third tower near by and how far.
IMO a good mathematician can work out a miracle if given this data, even a good programmer or an unix sys admin can also get interesting info.
Even if you give it to me, give me an unix system and I might work much longer but I am sure I personally can get a big clue out of there.. let alone some bright young people..
-
I was hoping that the second tower is near the Smiths sighing.
Also we don't know if there is a third tower near by and how far.
IMO a good mathematician can work out a miracle if given this data, even a good programmer or an unix sys admin can also get interesting info.
Even if you give it to me, give me an unix system and I might work much longer but I am sure I personally can get a big clue out of there.. let alone some bright young people..
Speaking as a mathematician, and a retired sysprog, unless the data is there in the first place, you can't do much. GIGO.
Consider that coverage from phone masts are not nice round circles but follow land contours and building shadows. Trying to locate a phone with any degree of accuracy is virtually impossible.
They now what numbers were in the area and talking to each other, that's it.
-
Speaking as a mathematician, and a retired sysprog, unless the data is there in the first place, you can't do much. GIGO.
Consider that coverage from phone masts are not nice round circles but follow land contours and building shadows. Trying to locate a phone with any degree of accuracy is virtually impossible.
They now what numbers were in the area and talking to each other, that's it.
My bet is that with modern 3D technology they can tell pretty accurately which places pings/ calls came from. Easy to test anyway. Just go to the suspected spot and see if it registers ...... and how.
-
My bet is that with modern 3D technology they can tell pretty accurately which places pings/ calls came from. Easy to test anyway. Just go to the suspected spot and see if it registers ...... and how.
It is highly unlikely that the mobile infrastructure in PDL has remained as it was in 2007, this associated with improvements in handsets would make an phone reconstruction virtually impossible.
I thought from your previous posts you were an engineer?
-
It is highly unlikely that the mobile infrastructure in PDL has remained as it was in 2007, this associated with improvements in handsets would make an phone reconstruction virtually impossible.
I thought from your previous posts you were an engineer?
Mechanical, but have not practiced for 50 years.
Electronically I know little, but I understand basic principles about triangulation etc. and I know 3D technology has progressed in leaps and bounds.
I would be surprised if the technology isn't around now to take account of hills and the like to identify ping spots..
They know where the old technology indicated. Put the info in a new updated machine and bingo it would tell you immedaitely, I would think.
I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
-
Mechanical, but have not practiced for 50 years.
Electronically I know little, but I understand basic principles about triangulation etc. and I know 3D technology has progressed in leaps and bounds.
I would be surprised if the technology isn't around now to take account of hills and the like to identify ping spots..
They know where the old technology indicated. Put the info in a new updated machine and bingo it would tell you immedaitely, I would think.
I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.
What do you mean by 3D technology?
-
What do you mean by 3D technology?
I know little about it, but I do know things have progressed beyong two dimensional stuff to 3D.
Perhaps you could elucidate?
-
I know little about it, but I do know things have progressed beyong two dimensional stuff to 3D.
Perhaps you could elucidate?
You used the term, I wondered what you meant?
-
You used the term, I wondered what you meant?
I have just said I know little about it, but do know it is around these days.
I asked YOU to elucidate
-
I have just said I know little about it, but do know it is around these days.
I asked YOU to elucidate
I have no idea what any 3D technology has to do with analysing phone pings. Either you have some source for your comment or it is just technobabble.
-
It will be interesting to see if the analysis of the phone traffic proves to be of any use.
Even if it does not point to a perpetrator it is a line of investigation which should have been followed in 2007.
...
But you seem to have missed that this line of investigation (tracing mobile phone traffic) was followed in May/June 2007 by the Met's top phone traffic analysis expert working with Mr Amaral.
"2 June 2007 ... one of the British investigators ... has been identified as the Metropolitan police's top digital analysis expert." (Guardian)
In your keenness to criticise Mr Amaral you are actually criticising the Met !
-
Even if it does not point to a perpetrator it is a line of investigation which should have been followed in 2007.
...
But you seem to have missed that this line of investigation (tracing mobile phone traffic) was followed in May/June 2007 by the Met's top phone traffic analysis expert working with Mr Amaral.
"2 June 2007 ... one of the British investigators ... has been identified as the Metropolitan police's top digital analysis expert." (Guardian)
In your keenness to criticise Mr Amaral you are actually criticising the Met !
Never one to miss a chance to give credit where credit is due, I am indeed 'keen' that Dr Amaral is held responsible for failings in procedures over which he had control.
However I am finding it strange that you have picked one element of what was an exchange to quote me out of context.
