Re: Leave No Stone Unturned

by **Silentscope** 17.08.22 14:41

Diane W Acts very strangely on the following points.

Why was she the only one to remain seated at the Tapas bar table, when all others went to search for Maddie?

Her comments to the Bar staff point to her prior knowledge, as she relays absolutely no panic or surprise.

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

by Scansally 17.08.22 15:02

Totally agree! Sorry if I’m posting in the wrong place - total newbie here

Why would anyone remain seated? It’s a completely abnormal reaction even if your only fear was the safety of your grandchildren you wouldn’t remain in situ.

Unless perhaps you need to be seen by as many people as possible as being at dinner and ‘definitely present’. Feels like alibi building to me …

by **Silentscope** 17.08.22 15:08

Maybe she was left there on purpose?

To tell any concerned people what was going on?

Figures.

by Guest 17.08.22 17:31

Many times over the years I've questioned why Dianne Webster took that trip to Portugal with a group of 30'something professionals who bragged to be 'so into each other'.

Maybe she did tag along to look after the Payne kids, not necessarily whilst they dined out at night - I don't think there's much reason to doubt her presence at the Tapas restaurant every night but I can quite believe the possibility she looked after the kids during the day, when David and Fiona Payne were out getting sporty. From recollection, Dianne Webster did say in a witness statement that she did her own thing everyday.

Consideration should always be given to the fact, witness statements taken by the PJ were not recorded verbatim, which leaves them open to misinterpretation - assumptions made about what they really meant and how the witnesses looked, reacted, behaved - more importantly exactly what was said. The witness statements form a good guide in many respects but shouldn't be used as a 'matter of fact'.

Dianne Webster wintess statement - 11th May 2007

- Therefore, she can only say with precision that, at 22.00 Kate McCann returned to the restaurant, seemingly in panic, communicating to others the fact that of Madeleine's disappearance. Asked about the reaction of other members of the group when they heard the above from KATE, the witness says that everyone, except the witness, left the restaurant and went to the apartment of the couple McCANN in order to find out what was going on.
In turn, as relates to her, the witness says she stayed at the restaurant for about five minutes, then, noting that the remaining members of the group had not returned, she followed in the direction of the apartment McCANN.

Dianne Webster rogatory interview - 11th April 2008

4078 ”Yeah.”

Reply ”One of them would stay, or stayed in the apartment while the other one gobbled down their meal and then, so I think Russell, Russell must have gone back and let Jane come and eat her meal because by that time err we’d, we’d ordered our main courses and err Russell had ordered steak and of course he wasn’t at the table when it was ready and he said oh you know (inaudible) to go back, he’ll be back later, once Jane finishes hers err just keep his steak warm err so Jane sort of gobbled down her, her meal and went, went back so that Russell could come and have his dinner and, and this must have been getting on for, I don’t know, maybe ten to ten or something like that. Again I wasn’t looking at the time but just thinking to what happened is that err Russell came back to table and err they’d actually cooked him a fresh steak and he was just starting to tuck into it when err Kate had obviously gone back to check on the children, came running in you know, as far as I can recollect she said you know she’s gone, Gerry, Madeleine’s gone, screaming you know.”

4078 ”How did she look?”

Reply ”Well I don’t know, frightened or absolutely, well, it’s very difficult to take in when something like that, you know, you’re just sitting at a table having what was a nice meal and err everybody just, you know, stopped what they were doing and just got up and Fiona said to me you know, I said what do you want me to do and she said you stay there in case err you know if Madeleine, because at that time we didn’t know what had happened because I think Gerry had sort of said to Kate oh she can’t be, you know. Err so I, I stayed at the table in case Madeleine had wandered off and she might come looking round the restaurant. Err this is when it gets all a bit confusing because I’ve no idea how long I, I stayed there. I don’t, I don’t think it was that long and I know that at one point, again, this wasn’t in my original statement, Dave did come back to the table and say can, can you just go back to the apartment, but all this is very, very, very vague and I know when I left the table I went, I did go into err Kate and Gerry’s err apartment, which was just absolute err just terrible.”

In fairness to Dianne Webster, it wasn't her grandchild who had gone missing nor did she know what was going on.

by Scansally 17.08.22 23:02

Yes that’s fair it was probably pretty confusing! I may be looking for things that aren’t there now 🧐🤭

by **Silentscope** 18.08.22 9:39

Would anyone agree that she was purposely left out of any involvement or prior knowledge to Shield her from being blamed?

