Anyone have any idea what redwoods revelation was??

[C.Edwards]

Um...I think you need to read my post again, old chum. It's meaning seems to have passed over your head.

I think you need to re-read your post "old chum" as your first sentence is utter pigswill, regardless of what the second one is trying to say. "we now have the technology to pinpoint a handset within metres, even if its turned off" is utter and complete poppycock!

[sadie]

So you are ready to accept that the whole group made false declarations to the police since the first day their child went missing?!
...and allow me to correct you, I am not anti-mccann, I am anti-liars and pro-justice.

 
Sorry,

BUT .... !

[jassi]

None of the tapas group had the profile of child abusers, whether sexual or otherwise. They were all happy to let their kids go off with nannies and child minders for most of the day - if they were abusing their children there is no way they would have ceded this much control over their children. Abusers, especially sexual abusers, would spend a lot more to with children when they had the opportunity, and would certainly not have allowed other people access to their children because they would not want to give up a position of control.

So child abuse on the part of any of the parents can be completely discounted.

Why have you brought that topic just now?  As far as I'm aware, no one on this thread has ever made such a suggestion.

[Victoria]

Having looked a bit more closely, I've managed to find some pre 2007 news stories regarding triangulation. It seems one of the 7/7 bombers was apprehended using this technology. Even in 2007 triangulation could place someone within a hundred metres or closer, depending upon the number of towers, obviously. The question is, given that its the Met investigating and the abduction took place in another jurisdiction, have they secured the network provider's cooperation? If they have, and they have secured cooperation across several European states, it opens up some exciting possibilities and may go some way to explaining the appeals in Holland and Germany.

[Victoria]

Why have you brought that topic just now?  As far as I'm aware, no one on this thread has ever made such a suggestion.

It was in response to a deleted post, which referred to another poster's claim of censure.

[C.Edwards]

Having looked a bit more closely, I've managed to find some pre 2007 news stories regarding triangulation. It seems one of the 7/7 bombers was apprehended using this technology. Even in 2007 triangulation could place someone within a hundred metres or closer, depending upon the number of towers, obviously. The question is, given that its the Met investigating and the abduction took place in another jurisdiction, have they secured the network provider's cooperation? If they have, and they have secured cooperation across several European states, it opens up some exciting possibilities and may go some way to explaining the appeals in Holland and Germany.

The bolded bit is irrelevant. If the same number of masts are in place now as then, then triangulation can do nothing more than it did then!  You're trying to make it sound like there's been some incredible breakthrough in technology that now allows the police to retrospectively analyse phone records (the PJ already did triangulation (look at the antenna activation details) and mast activations) when in reality there's absolutely nothing more that can be gained other than getting the phone records from foreign providers and that will only be of any use if any "know paedophiles" are dumb enough to have had their own handset with them.  You talk about "plausible" in other threads and then come up with this?

[kmc]

So you are ready to accept that the whole group made false declarations to the police since the first day their child went missing?!
...and allow me to correct you, I am not anti-mccann, I am anti-liars and pro-justice.

I am willing to accept that anyone having enjoyed an evening of wine and laughter -  faced with the mind-blowing trauma of a child "going missing" - might quite reasonably muddle/confuse the exact timings /sequences of events.  Anyhow you are clearly not pro-justice if you declare people to be liars without balanced consideration.

[jassi]

Even if a phone can be placed to within 100 meters, it would only indicate the the phone was in PDL or wherever and would provide no proof as to who was actually carrying it at the time.

I believe that even amongst the Tapas group, phones were swapped about because of flat batteries, etc. This could obviously happen with other people as well, so identifying a phone position may not be as useful as it first appears.

[Victoria]

The bolded bit is irrelevant. If the same number of masts are in place now as then, then triangulation can do nothing more than it did then!  You're trying to make it sound like there's been some incredible breakthrough in technology that now allows the police to retrospectively analyse phone records (the PJ already did triangulation (look at the antenna activation details) and mast activations) when in reality there's absolutely nothing more that can be gained other than getting the phone records from foreign providers and that will only be of any use if any "know paedophiles" are dumb enough to have had their own handset with them.  You talk about "plausible" in other threads and then come up with this?