In response to Slarti's Quote from December 07
"So if the PJ didn't investigate phone records, why did they collect them?"
I said, "I am not certain about this ... so stand to be corrected ... I believe it was British technicians who collected the technical information and passed it to the PJ. Whether that was at the behest of Leicestershire Police or the PJ I have no idea.
The PJ thoroughly scrutinised the phone records of Mr Murat, the Drs McCann and their friends ... that they went no further is not a question for me ... I am equally in the dark about that as you are." http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5764.msg204551#msg204551
So there you have it ... I didn't have a cite for the British contribution ... but I did know about it and I think the point I was making is that the data was collected by the Brits and used selectively by the PJ.
We can see what a huge omission that was to the investigation by the witnesses being interviewed and reinterviewed on the strength of the data collected in 2007.
-
@Brietta the tracing of mobile communications by the Amaral investigation was directed at employees also, for example
"we compared the declarations of the Ocean Club's employees with the phone registries of the 3 operators, to figure out if there is any incongruence between the depositions made and their presence at the place, when they claimed that they were absent from that locality. Following this line of reasoning it was determined that two witnesses Bernardino (p 372) and Ecaterina (p 596) activated one of the antennas, beyond the time that they stated having left that area."
-
With regard to the number that he dialled on that day at that time, he says it was the number 966****** corresponding to his wife's number, which was confirmed in this file.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BERNARDINO-SILVA.htm
-
@Brietta the tracing of mobile communications by the Amaral investigation was directed at employees also, for example
"we compared the declarations of the Ocean Club's employees with the phone registries of the 3 operators, to figure out if there is any incongruence between the depositions made and their presence at the place, when they claimed that they were absent from that locality. Following this line of reasoning it was determined that two witnesses Bernardino (p 372) and Ecaterina (p 596) activated one of the antennas, beyond the time that they stated having left that area."
The files revealed the disproportionate scrutiny given to the Drs McCann and their friends' phone records.
IMO the investigation seemed to ignore that there were more people in Praia Da Luz than them, something which did not escape the officers from Operation Grange who carried out the due diligence previously ignored, action which seems to have paid dividends. The information they are working now was available in 2007.
*** snip
“The majority will be entirely uninvolved in what happened but some will be witnesses and others may be suspects. This is not just a general trawl. This is a targeted attack on the mobile phone database. It has not happened before.” [/b]
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/434211/Madeleine-McCann-investigation-police-vet-every-phone-call-made-from-resort
-
The files revealed the disproportionate scrutiny given to the Drs McCann and their friends' phone records.
IMO the investigation seemed to ignore that there were more people in Praia Da Luz than them, something which did not escape the officers from Operation Grange who carried out the due diligence previously ignored, action which seems to have paid dividends. The information they are working now was available in 2007.
*** snip
“The majority will be entirely uninvolved in what happened but some will be witnesses and others may be suspects. This is not just a general trawl. This is a targeted attack on the mobile phone database. It has not happened before.” [/b]
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/434211/Madeleine-McCann-investigation-police-vet-every-phone-call-made-from-resort
Back in mid 2007 Amaral and the Met experts concentrated on PDL mobile traffic near time of JT sighting and near time of Smith sighting. The more recent SY investigation expanded that and looked at a larger period of time, using the records obtained from the 3 providers back in 2007.
-
Back in mid 2007 Amaral and the Met experts concentrated on PDL mobile traffic near time of JT sighting and near time of Smith sighting. The more recent SY investigation expanded that and looked at a larger period of time, using the records obtained from the 3 providers back in 2007.
That information was available to the original investigation who did not thoroughly exploit it. Instead of analysing it as a whole to see the bigger picture they concentrated on a few pixels designed to reinforce the theory of parental involvement.
A truly valuable resource was perhaps misunderstood but certainly implemented with one objective in view.
-
That information was available to the original investigation who did not thoroughly exploit it. Instead of analysing it as a whole to see the bigger picture they concentrated on a few pixels designed to reinforce the theory of parental involvement.
A truly valuable resource was perhaps misunderstood but certainly implemented with one objective in view.
Yes when analysing the PDL mobile traffic the PJ/Met in mid 2007 concentrated on the time of the JT sighting and the time of the Smith sighting. There were no T9 phonecalls at the times of those sightings. IIRC the first T9 phonecalls were at 23:14 and 23:17?
-
As the women were holed up in the apartments looking after the children and the men were out and about searching, would you expect a little traffic between them earlier than 23.00 - just to keep people informed ?