I suspect it very likely that she was ‘Deleted’ from the Mallorca holiday in the Gaspar statements for probably the same reason.

by Guest 18.08.22 12:48

Blamed for what? Deleted?

And what's the Mallorca holiday got to do with anything? Madeleine McCann's disappearance centres in and around Praia da Luz on the Portuguese Algarve.

For what reason do you assume Dianne Webster accompanied her daughter and her family on previous holidays - or might have or should have or could have? Indeed it would appear from her witness statements, she made her own arrangements for the Portuguese holiday.

The Gaspar statements can only be taken as 'intelligence' that might or might not influence a police investigation - there is no proof the incident took place, just the word of the Gaspar's, who incidentally, contradicted each other.

Dianne Webster is out there trying to live a life after a very tragic happening, don't start dragging her name through the mud without good reason. As it stands there is no good reason - by all means try to fit her in the ever growing jigsaw by analyzing her witness statements by comparison with the rest of the groups 'version of events'. Leave salacious gossip, hearsay and supposition out of it!

Making assumptions is dangerous territory.

by Guest 18.08.22 13:08

Dianne Webster witness statement - 11th May 2007

>>> - Asked, she states that it is the first time that she has been on holiday with that group, knowing, however, that some of those couples have already spent holidays together on other occasions.
- With regard to this trip she explains that she thought all details of the trip to Portugal were handled by her daughter, Fiona; together with her husband David, and aided by the tour operator "MARC WARNER, via Internet.
- She states that she came on holiday at the invitation of her daughter FIONA and son-in-law DAVID - Adding that she does not know the reasons why Portugal was chosen, nor why Praia da Luz and the "Ocean Garden Club" in particular.
- She states that she made her own reservation, only with regard to the plane, via Intemet, unlike the other members of the group, whose reservations had been made through the PAYNE couple.

Dianne Webster's rogatory interview - 11th April 2008

>>> 4078 ”And how much, I say how much did you have to do with the group before, you know have you been away with the group before?”

Reply ”Oh no, no and originally err my recollection is that the, the holiday that, that err we eventually went on err I think originally it was Fiona and Dave that err booked it and invited me and my husband along if we wanted to go on it. He didn’t want to go because its not his sort of holiday and then later on it err it grew that there was other, other people going along as well, which I was unaware of at the time and err I sort of said to Dave well you know if you’ve got friends going forget about me, you know, I won’t, I won’t come and he said no, no you must come along and so that’s how I came to be on the holiday.”

by **Silentscope** 18.08.22 20:04

I find it strange that in Version one, Dianne W was left sitting alone until she decided to follow on.

Version two, she was asked to stay by Fiona, in case Maddie came into the Restaurant, looking for her Parents. Then David came back and told her that she should go to the Apartment.

Obviously Maddie was not expected to return any more?
Later she returned to collect the Baby monitor, and the McCanns camera which had been left on the Restaurant table.
Why did David not do this?

Most strange is from her Statement:

However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.

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

But none of her fingerprints were found on the Shutters. Only Kate’s.

I see no reason to trust blindly anything that any Member of the Tapas group has to say.

by Guest 19.08.22 1:40

Point one - as I've already said, the initial witness statements taken in May 2007 were not recorded verbatim.

The initial statements taken on 4th May 2007, specific routine questions would have been asked by all witnesses. The second round of interviews six/seven days later were more detailed, I think for obvious reasons .... again routine policing but still not recorded verbatim.

Point two - Kate McCann's fingerprint was not found on the shutter, it was found on the interior window frame thus casting doubt about her claim that the window was open when she first entered the room. It was not the only fingerprint detected during forensic examination, there were others which were sent to Interpol database for possible identification which resulted in a negative. One other was found to be that of a police officer.

The bedroom blind was examined for forensic evidence externally, as can be seen from the documented PJ files.

However, to suggest there were no fingerprints on the shutter defies logic. Of course there would be fingerprints but whose is a matter for conjecture.

For a start according to the PJ files, Gerry McCann reported a faulty shutter to the Ocean Club management which was repaired by the maintenance team - fingerprints!

rocessos Vol III Pages 532-534

03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_632

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

03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_633

MISSING PAGE

03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_634

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

Witness Statement
Mario Domingos Moreira

Date: 2007-05-08

Occupation: Handyman

Place of Work: OC

He has worked at the OC for about 20 years and currently works in the Maintenance Department, he carries out repairs inside the apartments.