You've misunderstood me. You will see on reading my posts that I also expressed doubts about new technology being applied retrospectively. What I'm curious to know is whether the Met have obtained further data from the providers, which I assume would bring with it complications based on matters of jurisdiction.

[Victoria]

Even if a phone can be placed to within 100 meters, it would only indicate the the phone was in PDL or wherever and would provide no proof as to who was actually carrying it at the time.

I believe that even amongst the Tapas group, phones were swapped about because of flat batteries, etc. This could obviously happen with other people as well, so identifying a phone position may not be as useful as it first appears.

What about phones that were in PDL between 8:30 and 10:00 but were travelling quickly away from PDL later that night, perhaps towards the Spanish border?

[Luz]

I am willing to accept that anyone having enjoyed an evening of wine and laughter -  faced with the mind-blowing trauma of a child "going missing" - might quite reasonably muddle/confuse the exact timings /sequences of events.  Anyhow you are clearly not pro-justice if you declare people to be liars without balanced consideration.

From early May 2007 until July 2008 they had plenty of time to correct anything there was to correct. Furthermore they were given ample chance when they were called by Leicestershire police, in answer to the rogatories, and they were shown their previous depositions, and even helped in order to correct themselves by comparing with their mates/colleagues' accounts.

No chance. If there is a new timeline it is a fake.
Or, which I find hard to believe, not only the Tapas group lied all the way, but dozens of other people did.

If you make a "balanced consideration", you will arrive at the same conclusion that I did. Someone is not telling the truth (since you don't like the term liar).

[C.Edwards]

You've misunderstood me. You will see on reading my posts that I also expressed doubts about new technology being applied retrospectively. What I'm curious to know is whether the Met have obtained further data from the providers, which I assume would bring with it complications based on matters of jurisdiction.

ok, what could they get?  A cellphone activation record (from a mast) will record the number of the phone (from the SIM) and the IMEI (from the handset). These can be used to indicate that a particular handset and/or sim was in a position to activate that mast. Cross-referencing this with other mast activations in the area will allow triangulation to be done and in a relatively rural area like PDL, that triangulation result will be kilometres, not hundred of metres.

The SIM used will provide details on the "home" carrier (i.e O2/giffgaff/vodafone/orange/whatever in the UK and their foreign equivalents in other countries). I would be highly surprised if any operator would hand over personal details for the registered owner of sims (even if there is a registered owner - you can pick up PAYG sims all over the place and put credit on them with untraceable cash) unless there was a relevant warrant handed over.  Otherwise the infringement of privacy is potentially enormous.

[kmc]

From early May 2007 until July 2008 they had plenty of time to correct anything there was to correct. Furthermore they were given ample chance when they were called by Leicestershire police, in answer to the rogatories, and they were shown their previous depositions, and even helped in order to correct themselves by comparing with their mates/colleagues' accounts.

No chance. If there is a new timeline it is a fake.
Or, which I find hard to believe, not only the Tapas group lied all the way, but dozens of other people did.

I think you are right about dozens of "other people" lying about their timelines......I reckon SY have not analysed phone data to the extent they have because it is the T9's timelines that they are concerned about.   

[C.Edwards]

What about phones that were in PDL between 8:30 and 10:00 but were travelling quickly away from PDL later that night, perhaps towards the Spanish border?

That would be relatively easy to achieve.  It would be a case of picking another mast or two along the route into Spain and simply checking if/when the number in PDL activated at those masts. But as I said, any criminal who can tie his own shoelaces attempting to flee the scene of the crime with his personally registered mobile phone both with him AND turned on would be a rare find in my opinion.  It is, I agree, worth checking for of course.

[Victoria]

That would be relatively easy to achieve.  It would be a case of picking another mast or two along the route into Spain and simply checking if/when the number in PDL activated at those masts. But as I said, any criminal who can tie his own shoelaces attempting to flee the scene of the crime with his personally registered mobile phone both with him AND turned on would be a rare find in my opinion.  It is, I agree, worth checking for of course.

It doesn't have to be registered to anyone to be significant. In fact, I doubt it would be registered, hence the need for other information and public appeals with e-fits etc.