Marais testimony + PDL public phone

by Ayniia 16.02.15 21:53

Please bare with me here and i hope I'll make sense in what I'm saying...
I found these testimonies [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
from "ADRIAAN MARAIS, as well as his wife, LIZELLE MARAIS, employees of the Golfinho restaurant, located in Praia da Luz...they said that almost two weeks before the disappearance in question they noticed the presence of an individual, who did not appear to them to be a tourist, opposite the restaurant where they worked and who displayed strange behaviour and who would remain there for periods of up to two hours, either without doing anything or by using the phone cabin that was there to make long phone calls, the number of this public phone is 282789210...."
PJ asked for the call log of that public phone [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I'm really bad at "sleuthing" but I wonder why would someone be making calls to that 213160765 every day around 5AM?Am I'm reading that correctly? I didn't even looked at the other numbers because I have no idea if for instance Kiko did that before (probably he did but i can't find a topic about it)
So please help? Can someone make any connection with the other numbers ?
Also from the testimony:
Adriaan: "Some days before the disappearance, he is not sure when, but it was during the previous two weeks, he noticed the presence of an individual on the pavement near the restaurant where works, who had a behaviour that he found to be strange. The individual passed by there several times. Near to this place is a cafe that was closed at this time, whenever it is closed it is unusual for people to be there. However, this individual remained there for periods of almost two hours, doing nothing except for using a telephone cabin which was there, making calls for long periods of time...
This person did not seem to him to be a tourist or an inhabitant of the village. He describes the individual as being male, white, but with sun-tanned skin, aged about 30. He was about 1.70 ? 1.80 tall and had a normal physical appearance. He remembers that he had dark coloured hair, a little gathered at the back but not covering his neck totally. He does not remember whether he ever saw him with glasses, but knows that he did not have a beard or moustache. He does not remember any other details. If he were to be shown the individual, either personally or photographically, he would recognise him, however he is not capable of describing him in order to produce a photo-fit. He remembers that he used several different kinds of clothing. He remembers that on one day he wore a red T-shirt, on another a white T-shirt and on another occasion a shirt, he does not remember the colour. He just remembers seeing him wearing blue jeans. He does not remember any other details. He did not hear him speak and does not know whether he was Portuguese or foreign.
As he has already said, the individual was there for several days, he does not remember exactly which days. He remembers that the last time he saw the individual was two or three days before the girl's disappearance and he did not see him again afterwards. When shown the photo-fits made during the inquiry as well as several photos he says that he does not recognise the individual he is referring to, neither does he see any resemblance to him.
With regard to the sketch made according to the indications of Jane Tanner's witness statement, he says that the hair that is visible has a certain similarity to the individual's hair in terms of colour and they way it was combed, however the individual's hair would be shorter at the back and at the sides than the hair in the sketch. The physical appearance of the man in the sketch appears to him to be similar to the individual but he is unable to say whether it is the same person, given that the sketch does not show facial features.
He clarifies that in spite not being able to say exactly on which days he saw the individual at this place, he can confirm that he always saw him at the same time. He would always be there between 16.00 and 18.00. During that time the individual would be talking on the telephone, using the phone cabin there for long periods, always more than 10 or 15 minutes."

by Guest 16.02.15 22:09

Ayniia wrote:
I'm really bad at "sleuthing" but I wonder why would someone be making calls to that 213160765 every day around 5AM?Am I'm reading that correctly? I didn't even looked at the other numbers because I have no idea if for instance Kiko did that before (probably he did but i can't find a topic about it)
So please help? Can someone make any connection with the other numbers ?

I think it's the early hours of the morning i.e. 00:54h Is that a Lisbon number?

by Ayniia 16.02.15 22:12

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Ayniia wrote:
I'm really bad at "sleuthing" but I wonder why would someone be making calls to that 213160765 every day around 5AM?Am I'm reading that correctly? I didn't even looked at the other numbers because I have no idea if for instance Kiko did that before (probably he did but i can't find a topic about it)
So please help? Can someone make any connection with the other numbers ?