He works from 09.00 to 18.00 with a break for lunch at 13.00. He has Sundays and Mondays off.

When asked about the events being investigated he says that he only saw the girl's mother once. This happened during the exercise of his functions, and after instruction from his superiors he went to apartment 5 A.

His services had been requested because the shutters in the bedroom at the back of the apartment, facing the Tapas restaurant were damaged and with the aim of providing the mother with instructions regarding the operation of the washing machine. When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles.

When questioned, he says that he never works alone, he is always part of a team of two. The other individual is his colleague, Luis Ferro, who accompanied him in the execution of the repairs mentioned above.

When asked, he says that he did not notice anything strange in the previous days, either in the apartments he entered or in the surrounding areas that could be connected to the disappearance.

He was at home at the time of the events.

Reads, ratifies, signs.

by **Cammerigal** 19.08.22 7:00

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thanks for the response, but at now time did [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] suggest there were no fingerprints on the shutter. Rather our German colleague implied, in clear English, that Diane W's were not found there. It is logical.

But none of her fingerprints were found on the Shutters. Only Kate’s.

by **Cammerigal** 19.08.22 7:22

Verdi wrote:Dianne Webster witness statement - 11th May 2007

>>> - Asked, she states that it is the first time that she has been on holiday with that group, knowing, however, that some of those couples have already spent holidays together on other occasions.
- With regard to this trip she explains that she thought all details of the trip to Portugal were handled by her daughter, Fiona; together with her husband David, and aided by the tour operator "MARC WARNER, via Internet.
- She states that she came on holiday at the invitation of her daughter FIONA and son-in-law DAVID - Adding that she does not know the reasons why Portugal was chosen, nor why Praia da Luz and the "Ocean Garden Club" in particular.
- She states that she made her own reservation, only with regard to the plane, via Intemet, unlike the other members of the group, whose reservations had been made through the PAYNE couple.

Dianne Webster's rogatory interview - 11th April 2008

>>> 4078 ”And how much, I say how much did you have to do with the group before, you know have you been away with the group before?”

Reply ”Oh no, no and originally err my recollection is that the, the holiday that, that err we eventually went on err I think originally it was Fiona and Dave that err booked it and invited me and my husband along if we wanted to go on it. He didn’t want to go because its not his sort of holiday and then later on it err it grew that there was other, other people going along as well, which I was unaware of at the time and err I sort of said to Dave well you know if you’ve got friends going forget about me, you know, I won’t, I won’t come and he said no, no you must come along and so that’s how I came to be on the holiday.”

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Thanks for finding the Diane Webster Rogatory, which states that her husband was invited to the holiday in PdL, but did not want to go, as it wasn't his sort of holiday. It leads to so many questions and of course, superficially he would have missed out on a [free] holiday with his family, but he dodged a life changing event too. Lucky guy.

Why not go? What sort of holiday was it? What would be happening that wasn't his 'thing'?
Textusa has always recognised it as having a 'swinging element', but of course, no confirmatory evidence, but much circumstantial.

Doesn't DW remember how it was paid for (the new fangled internet... really?) Paid by her son-in law or was this freebie paid for by others? We note the absence of credit card payment data in the PJ files for flights or hotels. So convenient and now looking very suspicious.

Also, Why was her son in law so insistent she went? Was she to have a role?
Diane Webster is looking more like a person of interest.

by Guest 19.08.22 12:43

Where to start.

The anonymous blogger who writes under the name of Textusa has made many outlandish claims over the years, a few here and there might hold a little water even without circumstantial evidence but on the whole webs woven from little or nothing. Just as this particular conversation seems to be developing.

I have never seen any evidence to suggest the group were swingers nor the Ocean Club was a popular venue that attracted swingers. At the time the resort was a compact family friendly destination that offered sports for the more active and lazing around in the sun for those who only wanted relaxation, a time to unwind.

There is nothing to suggest the short holiday taken by the McCann group was anything but that, a short family holiday. According to Dianne Webster's witness statements and later rogatory interview, her time was spent lazing around the Ocean Club complex, reading, playing a bit of sport, looking after her grandchildren, eating and generally taking time out to relax and enjoy. For the more adventurous and/or fidgety don't like this kind of holiday.

