For Albertini ...

[Albertini]

you now talk about degrees of innocence when you have clearly stated that not guilty means 100% innocent
If not guilty means 100% innocent then Barry George is 100% innocent in law in your eyes. You haven't got a clue

Correct. Because whereas you think everything is black and white, like everything in life there are shades of grey.

If you are found not guilty you are innocent under law. It is that simple.

Barry George WAS ultimately acquitted of the charges against him and his conviction was quashed.

So in law he is innocent of the charges brought against him of murdering Jill Dando.

With regards to the degrees of innocence in relation to his appeal for compensation, yes the judges ruled against him in his appeal for compensation citing that there was reasonable assumption that jurors may find him guilty.

That does not alter the fact that he is innocent under law, which is why he is now free to walk the streets. If he wasn't he would still be incarcerated.

So it's clear you have Googled a lot but understood very little.

You have failed to understand the AG report, citing on many occasions, the Attorney General's report of being written by an "idiot". It is far more accurate to say your summary is one being read by an idiot rather than being written by one.

You have failed to understand the difference between a criminal and civil case.

You have failed to understand that when a person is found not guilty there is no mechanism or device under law (apart from the double jeopardy exception i have given you) to find that person guilty under law for the same charges and that as such an accused person found not guilty, is, in the eyes of criminal law, innocent.

You have failed to understand that there are degrees of innocence, whilst still ultimately retaining the principal of innocent until proven guilty.

You have failed to understand the difference between the AG report and judicial findings.

You have failed to understand that the AG report's statement of failing to prove their innocence actually means.

Other than that you've done a tip top job of keeping upto speed with everything!

[Carana]

I used the same number I use at home, while in Lisbon last year. Not Vodafone though, never been with that company.

2012? LOL But we're talking light years away from 2007.

[Carana]

You mean Albym tried the phone nb first and only after suppressed the last digits ?

No. He posted the full number. I took it out when posting here. The number is in the PT files.

The voicemail long number has changed since then, so there's not much point trying it.

[Carana]

Why was Vodafone UK relayed by TMN and not by Vodafone PT ?

I really don't underestand your question, I think you may have misunderstood.

- The analyst was pointing out anomalies in the lists provided by the various PT operators. He went through those from Optimus, then he moved on to Vodafone PT, then said that there weren't any from TMN.

- The analyst mentioned the SMS issue as one of the anomalies associated with Vodafone PT.

- Gerry's SMSs from Vodafone UK happened to come through on Vodafone PT. The phone could have picked up any of the operators within range.



I don't see what TMN has to do with the SMSs.

[Carana]

I feel sorry for the analyst who had to wade through all that...

METHODOLOGY ADOPTED (Report pages 3 and 4)

In the first phase the records obtained were processed, formatting the data from all tables into a common structure and data-type, namely: times and dates were formatted uniformly; country codes 351 and 44 were removed.

Optimus sent 31 pages of requested mobile phone numbers, separating the contacts by their type - "SMS-in"; "SMS_out"; "voz_in" and "voz_out". In fact, they should have sent only 4 pages [of actual useful data], given that the rest was made up of these extraneous characters.

This operator, contrary to the other two, opted to show parish, county and district of the place in which an antenna was located.

In those tables it was very frequently noted that those [data] fields (Parish, County and District) are filled with the word "Unknown" (unknown).

It was determined that that word identifies an antenna activated in [by] another carrier.

For example, in the listing for "44771325####_voz_out" there is a voice call attributed to that number (the mobile phone of Russel O'Brien); on 4 May, at 12:03:33. In the fields in question is the above word. The antenna that the mobile phone of the other party, Kate Healy (44774884####); activates is installed in Portimao, Faro. Now, this communication appears in the listing of Kate's mobile phone and not in Russel's listing. This communication is also registered on the TMN network, where one finds registered the majority of the mobile phone activations of that witness.

In the records of this operator there are further curious situations that were not possible to explain. In some cases it is unknown which antenna was activated either by the calling mobile phone or by the called device. One example of that arises also in the above list: a record on 20 May at 20:19:45. It is known that Russel was not in our country on that occasion, the record should appear in listings of Kate, however that does not occur.

Always when this situation was found it was decided to eliminate those records, due to the fact that they are safeguarded by other operators or because the location of the mobile phone was not so remarkable as to cause interference [distort the analysis] due to erroneous "readings". It was decided therefore to analyse [only] objective and firm [reliable] data.

In the case of operator Vodafone errors were found in the data of phone (44)7771591#### - Rachael MARIAMMA JEAN MAMPILLY. The data are repeated in the pages "Cham. Rec. 44777159####" and "SMS Rec. 44777159####".

Also in the data provided by this operator are 14 SMS messages received by the mobile phone of Gerald Patrick McCann, sent by the number 4477850####, however in the first listings obtained by the analysts, referring to the activations of the antennae that serve the area from where Madeleine disappeared, for the 2nd to 4th May, those messages had originated from mobile phone number 4478152####.