-
Yes when analysing the PDL mobile traffic the PJ/Met in mid 2007 concentrated on the time of the JT sighting and the time of the Smith sighting. There were no T9 phonecalls at the times of those sightings. IIRC the first T9 phonecalls were at 23:14 and 23:17?
The pings which perhaps should have been of interest to the investigation were those between employees and ex employees and other people known to the police in PDL.
It was these which were analysed by SY and the PJ and which led to the reopening of the case here and in Portugal.
May I respectfully point out had this diligence occurred in 2007 ... and the information was there to be used ... there is a probability Madeleine's case could have been resolved.
I think that is heartbreaking.
-
The pings which perhaps should have been of interest to the investigation were those between employees and ex employees and other people known to the police in PDL.
It was these which were analysed by SY and the PJ and which led to the reopening of the case here and in Portugal.
May I respectfully point out had this diligence occurred in 2007 ... and the information was there to be used ... there is a probability Madeleine's case could have been resolved.
I think that is heartbreaking.
You are making several assumptions there - that there was more than one person involved talking to one another and that whoever was involved had a mobile phone with them.
-
You are making several assumptions there - that there was more than one person involved talking to one another and that whoever was involved had a mobile phone with them.
Precisely. By placing so much importance on mobile phone calls and txts, SY are making a big assumption= that it was more than one person what did it. These crimes are usually one person did it alone with no help and not telling a soul and therefore obviously there would be no phonecalls or txts.
-
regarding mobile phones:
I believe it was an alibi for some suspect, that their phone pings were elsewhere, but is there not a possibility that the phone in question was left with another, who was using it at the time that an alibi was required for?
This could apply to many of the pings.
I find it difficult to believe that a planned abduction team (if that's what it was) would not know about Mobile phone tracing, but maybe it was a procedure not always used in Portugal, I'm not sure.
-
Precisely. By placing so much importance on mobile phone calls and txts, SY are making a big assumption= that it was more than one person what did it. These crimes are usually one person did it alone with no help and not telling a soul and therefore obviously there would be no phonecalls or txts.
I have always said as much pegasus, the only exception would be where a gang is involved but that in itself would imply a spate of abductions. My own view is the telephony data has no sinister relevance whatsoever to Madeleine's disappearance and that is why the PJ never pursued it to the extent SY have.
-
I have always said as much pegasus, the only exception would be where a gang is involved but that in itself would imply a spate of abductions. My own view is the telephony data has no sinister relevance whatsoever to Madeleine's disappearance and that is why the PJ never pursued it to the extent SY have.
This has been done to death before probably but: I would have thought any seriously "bent geezers" would be using unregistered phones on PAYG paid for and topped up with cash rather that buy and use a contracted "sign post" pointing straight at them.
-
I have always said as much pegasus, the only exception would be where a gang is involved but that in itself would imply a spate of abductions. My own view is the telephony data has no sinister relevance whatsoever to Madeleine's disappearance and that is why the PJ never pursued it to the extent SY have.
It may turn out that the phone data sheds no useful light at all. However, until it is thoroughly checked out and excluded, there is no way of knowing, is there?
-
regarding mobile phones:
I believe it was an alibi for some suspect, that their phone pings were elsewhere, but is there not a possibility that the phone in question was left with another, who was using it at the time that an alibi was required for?
This could apply to many of the pings.
I find it difficult to believe that a planned abduction team (if that's what it was) would not know about Mobile phone tracing, but maybe it was a procedure not always used in Portugal, I'm not sure.
That's a possibility, but would presumably require accomplices (or even innocent phone sharing).
-
Precisely. By placing so much importance on mobile phone calls and txts, SY are making a big assumption= that it was more than one person what did it. These crimes are usually one person did it alone with no help and not telling a soul and therefore obviously there would be no phonecalls or txts.
That may depend on several things, I would have thought.
A ping doesn't equate to a call / text - just the location of a phone.
A lone predator may indeed have no reason to contact anyone else at that moment, but that doesn't obviate the possibility that someone else may have been trying to get in touch (for possibly innocent / unrelated reasons).
A burglary-gone-wrong scenario may - or may not - involve more than one person.
The phone data may not lead anywhere useful in the end, but at least it will have been checked out as thoroughly as possible.
-
This has been done to death before probably but: I would have thought any seriously "bent geezers" would be using unregistered phones on PAYG paid for and topped up with cash rather that buy and use a contracted "sign post" pointing straight at them.
Possibly, but that may depend on how savvy the person or persons were and on whatever regulations were in place in Portugal at the time (or even a few years prior).
-
Someone went to the bother of retrieving the data ... whether that was an initiative of SY or the PJ I have no idea.
It is indisputable that the information retrieved was used in the investigation, the evidence for that is in the files.