It's not at all unusual for a partnership to have completely different interests, I venture to suggest more often than not. Likewise it's nothing unusual for couples to holiday separately. Oddly enough there was radio phone-in on that very subject only recently.

I believe the credit card rumour to be just that - rumour and completely blown out of proportion, there can't be many on planet earth who can survive without a credit/debit card, I'd go so far as to say it's an essential part of life - even back in 2007. Over egging the pudding as they say.

I can't see any significance in Dianne Webster's comment about David Payne's insistence she went on holiday with them. She was already asked and when realising they were going with a group of friends she decided not to go, thinking she wouldn't fit in. Quite understandable David Payne (who arranged the holiday) would try to persuade her not to change her mind, having initially taken up the offer to tag ( Wink

) along. You know what mother-in-laws can be like.

Turning down a free holiday? The holiday wasn't free, the idea that the holiday was paid for by a third party is nothing but internet myth with nothing to substantiate the notion.

Dianne Webster is looking less like a person of interest.

by Guest 19.08.22 12:48

I will move this discussion over to the Leave no Stone Unturned thread in due course, should members wish to continue.

by Guest 19.08.22 12:59

Cammerigal wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thanks for the response, but at now time did [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] suggest there were no fingerprints on the shutter. Rather our German colleague implied, in clear English, that Diane W's were not found there. It is logical.

But none of her fingerprints were found on the Shutters. Only Kate’s.

Semantics!

The point is, Kate McCann's fingerprints were not detected on the shutter as claimed and there is nothing to suggest, let alone prove, that Dianne Webster didn't try the shutter from the outside.

The PJ were looking for evidence of an intruder.

by Scansally 20.08.22 13:42

It’s an interesting one. I doubt it’s pivotal to the case but DW booked separately and reading the statements around Fiona and David discovering there was no listening service it makes sense.

They invite their mum along to babysit and help out. Diane’s husband wasn’t interested in that sort of holiday as it would mean no going out in the evenings etc perhaps.

Pure conjecture but if DW was there providing babysitting to some or all of the children then that’s of interest. Of course if she wasn’t minding the McCann children it begs the question why not- if the Mccanns were the only ones not to bring a baby monitor …..

by Guest 20.08.22 14:12

I think cross referencing is seeping in.

Two issues .... childcare during the day and childcare at night whilst the group were dining out.

There isn't any documented evidence to suggest Dianne Webster cared for any child but her own grandchildren during the daytime - the respective children were either at the child daycare facilities offered by the resort, or they were in the care of their own parents.

Again, there is no documented evidence to suggest Dianne Webster cared for any of the groups children at night - she was part of the group that dined at the Tapas restaurant every night.

David and Fiona Payne had a baby monitor with them, that simple fact indicates their intention of leaving their children alone at night when they went out to eat.

Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien also had a baby monitor with them but by their own admission it wasn't much use.

Jane Tanner's rogatory interview - 8th April 2008

4078 “Okay, since it was the first time, if you take your mind back to the first time you went there, what had happened before you went, how had the, you know, while driving that it, what were the arrangements for the children before you went?”
Reply “Yeah, well this is where I worry that I alerted somebody to maybe what we were doing because I actually went down, before we went down I went down with my monitor to check if it was working because Dave and Fi had a monitor which was quite a good one, a very high spec monitor, whereas ours wasn’t such high spec so I was worried that it wouldn’t work in the Tapas bar.”

4078 “Wasn’t the cups and string was it.”
Reply “Not quite that bad err so I actually did before we went down to eat err we actually, I actually went down, just stood in the restaurant with the monitor just to check that it did and it was on the edge of its, you know, it worked but not, I wasn’t completely confident in, totally confident in it. So as I say looking back on it now you think oh, I did that, could that have actually shown somebody what we were doing, you know, me standing there like an idiot with my bloody monitor, you know, that sort of, that has crossed my mind since but I think we decided before we went, one of the attractions of a Mark Warner holiday was the baby listening service that they normally offer.”

Gerry and Kate McCann nor Rachel and Matt Oldfield had a baby monitor - hence their DIY baby listening service.