I think it's the early hours of the morning i.e. 00:54h Is that a Lisbon number?

Yest 21 is Lisbon number plus a couple calls to the same number at around 17:00 and 18:00 and another Lisbon number this is weird. i googled the number but i can't find from where it is ...
ETA Just contacted the information service and they said that 21...65 number belongs to the Meo operator but they have no further information about who owns it -.-

by Guest 16.02.15 22:20

Ayniia wrote:
Yest 21 is Lisbon number plus a couple calls to the same number at around 17:00 and 18:00 and another Lisbon number this is weird. i googled the number but i can't find from where it is ...

Three calls in fairly short order to a Rotherham number on the fateful night too.

by Ayniia 16.02.15 22:29

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Ayniia wrote:
Yest 21 is Lisbon number plus a couple calls to the same number at around 17:00 and 18:00 and another Lisbon number this is weird. i googled the number but i can't find from where it is ...

Three calls in fairly short order to a Rotherham number on the fateful night too.

I called again to the new operator they say they only provide info about a number owner with written request so I alerted a mod to this topic and i'll stop until I get some answer about if I can keep on digging or not -.-

by sparkyhorrox 17.02.15 0:58

Ayniia wrote:Please bare with me here and i hope I'll make sense in what I'm saying...
I found these testimonies [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
from "ADRIAAN MARAIS, as well as his wife, LIZELLE MARAIS, employees of the Golfinho restaurant, located in Praia da Luz...they said that almost two weeks before the disappearance in question they noticed the presence of an individual, who did not appear to them to be a tourist, opposite the restaurant where they worked and who displayed strange behaviour and who would remain there for periods of up to two hours, either without doing anything or by using the phone cabin that was there to make long phone calls, the number of this public phone is 282789210...."
PJ asked for the call log of that public phone [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I'm really bad at "sleuthing" but I wonder why would someone be making calls to that 213160765 every day around 5AM?Am I'm reading that correctly? I didn't even looked at the other numbers because I have no idea if for instance Kiko did that before (probably he did but i can't find a topic about it)
So please help? Can someone make any connection with the other numbers ?
Also from the testimony:
Adriaan: "Some days before the disappearance, he is not sure when, but it was during the previous two weeks, he noticed the presence of an individual on the pavement near the restaurant where works, who had a behaviour that he found to be strange. The individual passed by there several times. Near to this place is a cafe that was closed at this time, whenever it is closed it is unusual for people to be there. However, this individual remained there for periods of almost two hours, doing nothing except for using a telephone cabin which was there, making calls for long periods of time...
This person did not seem to him to be a tourist or an inhabitant of the village. He describes the individual as being male, white, but with sun-tanned skin, aged about 30. He was about 1.70 ? 1.80 tall and had a normal physical appearance. He remembers that he had dark coloured hair, a little gathered at the back but not covering his neck totally. He does not remember whether he ever saw him with glasses, but knows that he did not have a beard or moustache. He does not remember any other details. If he were to be shown the individual, either personally or photographically, he would recognise him, however he is not capable of describing him in order to produce a photo-fit. He remembers that he used several different kinds of clothing. He remembers that on one day he wore a red T-shirt, on another a white T-shirt and on another occasion a shirt, he does not remember the colour. He just remembers seeing him wearing blue jeans. He does not remember any other details. He did not hear him speak and does not know whether he was Portuguese or foreign.
As he has already said, the individual was there for several days, he does not remember exactly which days. He remembers that the last time he saw the individual was two or three days before the girl's disappearance and he did not see him again afterwards. When shown the photo-fits made during the inquiry as well as several photos he says that he does not recognise the individual he is referring to, neither does he see any resemblance to him.
With regard to the sketch made according to the indications of Jane Tanner's witness statement, he says that the hair that is visible has a certain similarity to the individual's hair in terms of colour and they way it was combed, however the individual's hair would be shorter at the back and at the sides than the hair in the sketch. The physical appearance of the man in the sketch appears to him to be similar to the individual but he is unable to say whether it is the same person, given that the sketch does not show facial features.
He clarifies that in spite not being able to say exactly on which days he saw the individual at this place, he can confirm that he always saw him at the same time. He would always be there between 16.00 and 18.00. During that time the individual would be talking on the telephone, using the phone cabin there for long periods, always more than 10 or 15 minutes."