It is how it was used that is the problem.
It is indisputable that the investigation went no further than the parties the theory had decided had a case to answer ... to the exclusion of any other phone traffic.
Like everything else when this reached a dead end ... instead of investigating further ... the dummy was thrown out of the pram and a book was written to prove what could not be sustained by the evidence.
If different avenues had been properly investigated in 2007 the job being undertaken today by the PJ and SY might very well have been unnecessary as people would have been either ruled in or ruled out.
The blinkered conviction that Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance blinded the investigation to any other possibilities and IMO was very shoddy work.
-
Someone went to the bother of retrieving the data ... whether that was an initiative of SY or the PJ I have no idea.
It is indisputable that the information retrieved was used in the investigation, the evidence for that is in the files.
It is how it was used that is the problem.
It is indisputable that the investigation went no further than the parties the theory had decided had a case to answer ... to the exclusion of any other phone traffic.
Like everything else when this reached a dead end ... instead of investigating further ... the dummy was thrown out of the pram and a book was written to prove what could not be sustained by the evidence.
If different avenues had been properly investigated in 2007 the job being undertaken today by the PJ and SY might very well have been unnecessary as people would have been either ruled in or ruled out.
The blinkered conviction that Madeleine's parents were involved in her disappearance blinded the investigation to any other possibilities and IMO was very shoddy work.
ALL mobile traffic PDL mast to PDL mast (voice and txt) for the period of the Smith Sighting.
Produced by the May/June 2007 Amaral/Met team. Absolutely no targeting of the T9 here.
I traced a few of the numbers, they are other tourists, local residents, and MW employees, but no T9 numbers.
-
Possibly, but that may depend on how savvy the person or persons were and on whatever regulations were in place in Portugal at the time (or even a few years prior).
So the suggestion there is that "these persons" were dim, fundamentally law abiding persons?
i.e. not smart enough to know about unregistered PAYG phones on cash and/or too law abiding to have a bent phone?
C'mon Carana that is just not likely. If they were that daft they couldn't work out a plan to find the nearest pub let alone kidnap a child (if one subscribes to the abduction theory).
-
ALL mobile traffic PDL mast to PDL mast (voice and txt) for the period of the Smith Sighting.
Produced by the May/June 2007 Amaral/Met team. Absolutely no targeting of the T9 here.
I traced a few of the numbers, they are other tourists, local residents, and MW employees, but no T9 numbers.
Yes?
I hate to labour the point and at the risk of going in circles ...
The data was collected ... and in my opinion the important data transmitted was immediately during and immediately after the period in which Madeleine went missing, and only the phones which activated the transmitters at that requisite time are of interest.
Where is the evidence of the collation and processing of the active phone data you indicate which falls within that time scale and which covers PDL in its entirety?
The McCann friends were sitting at a given location at that time and had no need to communicate using phones.
There is however plenty of evidence that all calls from Madeleine's parents and their friends were subject to intensive scrutiny.
The investigation neglected the obvious investigative route ... that would be the people who were in active phone communication with each other over the period when Madeleine vanished.
That omission has now been rectified.
-
Yes?
I hate to labour the point and at the risk of going in circles ...
The data was collected ... and in my opinion the important data transmitted was immediately during and immediately after the period in which Madeleine went missing, and only the phones which activated the transmitters at that requisite time are of interest.
Where is the evidence of the collation and processing of the active phone data you indicate which falls within that time scale and which covers PDL in its entirety?
The McCann friends were sitting at a given location at that time and had no need to communicate using phones.
There is however plenty of evidence that all calls from Madeleine's parents and their friends were subject to intensive scrutiny.
The investigation neglected the obvious investigative route ... that would be the people who were in active phone communication with each other over the period when Madeleine vanished.
That omission has now been rectified.
Clearly you have a problem with this. Do you think they shouldn't have been checked?
-
Clearly you have a problem with this. Do you think they shouldn't have been checked?
Not my problem if you affect to misunderstand what I am saying ... but nothing new under the sun is there?
I am at ease with all relevant information being checked and where necessary followed ... can you show me a cite for that taking place with all the phone traffic for the relevant period as outlined in pegasus' post?
I think my concerns lie not so much with phone traffic investigated (remember Robert Murat and his associates were investigated and they had actually used their phones at the time in question) but with the failure to investigate an obvious and elementary line of inquiry which concerns the phone calls actually made by a wider populace.
-
Does anyone realise that if more than one person was involved, and if they communicated with mobiles, their communication would probably be on the comms list I posted above, which shows all PDL mobile to PDL mobile traffic around the time of the Smith sighting.