I wouldn't totally rule out the possibility of an off the record arrangement with one of the resorts nannies - perhaps Charlotte Pennington whose name cropped up time and time again and was very willing for a shilling. I hasten to add, there is nothing to suggest that a resort nanny was engaged to look after any of the group's children - indeed it doesn't fit in with the theory of sedation or any other more plausible scenario.

by Scansally 20.08.22 14:56

We were taken out of the airport and out onto the buses waiting nearby, we sat in the middle of the coach on the right hand side. I recall that Charlotte PENNINGTON who was a nanny at Mark Warner was also sat on the bus- I believe that she looked after Fiona and Dave’s kids. It was reported in the press that she had seen Kate and Gerry at the airport but I don’t see how that would have been possible as I don’t believe they had arrived by then, I believe that their flight arrived an hour or so after ours did.

Very interesting Verdi I hadn’t thought of Pennington! :)

Again you are right though no documented evidence to suggest she looked after the Paynes children frequently :-/

by Guest 20.08.22 16:17

Aha, I see you've found your way over to the Charlotte Pennington thread thumbup

!

by Scansally 20.08.22 17:36

Yes sorry I see you’ve already done loads of work on this - still playing catch up

- really interesting to read!

by Milo 21.08.22 9:29

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

It is great that you are interested in bringing to justice those who were/are involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but may I suggest that there is a lot of reading you have yet to do in order to help us all in unturning the stones.

Revisiting old theories, proposing new theories or simply providing new insights or original questions and suchlike.

May I suggest you go to CMOMM's archive and immerse yourself in it, including the police files, petermac's E-book, richard hall's videos, images and words of the McCanns. Beyond that is, IMO, compulsory reading -- Kate McCann's book 'Madeleine' and Amaral's book 'Truth of the Lie'.

You will also work out that there are contributors to this Forum whose work is seriously relevant even though not necessarily in agreement with each other. I won't give you the list here in case I miss out of some of them!

And that is only the start of it. I recommend that you do a search on particular topics from this forum, as the topics interest you or puzzle you or stimulate you into asking a question.

The MMRG has a position on Madeliene's 'abduction'. Tony Bennett writes a letter a year on behalf to CMOMM to whoever is PM of the UK at that time. And so on and so on.

And never ever believe that what you see or hear on the MSM is true.

Good luck and best wishes for your discussions, arguments, questions etc. Don't worry about feeling silly. It happens to me all the time. Verdi has promised a bottle of the best red wine for the silliest comment each year. The McCanns are excluded from the competition.

by **Silentscope** 21.08.22 10:17

WITNESSES CAME TO THE ALGARVE TO REINFORCE TESTIMONY THAT CONTRADICTS THE MCCANNS

Friends are the PJ trumps

In a secret visit to Portugal, three persons who had dinner at the Tapas Bar shattered the McCanns and Jane Tanner versions

Fiona Payne, her mother Dianne Webster, and the husband David Payne. Are the main trumps of the Public Ministry that will lead the parents of Madeleine McCann, the missing girl, on the 3rd of May of 2007, from an apartment in Praia da Luz, Algarve, to be accused of the crimes of exposition and abandonment since they left the girl alone in that critical night. It is a crime that is punishable up to ten years of prison and allows the respective preventive arrests, like 24horas announced last week.

These three witnesses returned to Portugal, on the 11th of July of 2007, in a travel paid by the Portuguese State, and where accommodated in a hotel unity of Portimão. They were still questioned by Gonçalo Amaral’s team, the superior coordinator who was removed from the case, and they contradicted the McCann’s version regarding to what went on in the night of the disappearance.

Remember that Kate, Gerry and the other two couples with whom they had dinner, assured that they were taking turns in the vigilance to the children. A fact that was contradicted to the authorities in the above-mentioned secret travel by Fiona Payne and that had already been put in question in two previous statements, given on the days that followed to Maddie's disappearance, by her mother and her husband.

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

by Guest 21.08.22 15:17

A tabloid news report that provides no evidence whatsoever to verify it's content, aside from an unspecified source.

The article posted up by Joana Morais gives a glowing reference to the reliability of the tabloid 24 horas, there is no indication of the date the article was published by 24 horas it's therefore a toss-up as to the provenance, the original report - who got there first. Whatever, the article - like so many others relating to the case of Madeleine McCann, appears to be a few facts, rumours and hearsay woven together to produce a sensational story without substance.

Firstly and most importantly, the alleged 'secret rendezvous' on or around 11th July 2007 is not mentioned anywhere in Gonçalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie', nor has he ever mentioned such an occurrence during his many interviews and public appearances.