No anomaly was found with respect to the operator TMN.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PHONE_TEXTS.htm

[Mr Gray]

you now talk about degrees of innocence when you have clearly stated that not guilty means 100% innocent
If not guilty means 100% innocent then Barry George is 100% innocent in law in your eyes. You haven't got a clue

Correct.

[AnneGuedes]

I really don't underestand your question, I think you may have misunderstood.

- The analyst was pointing out anomalies in the lists provided by the various PT operators. He went through those from Optimus, then he moved on to Vodafone PT, then said that there weren't any from TMN.

- The analyst mentioned the SMS issue as one of the anomalies associated with Vodafone PT.

- Gerry's SMSs from Vodafone UK happened to come through on Vodafone PT. The phone could have picked up any of the operators within range.



I don't see what TMN has to do with the SMSs.

Carana, my doubt/question was related to that "mobile telephony for dumb people" from Jean-Pierre
Anne.  I think you will find that Vodaphone is a UK mobile phone operator.  Gerry was, it appears, a customer of Vodaphone in the UK.  This means that whilst in the UK, if he had voicemail waiting then he would be notified by Vodaphone using a special number.

However, at the time of these messsages he was in a country called Portugal.  (I don't know whether you have been there?).  In Portugal, one of the operators of mobile telephony is a company called Telecomunicações Móveis Nacionais.

Now, this name really is a bit of a mouthful.  So some very clever people decided to shorten it to TMN (Telecomunicações Móveis Nacionais - geddit?).

As the McCanns were in Portugal at the time, their calls were routed through this mobile telephone company, TMN.   (Telecomunicações Móveis Nacionais - do you remember me mentioning them before?).   And that is why TMN were mentioned.

I hope that makes things a bit clearer for you. 
What a mess ! I just wish I knew if the PGR was as dumb as I am in telephony matters. I just can't believe it.

[John]

So after all the technical analyses its back to the simple question.  Why didn't Gerry simply tell the PJ what was in the messages and who sent them?

[Eleanor]

So after all the technical analyses its back to the simple question.  Why didn't Gerry simply tell the PJ what was in the messages and who sent them?

Did The PJ ask Gerry?  Or did they go all around the houses instead?

[Mr Gray]

So after all the technical analyses its back to the simple question.  Why didn't Gerry simply tell the PJ what was in the messages and who sent them?

there may be a very simple reason.
Why should Gerry give details of texts that may have been of a personal nature to a police force that would pass them on to the  gutter press that would print them for the whole world to see.

[Eleanor]

As far as I can remember The Judge already had the messages, or at least access to them.  He decided that they shouldn't be revealed.

[Albertini]

you now talk about degrees of innocence when you have clearly stated that not guilty means 100% innocent
If not guilty means 100% innocent then Barry George is 100% innocent in law in your eyes. You haven't got a clue

Correct.

This bit is correct:

you now talk about degrees of innocence when you have clearly stated that not guilty means 100% innocent
If not guilty means 100% innocent then Barry George is 100% innocent in law in your eyes.

The rest of your ramblings regarding your cat, whale omelettes and your knowledge of the law i simply ignore.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how someone found not guilty in a criminal court is not deemed innocent under law of the charges he or she is acquitted of.

I know what your quote says but i would like you to explain it please.

[Mr Gray]

This bit is correct:

you now talk about degrees of innocence when you have clearly stated that not guilty means 100% innocent
If not guilty means 100% innocent then Barry George is 100% innocent in law in your eyes.

The rest of your ramblings regarding your cat, whale omelettes and your knowledge of the law i simply ignore.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how someone found not guilty in a criminal court is not deemed innocent under law of the charges he or she is acquitted of.

I know what your quote says but i would like you to explain it please.

It is very simple and Im sure you are the only poster on the forum who doesn't understand. Read the following

From Blacks Law Dictionary


.
What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY?


a verdict declaring the case is not proven against the defendant. It does not mean he is innocent.
.

Law Dictionary: What is VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY? definition of VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY (Black's Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/verdict-of-not-guilty/#ixzz2c2jzJIJT

You thought you made a clever remark, I quote
"
David, please try and understand what you are cutting and pasting before you do so.

For those with an eye for detail Albertini has made a fool of himself again

[Carana]

So after all the technical analyses its back to the simple question.  Why didn't Gerry simply tell the PJ what was in the messages and who sent them?

Wouldn't it have been standard practice for the PJ to examine the cell phones of a missing child as soon as possible? Gerry was at the police station for long enough to note whatever was on it.

If they hadn't, how would they have known that 14 SMS messages had been deleted? I'm not sure when the 4 received on the 4th came in, but if it was during that day at the station, then they would presumably have had an opportunity to examine at least several of those 4, or ask Gerry what the number corresponded to.

Did the PJ actually note the make and model of the phone? It would have been easy enough to then look up the specifications as to how many SMS texts it could hold.

If the PJ didn't ask any questions, how was Gerry supposed to know what they found suspicious?

[Rachel Granada]

there may be a very simple reason.
Why should Gerry give details of texts that may have been of a personal nature to a police force that would pass them on to the  gutter press that would print them for the whole world to see.

I agree with that, dave. Let's face it, there were plenty of leaks from the PJ.