Another thing - if the newspaper report is correct that a brit female tourist saw a man walking talking on mobile carrying a child -it would probably be on that list.
That is the sort of work SY have been doing, courtesy of the excellent data gathering from the 3 networks by Amaral/Met in mid 2007.
Its mainly portuguese SIM cards, and a few UK.
Only two long calls there, a six minute call at 21:52, and an eight and a half minute call at 22:14.
-
Does anyone realise that if more than one person was involved, and if they communicated with mobiles, their communication would probably be on the comms list I posted above, which shows all PDL mobile to PDL mobile traffic around the time of the Smith sighting.
Another thing - if the newspaper report is correct that a brit female tourist saw a man walking talking on mobile carrying a child -it would probably be on that list.
That is the sort of work SY have been doing, courtesy of the excellent data gathering from the 3 networks by Amaral/Met in mid 2007.
Its mainly portuguese SIM cards, and a few UK.
Only two long calls there, a six minute call at 21:52, and an eight and a half minute call at 22:14.
Are you sure this was the whole list?
SY has something else I believe and this is the mast(s) logging too.. the masts log all phones that connect to the towers. This is not only the mobile phones that were making calls but also the mobile phones that were in the area but were not making calls..
-
This has been done to death before probably but: I would have thought any seriously "bent geezers" would be using unregistered phones on PAYG paid for and topped up with cash rather that buy and use a contracted "sign post" pointing straight at them.
This doesn't matter. These people's phones can identify them. They call some other numbers that are registered, they connect to masts in the area and show their movements, their connecting to mast near CCTV cameras at certain times can lead to identifying them too..
-
Are you sure this was the whole list?
SY has something else I believe and this is the mast(s) logging too.. the masts log all phones that connect to the towers. This is not only the mobile phones that were making calls but also the mobile phones that were in the area but were not making calls..
There is another similar list for around the time of JT sighting.
In mid 2007 a huge amount of data was collected from the three mobile networks completely covering several days. Then (very sensibly) attention was focussed especially on these two sighting periods and where both mobiles used PDL masts.
In the large ping data lists in the files, every ping listed matches an actual call or txt sent or recieved. There are no "passive" pings in that data.
JIMO SY are working from the same data collected mid 2007 and IMO they have no "passive" ping data.
-
This doesn't matter. These people's phones can identify them. They call some other numbers that are registered, they connect to masts in the area and show their movements, their connecting to mast near CCTV cameras at certain times can lead to identifying them too..
I think the key phrase was "unregistered phones on PAYG paid for and topped up with cash". You may identify a phone number but not a person.
-
I think the key phrase was "unregistered phones on PAYG paid for and topped up with cash". You may identify a phone number but not a person.
I am glad some one is awake ; mercy!
-
I think the key phrase was "unregistered phones on PAYG paid for and topped up with cash". You may identify a phone number but not a person.
You can identify this person by other means. They still contact some people using this phone and they still appear near the CCTV cameras. Some use internet and social media on the phone too.. A bit more work but they can be identified.
-
There is another similar list for around the time of JT sighting.
In mid 2007 a huge amount of data was collected from the three mobile networks completely covering several days. Then (very sensibly) attention was focussed especially on these two sighting periods and where both mobiles used PDL masts.
In the large ping data lists in the files, every ping listed matches an actual call or txt sent or recieved. There are no "passive" pings in that data.
JIMO SY are working from the same data collected mid 2007 and IMO they have no "passive" ping data.
I think you are wrong. There is an EU regulation in place where the phone companies have a duty to hold the data for several years. I followed several crime cases within the EU where the data you call ping was collected afterwards. It takes time and it takes several phone companies to provide the data but this has been done in much less serious cases than this one.
-
I didn't know that, Vixte.
Some very clever, detective work involved in the tracing of some phones, by the sounds of it.
-
I think you are wrong. There is an EU regulation in place where the phone companies have a duty to hold the data for several years. I followed several crime cases within the EU where the data you call ping was collected afterwards. It takes time and it takes several phone companies to provide the data but this has been done in much less serious cases than this one.
I'm sure it has, but that doesn't mean that it will always be the case. It might prove useful, it might not.
-
I think the key phrase was "unregistered phones on PAYG paid for and topped up with cash". You may identify a phone number but not a person.
Here are two ways to identify such users:
(1) Obtain from phone manufacturer/distributor the store location and date/time of purchase of phone/SIM. Then recover CCTV from the shop, and you have a visual of the user.
(2) Trace all numbers communicating to/from the target phone, then analyse the records of those other phones, to trace the user of the covert phone.