There was a lot of hoo-ha in the UK tabloids about the alleged confession by Tapas group members but it has never been officially verified - by anyone or anything. The secret event reported by tabloid press, I would expect to see some detail contained in the documented PJ files

Without going into too much detail, after the McCanns left Portugal in September 2007, a request was made through their 'sources' for their friends to be re-interviewed. The PJ still wanted to clarify specific points with group members (their initial witness statements having been at variance as regards detail) - the joint venture culminated into the round of rogatory interviews undertaken in the UK during April 2008.

Then there was the alleged 'secret' meeting between the group at a Rothley hotel in November 2007, including the former Ocean Club nanny, Catriona Baker - allegedly. This rumoured meeting led to another blitz of press speculation suggesting the PJ were about to move in to re-interview/arrest three or four group members (depending which report read).

One was rumoured to be David Payne, a key player in this entire mystery - who strangely wasn't re-interviewed during the second round of PJ interviews held 10/11th May 2007

When you think about it, analyse the facts and evidence, the mere notion is ludicrous [sic].

There is no official confirmation about this alleged incident - I seriously suggest it be taken with a Siberian salt mine!

by Guest 01.09.22 13:31

Madeleine McCann: What data could investigators gather from suspect's mobile phone number?

Gathering data from mobile phone records in the pre-smartphone age was very different

By James Titcomb San Francisco and Margi Murphy, US Technology Reporter, San Francisco 3 June 2020 • 9:21pm

Modern smartphones contain a trove of personal data linked to social media accounts, internet storage services and satellite navigation apps, which have made them a vital resource for criminal investigations.

But in 2007, when Madeleine McCann went missing from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, the iPhone was still a month away from going on sale. Most people carried basic mobile phones without touchscreens, internet connections and GPS chips.

However, mobile phone records, including location data and records of calls and texts made between numbers, could still be used to trace criminal suspects and potential accomplices.

On Wednesday, Scotland Yard said a 30-minute phone call was made to a Portuguese phone owned by a newly-identified suspect in its investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, just an hour before she vanished.

The key to obtaining mobile phone data in the days before internet-equipped phones was through the mobile operator a phone number was registered to. Since most phones did not have Wi-Fi connections, all calls and text messages would have had to travel over a mobile network.

Portugal’s three mobile networks - TMN, Vodafone and Optimus - would hold a record of every phone call and text message made and received by a number for billing purposes, including how long phone calls lasted for, and what number was on the other end of the line.

Networks would also have been able to roughly track users’ locations, by seeing which cellular base station a phone had “pinged” at any one moment. Mobile phones are constantly communicating with these towers when they are turned on, and finding the rough location of a phone is simply a case of seeing which station it communicated with.

Advanced techniques allowed police to more accurately gauge a phone’s location by triangulating its signal between multiple cell towers, although this is easier in urban areas with many towers than in coastal Portugal, where coverage may have been patchy in 2007.

Location data based on cell towers is also not as accurate as GPS, and has previously been thrown out of court for being unreliable.

Retrieving what was said in text messages and phone calls is more difficult, however. Without a wiretap arranged in advance through a court order, networks do not tend to keep the content of messages or recordings of phone calls, although voicemails were typically stored by network operators.

What was often more difficult was connecting a phone number to an individual. While mobile phones with monthly contracts were linked to billing information and addresses, pay as you go phones, in which credit could be purchased up front in cash, did not have to be registered.

This allowed for “burner” phones that could be used for criminal activity and be disposed of. Portugal introduced the world’s first pay as you go phone, and it was easy for foreign visitors, such as the German national identified in the Madeleine McCann investigation, to buy top-up SIM cards without ID checks.

Police said they were attempting to discover who called the suspect in an attempt to learn more about his movementrs.

Investigating a case that is over a decade old also means that mobile phone data may be long-gone: networks typically store data for between one and five years before it is deleted. That suggests investigators may have had this data for several years, or that deletion of the records was put on hold.

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

by **Silentscope** 02.09.22 10:58

As Germany is still part of Europe, like Eire is, maybe this recent EJC ruling will be relevant in Maddies case?

THE GAURDIAN
The European court of justice has ruled in favour of a convicted murderer who challenged Ireland’s use of mobile phone metadata in his conviction, with potential implications for criminal investigations across Europe.