Interested in the phone numbers...
Typed the numbers into 'True Caller' got the list of area codes but only 2 numbers came up with a name 1277263068 someone called Craig Hele..Brentwood Essex, but the name doesn't google.

the other seems to be a coincidence 'maybe' 7956072557 used by EE T.Mobile by an AMY TEARNEY...again google throws up AMY TIERNEY.. a Nanny at MW's?

the phone calls to this number were on the evening of the 3rd...

Would any Mods (Peter Mac maybe) pass it on if its of interest..thank you
smilie

by Angelique 17.02.15 1:08

Brenda Leyland was tweeting about Amy Tierney before she died.

Apart from this I cannot help regarding numbers.

by Constablekid 17.02.15 3:08

There are I believe a few pages on AT on here. Here's one page where Amy Tierney is discussed with some very interesting points regarding BL, Twitter, swinging and printing of photos....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Gaggzy 17.02.15 8:02

This is a very interesting thread.

Thinking about it, Andy and his 38 plod-squad were banging on for ages about 'persons of interest' regarding telephone calls in and around PdL during that time.

Surely this individual and the calls he was making were thoroughly investigated by the boys using very little of the ten million quid it has cost us taxpayers!

Brentwood in Essex?

Rotherham?

Amy Tierney?

This mystery caller certainly sounds like a 'person of interest.'

by Guest 17.02.15 8:32

sparkyhorrox wrote:
the other seems to be a coincidence 'maybe' 7956072557 used by EE T.Mobile by an AMY TEARNEY...again google throws up AMY TIERNEY.. a Nanny at MW's?

I've no idea where you've got that from.

by Guest 17.02.15 8:58

[quote="Clay Regazzoni"][quote="sparkyhorrox"]
the other seems to be a coincidence 'maybe' 7956072557 used by EE T.Mobile by an AMY TEARNEY...again google throws up AMY TIERNEY.. a Nanny at MW's?

[/quote]

I've no idea where you've got that from.[/quote]

3rd from bottom of list; 11 seconds on May thrd; half past 7 local followed by two other calls to GB at 19.41 (about six minutes) and 19.58 (18 seconds) respectively

Might be interesting is we could find out which GB phones that were

by sparkyhorrox 17.02.15 10:00

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sparkyhorrox wrote:
the other seems to be a coincidence 'maybe' 7956072557 used by EE T.Mobile by an AMY TEARNEY...again google throws up AMY TIERNEY.. a Nanny at MW's?

I've no idea where you've got that from.

Hello Clay R.. I googled find a phone number and went to a site 'True Caller' those were the only two numbers the site put a name to..
the other numbers via BT gave area codes only for the 0044 numbers..the 0055 code is for Brazil.. :)

by Doug D 17.02.15 10:14

Something & nothing probably, but Raj Balu comes from Brentwood.

by G-Unit 17.02.15 10:56

Amy Tierney? The only one I can find who says she saw the open shutters/window;

She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Ayniia 17.02.15 13:00

Ayniia wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Ayniia wrote:
I'm really bad at "sleuthing" but I wonder why would someone be making calls to that 213160765 every day around 5AM?Am I'm reading that correctly? I didn't even looked at the other numbers because I have no idea if for instance Kiko did that before (probably he did but i can't find a topic about it)
So please help? Can someone make any connection with the other numbers ?