-
Don't think your option 1 is going to work after 7 years.
Option 2 might work, unless phone is just identifiable by a number, rather than someone's name.
-
I think the whole point of my original post is being missed.
If there was a gang as well drilled as they must have been to have pulled off an abduction they will not have been using something that is in effect a signpost pointing straight at them.
The phones and sims of the gang would have been unregistered ie "bent" and any monetary transactions will be cash.
Start thinking dishonestly and dirty rather than how bleedin' fantastic we are technologically provided everyone obeys the law.
But then what ever turns you on.
-
Don't think your option 1 is going to work after 7 years.
Option 2 might work, unless phone is just identifiable by a number, rather than someone's name.
I've used method 2 to identify a mobile user (a totally innocent searcher BTW) which the original investigation according to the published files marked as unidentified. If you have a list of numbers that communicated to/from the "unknown" user, you delve into those numbers and the clues are there.
-
Yes, I understand that, provided that its not peer to peer unregistered PAYG, or the person being phoned can't remember the identity.
-
And sometimes one person buys a phone then gives it to another person. There are 3 examples of that in the files IIRC.
-
I've used method 2 to identify a mobile user (a totally innocent searcher BTW) which the original investigation according to the published files marked as unidentified. If you have a list of numbers that communicated to/from the "unknown" user, you delve into those numbers and the clues are there.
If that is correct and I'm sure it is, Pegasus, Would it not be unsafe for a criminal to use any sort of mobile phone?
What about the possibility of a radio/walkie talkie, would that be traceable?
-
I've used method 2 to identify a mobile user (a totally innocent searcher BTW) which the original investigation according to the published files marked as unidentified. If you have a list of numbers that communicated to/from the "unknown" user, you delve into those numbers and the clues are there.
It could also show that it easy to trace the innocent, but not the guilty.
-
Sorry Jassi. Did what for the Tapas group?
Sorry, was answering another post. He gave several mobile phones to the Tapas group for use in Portugal.
-
Sorry, was answering another post. He gave several mobile phones to the Tapas group for use in Portugal.
Thank you. Yes I remember that now.
-
Yes, someone (Payne's brother in law?) did that for Tapas group, as I recall
On kind request of A in UK, 2 phones are purchased by B in Portugal, who gives them both to C in Portimao, who gives one of them to D in PDL. Or something like that. LP did a great job solving that.
-
On kind request of A in UK, 2 phones are purchased by B in Portugal, who gives them both to C in Portimao, who gives one of them to D in PDL. Or something like that. LP did a great job solving that.
I bet they had great fun. I also recall that the Tapas' existing phones were swapped about, the reason given was that batteries were flat at various times.
-
I bet they had great fun. I also recall that the Tapas' existing phones were swapped about, the reason given was that batteries were flat at various times.
Correct, but is reasonable, if one's battery is flat, or credit used up, or if one did not take mobile on holiday, to use a friend/relative's mobile to make a call, nothing wrong with that.
-
Correct, but is reasonable, if one's battery is flat, or credit used up, or if one did not take mobile on holiday, to use a friend/relative's mobile to make a call, nothing wrong with that.
Absolutely. Nothing at all, but it does demonstrate the problems with identification via mobiles
-
Absolutely. Nothing at all, but it does demonstrate the problems with identification via mobiles
Solveable problems. All the hypothesis here of imaginary peeps with second mobiles when in the released documents are only two such examples. I do not think there was anything out of order with them. But here is one for those (not you) who criticise Mr Amaral - they may now proceed to accuse him of incompetence in not identifying these two mobiles?
-
Don't think your option 1 is going to work after 7 years.
Option 2 might work, unless phone is just identifiable by a number, rather than someone's name.
If their phones were unregistered and used only that night they would definitely be suspects.
I think if this had happened we would know about it!
If they were used prior and after that night then they could be traced thought calls to registered numbers.
-
All this stuff in the latest news about tracing phonecalls but no-one commented yet on the phonecalls at 23:14 and 23:17 just after GNR arrived
-
All this stuff in the latest news about tracing phonecalls but no-one commented yet on the phonecalls at 23:14 and 23:17 just after GNR arrived
What would be there to comment about? We can only speculate...
-
If their phones were unregistered and used only that night they would definitely be suspects.
I think if this had happened we would know about it!
If they were used prior and after that night then they could be traced thought calls to registered numbers.
Now that definitely is scary, pop into your local supermarket, buy a cheap phone and sim with cash, make a call near PDL on the night in question, and wham bam thank you ma'am, you are a suspect.