The Luxembourg-based court said on Tuesday that Ireland’s system of retaining and accessing mobile phone metadata – which helped secure Graham Dwyer’s conviction – breached European Union law.

The ruling said EU law precluded the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data in electronic communications for the purposes of combating serious crime, a judgment that builds on a 2014 landmark ruling that clipped the ability of police and intelligence agencies to mine vast troves of data.

The decision boosted a long-running effort by Dwyer to overturn his 2015 conviction for the murder of Elaine O’Hara. Dwyer, a successful architect, killed the childcare worker in August 2012 after grooming her for sadomasochistic fantasies that included stabbing women during sex.

He committed what prosecutors called “very nearly the perfect murder” but was caught and sentenced to life in prison after police tracked his movements through texts and phone data. There were no witnesses or physical evidence.

Dwyer appealed on the grounds the retention and accessing of his mobile phone data breached EU law. Ireland’s supreme court referred the appeal to the ECJ. Its ruling had been expected given previous rulings that governments and service providers do not have broad rights to retain data on citizens.

The court said the combating of crime in the 27-member EU bloc did not justify retaining data that could violate the privacy rights of entire populations. Even particularly serious crimes could not be treated in the same way as threats to national security, it said. However, a genuine or current or foreseeable threat could justify indiscriminate data retention for a limited period of time.

Civil liberty campaigners have criticised Ireland for failing to update its laws after the 2014 landmark ruling. The Green party’s justice spokesperson, Patrick Costello, said Tuesday’s judgment was no surprise. “Ireland has been repeatedly criticised for our national policies on privacy and data retention by numerous judgments, industry and campaigners.”

Dwyer’s appeal will now return to Ireland’s supreme court. The justice minister, Helen McEntee, said the Irish government noted the ECJ ruling and awaited further “clarity” when the supreme court ruled on Dwyer’s case.

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

by Guest 02.09.22 16:01

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

I refer not to the police because it's their job but the cyber sleuths, when trawling for mobile phone information - private information, the McCann's and their friends had the use of mobile phones donated by a well wisher, it would appear. Personally I don't agree with members of the public probing other peoples privacy, it's an intrusion and can lead to mistaken identity and/or all sorts of other potential damages to an individual.

When used, there is no way those phones could have been traced back to the the McCanns or whoever else used one or both (err... err...) phones. You buy a phone from a retailer, get a SIM card and top it up as and when necessary - all without personal identification. Then you can lose your phone, I've seen a number of occasions when someone walks away leaving their phone behind - luckily for them I'm honest but I can easily imagine someone who is not so honest walking off with their find. You can let someone else use your phone, or make a call for you, I've also done this many times. In short, it might be possible to get a vague idea of where and when a particular mobile phone was used but it's impossible to know who used it.

Not to say I think the phone records should be ignored per se, at least not the information recorded by the official police force, however I feel it to be very irregular to use phone evidence in a court of law without corroborating evidence. Frankly I don't see how such unreliable evidence (if indeed it can even be referred to as evidence) could be acceptable as stand alone evidence, possibly leading to a prosecution.

Not withstanding, David Payne's rogatory interview taken in April 2008, where the mobile phone issue is covered..

1485 "And who's SA'

Reply "Err he is err my, Fiona's sister LW, that's her husband.'

1485 "And what sort of a relationship do you have with him''

Reply "Err a very good relationship. He is err someone that I've known for many years, we've been to their wedding, they came to our wedding, and err he's you know a very good friend.'

1485 "The same yeah. Okay, we'll move on, this is a small number and it, it is ***.'

Reply "So that's a local number''

1485 "I think''

Reply "Yeah, I mean err it may well have been SA gave us a contact of someone that was a friend of the family in Portugal who err could get us mobile phones because Kate and Gerry you know hadn't got any contact, you know way of contacting, their batteries were running out or something like that so SAhad basically said err you know there's, there's these people that we know there and you know that could have been it.'

1485 "Or, because then there were two text messages sent about half past, about ten o' clock on the Friday evening to that number.'

Reply "Oh to that number, well that wouldn't make sense.'

1485 "No.'

Reply "Err''

1485 "From that number to your number.'

Reply "Oh, it could have been then, if they text me saying oh I hope everything's alright, you've got the phones and everything, that's the only thing.'