I think it's the early hours of the morning i.e. 00:54h Is that a Lisbon number?
Yest 21 is Lisbon number plus a couple calls to the same number at around 17:00 and 18:00 and another Lisbon number this is weird. i googled the number but i can't find from where it is ...
ETA Just contacted the information service and they said that 21...65 number belongs to the Meo operator but they have no further information about who owns it -.-

Ok I called that 21...65 number, doesn't ring,makes that screeching noise usual of when you call a FAX number so to me, dead end Sad

by Ayniia 17.02.15 13:34

Portia wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sparkyhorrox wrote:
the other seems to be a coincidence 'maybe' 7956072557 used by EE T.Mobile by an AMY TEARNEY...again google throws up AMY TIERNEY.. a Nanny at MW's?

I've no idea where you've got that from.

3rd from bottom of list; 11 seconds on May thrd; half past 7 local followed by two other calls to GB at 19.41 (about six minutes) and 19.58 (18 seconds) respectively

Might be interesting is we could find out which GB phones that were

Portia it just gets better look the calls on the 3rd:
The usual 21...65 at 00:54 -I just realized these calls were made at 00:54 and not around 5AM as I thought previously
A call to 0044...13 at 17:11 with the duration of 2sec
A call to 21...65 at 18:22 duration 28 sec
Another call to 0044...13 at 19:02 duration 4 sec
Call: 0044...57 at 19:03 duration 11 sec
Again: 0044...13 at 19:04 duration 5 min 54 sec

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

So maybe those 2 and 4 sec calls to the 0044...13 were calls the person didn't managed to get trough,but if that's so why not try a second time right away? In between a call to that 21...65 and then again the 0044..13 ...
Now realizing the other calls were made around midnight/1am it doesn't sound as intriguing as if they had been at 5AM but still someone in Portugal calling someone in Portugal would surely have a mobile phone... I guess...
I'm just whacky

by Doug D 17.02.15 14:27

2 and 4 second calls to UK are likely to be 'hang-ups' when an answering machine/voicemail cut in I would have thought.

by Ayniia 17.02.15 14:32

Doug D wrote:2 and 4 second calls to UK are likely to be 'hang-ups' when an answering machine/voicemail cut in I would have thought.

That's what I meant, but why not try again right away? Like if I call someone and goes to voicemail I call back again right away because the person could be without network at the moment or something... I don't know how to translate this from portuguese,we say "dar um toque" which means let it ring once. It can serve to say: call me back, I'm here , something like that...it can also be used a a signal for something ...that's what I was implying. Like one ring,everything's going according to plan...
ALL MOO and all that.

by rustyjames 17.02.15 14:52

Ayniia wrote:Ok I called that 21...65 number, doesn't ring,makes that screeching noise usual of when you call a FAX number so to me, dead end

The only thing I can think of for this is it's a modem and the phone box is "calling home" - things like drinks vending machines do that to report back how full they are etc. I would have thought it would be regular at a set time of day unless someone was using the phone though.

Rather old article here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"BT is increasingly hearing of cases of customers being telephoned by vending machines, traffic lights, boilers and public toilets."

by Ayniia 17.02.15 19:17

rustyjames wrote:
Ayniia wrote:Ok I called that 21...65 number, doesn't ring,makes that screeching noise usual of when you call a FAX number so to me, dead end

The only thing I can think of for this is it's a modem and the phone box is "calling home" - things like drinks vending machines do that to report back how full they are etc. I would have thought it would be regular at a set time of day unless someone was using the phone though.

Rather old article here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"BT is increasingly hearing of cases of customers being telephoned by vending machines, traffic lights, boilers and public toilets."

Sorry I don't understand the link talks about calls made from the machines to the wrong number, not the other way around...
This list of calls is so weird I just have that feeling that there's something I'm not seeing... and the flurry of calls in the afternoon of the 3rd...uhm... and that 21...65 number in the middle of those calls to the 0044...13 aaaah

That's why I need a break from this case sometimes...but I just took a long one so no break for me so soon shame on you

sparkyhorrox wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sparkyhorrox wrote:
the other seems to be a coincidence 'maybe' 7956072557 used by EE T.Mobile by an AMY TEARNEY...again google throws up AMY TIERNEY.. a Nanny at MW's?