-
Now that definitely is scary, pop into your local supermarket, buy a cheap phone and sim with cash, make a call near PDL on the night in question, and wham bam thank you ma'am, you are a suspect.
Sigh ... nope, if you can be traced via the call you made ... a competent investigator will ascertain whether or not you may be a person of interest.
It is my understanding that the calls requiring explanation made by MW employees are those which were made from the immediate area to people outwith the area and in some cases to each other. They were not searchers and were not working that night.
Is it your philosophy that investigators should ignore obvious lines of inquiry to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of innocent people legitimately going about their business ... or do you think the way to apprehend a culprit is to ignore all avenues of investigation and wait for a perpetrator to see the light and pop along to the police station to 'fess up'?
Heavens forfend the police should investigate just in case they might find a suspect!!
Then no real worries on that score ... it took the investigation by officers from Operation Grange to analyse the data from 2007.
So if they do have their eye on a suspect, more power to their elbow is my opinion. They are after all, doing this in the effort to discover what happened to a missing child.
-
All this stuff in the latest news about tracing phonecalls but no-one commented yet on the phonecalls at 23:14 and 23:17 just after GNR arrived
Which were these, Pegasus? I haven't followed the phone aspect as much as you have done.
-
Sigh ... nope, if you can be traced via the call you made ... a competent investigator will ascertain whether or not you may be a person of interest.
It is my understanding that the calls requiring explanation made by MW employees are those which were made from the immediate area to people outwith the area and in some cases to each other. They were not searchers and were not working that night.
Is it your philosophy that investigators should ignore obvious lines of inquiry to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of innocent people legitimately going about their business ... or do you think the way to apprehend a culprit is to ignore all avenues of investigation and wait for a perpetrator to see the light and pop along to the police station to 'fess up'?
Heavens forfend the police should investigate just in case they might find a suspect!!
Then no real worries on that score ... it took the investigation by officers from Operation Grange to analyse the data from 2007.
So if they do have their eye on a suspect, more power to their elbow is my opinion. They are after all, doing this in the effort to discover what happened to a missing child.
You would label anyone in the vicinity with a mobile a suspect unless their name begins with M.
-
All this stuff in the latest news about tracing phonecalls but no-one commented yet on the phonecalls at 23:14 and 23:17 just after GNR arrived
23:14 Gerry calls Kate (8 seconds)
23:17 Gerry calls Kate (31 seconds) &%+((£
I see nothing extraordinary at all about the communication. Given the scrutiny of the McCann phone traffic, it is obvious to me that the PJ will have investigated and have been satisfied with the answers given.
However, it does tend to reinforce my argument that there is a tendency for inordinate consideration continuing to be heavily weighted in the wrong direction.
How about ...
Gerry who was out searching for his daughter calls home ... "have they found her yet?" or "has she turned up yet?" or "have the police arrived yet?" or " I hear the sirens, I'm going to reception to speak to the police".
Loads and loads of legitimate reasons for the communication ... nothing suspicious ... which I am sure the PJ ascertained.
-
Sigh ... nope, if you can be traced via the call you made ... a competent investigator will ascertain whether or not you may be a person of interest.
It is my understanding that the calls requiring explanation made by MW employees are those which were made from the immediate area to people outwith the area and in some cases to each other. They were not searchers and were not working that night.
Is it your philosophy that investigators should ignore obvious lines of inquiry to avoid upsetting the sensibilities of innocent people legitimately going about their business ... or do you think the way to apprehend a culprit is to ignore all avenues of investigation and wait for a perpetrator to see the light and pop along to the police station to 'fess up'?
Heavens forfend the police should investigate just in case they might find a suspect!!
Then no real worries on that score ... it took the investigation by officers from Operation Grange to analyse the data from 2007.
So if they do have their eye on a suspect, more power to their elbow is my opinion. They are after all, doing this in the effort to discover what happened to a missing child.
Only if the phone number can be linked to a name.
Cash and bent phones make that difficult. What makes you think an experienced criminal will buy a phone using "legal" methods which will point straight to him?. You can just see him can't you popping into Carphone Warehouse with his credit card buying a contract phone and putting down his correct name and address?. Mercy!
So whilst The Met will trace all these pinging people it is unlikely they are guilty of much other than being out using their phones. The cops may wish to ask them if they saw anything untoward but that's about all.
-
You would label anyone in the vicinity with a mobile a suspect unless their name begins with M.
LOL ... I am in the business of REAL evidence which will match a REAL individual to Madeleine's disappearance.
Since there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that individual is any one in the McCann party ... logic dictates that leaves someone from outside mobile phone or not.
