Can mobile phone pings help investigators in the Madeleine McCann case?

[VIXTE]

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...

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Carana]

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.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[Carana]

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.

[VIXTE]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[jassi]

And sometimes it appears that technology is of no help at all, for example  incomplete or mixed DNA profiles that defy interpretation

[Carana]

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.