I've no idea where you've got that from.
Hello Clay R.. I googled find a phone number and went to a site 'True Caller' those were the only two numbers the site put a name to..
the other numbers via BT gave area codes only for the 0044 numbers..the 0055 code is for Brazil.. :)

Sparkyhorrorox is that site trustworthy? Because if that number really belongs to an AMY TEARNEY , "Nancy Grace voice" it's a bombshell.
ALL MOO.

by rustyjames 17.02.15 21:29

Ayniia wrote:
Sorry I don't understand the link talks about calls made from the machines to the wrong number, not the other way around...

Normally the machine would call "home" to a modem owned by the owner of the machine; the article is just describing what happens if the number to call has been configured incorrectly and ends up calling a person instead.

I was just using it as an example of how such devices make automated calls. I'm not saying it's a definitive explanation for those calls but it fitted with the description of the number you called which sounded like a modem answered.

by sparkyhorrox 17.02.15 23:07

Ayniia wrote:
rustyjames wrote:
Ayniia wrote:Ok I called that 21...65 number, doesn't ring,makes that screeching noise usual of when you call a FAX number so to me, dead end

The only thing I can think of for this is it's a modem and the phone box is "calling home" - things like drinks vending machines do that to report back how full they are etc. I would have thought it would be regular at a set time of day unless someone was using the phone though.

Rather old article here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"BT is increasingly hearing of cases of customers being telephoned by vending machines, traffic lights, boilers and public toilets."

Sorry I don't understand the link talks about calls made from the machines to the wrong number, not the other way around...
This list of calls is so weird I just have that feeling that there's something I'm not seeing... and the flurry of calls in the afternoon of the 3rd...uhm... and that 21...65 number in the middle of those calls to the 0044...13
That's why I need a break from this case sometimes...but I just took a long one so no break for me so soon

sparkyhorrox wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sparkyhorrox wrote:
the other seems to be a coincidence 'maybe' 7956072557 used by EE T.Mobile by an AMY TEARNEY...again google throws up AMY TIERNEY.. a Nanny at MW's?

I've no idea where you've got that from.
Hello Clay R.. I googled find a phone number and went to a site 'True Caller' those were the only two numbers the site put a name to..
the other numbers via BT gave area codes only for the 0044 numbers..the 0055 code is for Brazil.. :)

Sparkyhorrorox is that site trustworthy? Because if that number really belongs to an AMY TEARNEY , "Nancy Grace voice" it's a bombshell.
ALL MOO.

Hello Clay,
Just come home and read your post.... I have sat here with hubby and typed into that True Caller site 10 numbers out of his mobile addresses..work and friends and it came back with 6 numbers correct with the names and the others it just said 'no matches found with True Caller' . I don't know what it depends on ie: which mobile company etc., but yes, it could be a very interesting 'find'. but one would have thought that SY or PJ would have checked too or could this be something else that has slipped through? and who can one trust to pass on this information too? smilie

by lj 18.02.15 1:02

Ayniia wrote:
rustyjames wrote:
Ayniia wrote:Ok I called that 21...65 number, doesn't ring,makes that screeching noise usual of when you call a FAX number so to me, dead end

The only thing I can think of for this is it's a modem and the phone box is "calling home" - things like drinks vending machines do that to report back how full they are etc. I would have thought it would be regular at a set time of day unless someone was using the phone though.

Rather old article here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"BT is increasingly hearing of cases of customers being telephoned by vending machines, traffic lights, boilers and public toilets."

Sorry I don't understand the link talks about calls made from the machines to the wrong number, not the other way around...
This list of calls is so weird I just have that feeling that there's something I'm not seeing... and the flurry of calls in the afternoon of the 3rd...uhm... and that 21...65 number in the middle of those calls to the 0044...13
That's why I need a break from this case sometimes...but I just took a long one so no break for me so soon

It was a public phone, so that 21 number might have nothing to do with the others.

by Guest 18.02.15 16:12

Hello there!