That there is still information to be gathered is evidenced by the current activities of the PJ and SY and I'm at ease in letting them take their investigation as far as it will go and hopefully that will result in a satisfactory conclusion to Madeleine's case.
I am not so presumptive that I would "label" anyone ... maybe you should consider taking a leaf out of my book.
-
Only if the phone number can be linked to a name.
Cash and bent phones make that difficult. What makes you think an experienced criminal will buy a phone using "legal" methods which will point straight to him?. You can just see him can't you popping into Carphone Warehouse with his credit card buying a contract phone and putting down his correct name and address?. Mercy!
So whilst The Met will trace all these pinging people it is unlikely they are guilty of much other than being out using their phones. The cops may wish to ask them if they saw anything untoward but that's about all.
Can you find a post from me which suggests anything different?
My "sticky record" theme is my disgust that investigations and questioning which should have been carried out at the time of Madeleine's disappearance were wilfully neglected.
The phones are one issue ... the inexplicable loss of close by CCTV footage is another. Huge investigative failures in anybody's book ... with perhaps one notable exception.
-
Can you find a post from me which suggests anything different?
My "sticky record" theme is my disgust that investigations and questioning which should have been carried out at the time of Madeleine's disappearance were wilfully neglected.
The phones are one issue ... the inexplicable loss of close by CCTV footage is another. Huge investigative failures in anybody's book ... with perhaps one notable exception.
I didn't say I could.
Do you have evidence of willful neglect?
It does make me wonder how any crime was solved pre 1980.
-
I didn't say I could.
Do you have evidence of willful neglect?
It does make me wonder how any crime was solved pre 1980.
I wonder as well. In the best of cases, presumably on the basis of evidence available at the time and a jury's appreciation of trial experts.
Some were no doubt guilty... but I do wonder how many innocent people may have been executed or who may find themselves serving long sentences while the real culprits remain free.
Scary thought.
-
I wonder as well. In the best of cases, presumably on the basis of evidence available at the time and a jury's appreciation of trial experts.
Some were no doubt guilty... but I do wonder how many innocent people may have been executed or who may find themselves serving long sentences while the real culprits remain free.
Scary thought.
Amaral was using the pre 80's way playing Sherlock Holmes and he obviously failed.
-
Oh gosh irony is lost on here.
Technology is a tool and only as good those who use it and interpret it. More than one modern miscarriage of justice is the result of "dodgy" forensic science.
-
And sometimes it appears that technology is of no help at all, for example incomplete or mixed DNA profiles that defy interpretation
-
There aren't that many new tools, are there? Studies don't all seem to come to the same conclusion, but from what I can gather about cold cases being solved, the key elements seem to be:
- New forensic technology (not just DNA-based);
- Information overlooked at the time;
- New information or evidence (witnesses coming forward who previously weren't willing to do so, or who had only recently discovered something potentially pertinent; the discovery of potentially connected objects);
And... piecing together all the seemingly disparate elements into a coherent database.
-
23:14 Gerry calls Kate (8 seconds)
23:17 Gerry calls Kate (31 seconds) &%+((£
I see nothing extraordinary at all about the communication. Given the scrutiny of the McCann phone traffic, it is obvious to me that the PJ will have investigated and have been satisfied with the answers given.
However, it does tend to reinforce my argument that there is a tendency for inordinate consideration continuing to be heavily weighted in the wrong direction.
How about ...
Gerry who was out searching for his daughter calls home ... "have they found her yet?" or "has she turned up yet?" or "have the police arrived yet?" or " I hear the sirens, I'm going to reception to speak to the police".
Loads and loads of legitimate reasons for the communication ... nothing suspicious ... which I am sure the PJ ascertained.
IMO 23:14 is after GNR had arrived at main reception and met father there and driven with father to the apartment. These two very short mobile calls indicate that soon after GNR arrival at apartment, father was out searching again. The calls were probably something like "anyone found her yet?". But they would not be "have GNR arrived yet?", because these two calls are after father had met and spoken with GNR, IMO.
-
IMO 23:14 is after GNR had arrived at main reception and met father there and driven with father to the apartment. These two very short mobile calls indicate that soon after GNR arrival at apartment, father was out searching again. The calls were probably something like "anyone found her yet?". But they would not be "have GNR arrived yet?", because these two calls are after father had met and spoken with GNR, IMO.
All it says is that they were not together at that point.
-
All it says is that they were not together at that point.
Correct, also we know recipient was in/near apartment therefore caller was not near apartment and was searching somewhere else.
-
Correct, also we know recipient was in/near apartment therefore caller was not near apartment and was searching somewhere else.
Could have been in the back garden?