'Our friend' makes 5-7 calls per day: (always assuming for a moment its one and the same guy):

April 30th; 6. One at 0054, lasting 1min 30 secs, to nr 21316076; repeated at 18.12.12, lasting 27 secs
May 1st : 7. One at 0054, lasting 1min 11 secs, to nr 213160765
May 2nd : 5. One at 0054, lasting 1min 19 secs, to nr. 213160765
May 3rd : 7. One at 0052, lasting 1 min 15 secs, to nr 213160765; repeated at 18.22.21, lasting 28 secs

This doesn't look like a machine to me, although you see a striking regularity, reminiscent of the military

Then we see:

April 30th: one at 16.30.13 lasting 30 secs to nr 00441527835471
May 1st: one at 16.15.23 lasting 2 min 52 secs to nr 00441527835471

Then:
April 30th : one at 19.02.15 lasting 1 min 14 secs to nr 916350831
May 2nd : one at 17.12.34 lasting 1 min 56 secs to nr 916350831

Then:
May 1st : one at 20.19.38 lasting 2 min 59 secs to nr 00441179083584
May 3rd : one at 19.58.27 lasting 18 secs to nr 00441179083584

Then:
May 3rd:
one at 17.11.32 lasting 2 secs to nr. 00441709861713
and another one at 19.02.45 lasting 4 secs to nr. 0441709861713
and yet another one at 19.04.15 lasting 5 minutes and 54 seconds to nr 00441709861713

May 3rd shows a clear breach from the 'normal' pattern, a decided urgency, witnessed by the two calls around 19.00 hrs, within minutes.
Then a much longer exchange than the usually very brief ones going before: almost 6 minutes.

Do we have anyone in the house who could shed some light on what went on here?

First I thought it looked like what a drugdealer might do; but one thing doesn't fit then: the precise timing of the calls.

Please also note that on May 3rd, the only number NOT called repeatedly is the 'Amy Tierney' one 00447956072557, called for 11 secs at 19.03.38. Called therefore in between the two urgent calls at 19.02 and 19.04 to nr 00441709861713.

As if the former number was some sort of back-up for the latter two. In case they would be unavailable for either giving or reporting information.

Odd, wouldn't you say?

by Gaggzy 18.02.15 16:21

Portia wrote:Hello there!

'Our friend' makes 5-7 calls per day: (always assuming for a moment its one and the same guy):

April 30th; 6. One at 0054, lasting 1min 30 secs, to nr 21316076; repeated at 18.12.12, lasting 27 secs
May 1st : 7. One at 0054, lasting 1min 11 secs, to nr 213160765
May 2nd : 5. One at 0054, lasting 1min 19 secs, to nr. 213160765
May 3rd : 7. One at 0052, lasting 1 min 15 secs, to nr 213160765; repeated at 18.22.21, lasting 28 secs

This doesn't look like a machine to me, although you see a striking regularity, reminiscent of the military

Then we see:

April 30th: one at 16.30.13 lasting 30 secs to nr 00441527835471
May 1st: one at 16.15.23 lasting 2 min 52 secs to nr 00441527835471

Then:
April 30th : one at 19.02.15 lasting 1 min 14 secs to nr 916350831
May 2nd : one at 17.12.34 lasting 1 min 56 secs to nr 916350831

Then:
May 1st : one at 20.19.38 lasting 2 min 59 secs to nr 00441179083584
May 3rd : one at 19.58.27 lasting 18 secs to nr 00441179083584

Then:
May 3rd:
one at 17.11.32 lasting 2 secs to nr. 00441709861713
and another one at 19.02.45 lasting 4 secs to nr. 0441709861713
and yet another one at 19.04.15 lasting 5 minutes and 54 seconds to nr 00441709861713

May 3rd shows a clear breach from the 'normal' pattern, a decided urgency, witnessed by the two calls around 19.00 hrs, within minutes.
Then a much longer exchange than the usually very brief ones going before: almost 6 minutes.

Do we have anyone in the house with a military or security background, who could shed some light on what went on here?

First I thought it looked like what a drugdealer might do; but one thing doesn't fit then: the precise timing of the calls.

Curiouser and curiouser!