1485 "In Portugal''

Reply "The, I mean, the other, there was a, the other person who contacted me which I didn't mention while I was at the Police Station was one of the Portuguese err newspapers and err you know asking, you know for comments and err so that could have been what the, you know, the number. I spoke, I did speak to the other, the friends of Simon ALDRIDGE'S who you know who kindly bought the phones and they actually bought the phones to the Portim' Police Station and I went downstairs and got the phones and then err brought them back upstairs. Err in terms of you know whether I, we spoke to them on the next day sorry, was that the question''

1485 "Well you spoke to them on the next day, the next day yeah that Madeleine went missing, on the fourth.'

Reply "Right.'

01:00:40 Male knocks at the door, DC MESSIAH leaves the interview room.

01:02:37 DC MESSIAH re-enters the room.

1485 "You thought we'd finished didn't you.'

Reply "I know.'

1485 "(Laughs)'

Reply "Not quite.'

1485 "Not quite, no. Not long now to go. Okay, I'm just gonna go over these, this phone issue again.'

Reply "Yeah, yeah.'

1485 "I just, there's just some areas that I've been asked to point out, or been asked to speak to you about.'

Reply "Yeah.'

1485 "Who lent you these phones that SA had organised for you''

Reply "Err I mean, S brother err is a gentleman called Nand N's wife N had got friends out in the Algarve and they were just you know basic people who were just willing to help us in whatever capacity it was, whether we wanted a room for the night or anything and they asked is there anything we can do, err whether they could do, and err and that was, you know, that was one thing we said well actually you know err Kate's phone's nearly ran out, we're sat, we don't know how long we're gonna be at the Police Station you know could, you know, can they, you know is there any way of getting phones to us just so that you know, we can, for communication. Err and err so that was, that was a capacity really err of people.'

01:04:02 1485 "And where were these phones, when did these phones arrive''

Reply "Err when did we get the phones' When we were at the Police Station, err you know as, you know I just asked whether I could just pop downstairs there was someone who's brought us phones and they said yeah, so I quickly popped downstairs, got the phones, and took them back into the Police Station. Err I can't remember if there was any power in them when we opened them up but err so then that was, you know, so the phones were just, you know because we hadn't got any other, anything there, so.'

1485 "And what phones were they' Do you remember what sort of, what make they were''

Reply "Err they were Samsung phones, err and I think they were Vodaphone SIM cards. Err the actual model, I can't tell you the Samsung phone but they were, something like the Samsung three hundred, something like that.'

1485 "Yeah, how many phones were there''

Reply "There was, there was two err and we ended up, err again, we ended up keeping one and Kate and Gerry had one, I think we gave the second one to Kate and Gerry as well after a while but we were err you know because they'd got credit put on to them so we were just using those phones rather than run up the expense of our own phones.'

1485 "Yeah.'

01:05:33 Reply "So err yeah.'

1485 "So the two phones, you've kept one and gave one to Kate and Gerry''

Reply "Kate and Gerry yeah.'

1485 "And do you have the numbers of those phones in your phone''

Reply "I don't, no, no.'

1485 "Where are these phones now''

Reply "Err as far as I am aware that they, you know, remained in Portugal, again''

1485 "With whom''

Reply "With Kate and Gerry.'

1485 "So Kate and Gerry took possession of that second phone which you had''

Reply "Well, they certainly kept the first one, the second one, the second one, sorry, no I think that's rubbish. I think I, I may well have got the, I might have got the second phone. Actually I've got a sneaky feeling when I got home I tried the UK SIM card in it and it didn't work so I could well have got the second phone.'

1485 "So is it likely that this second phone is at your home address''

Reply "Err that is a strong possibility.'

1485 "So two Samsung phones.'

Reply "Yeah, yeah.'

1485 "One is, to your knowledge, still with Kate and Gerry.'

Reply "Yeah.'
1485 "The other one you may well have at your home address.'

Reply "Yeah, yeah.'

1485 "Did you use the phones often''

Reply "Not''

1485 "In Portugal''

Reply "Not a great deal no, no, it was, it was, first of all you know we didn't have any numbers in them already and then with being a Portuguese phone you know it was just a bit more difficult so we, if we ever used them, I mean which wasn't often, we'd perhaps call Kate and Gerry using the Portuguese phone, but it wasn't a kind of religious oh we'll just use the, that Portuguese phone to err you know establish communication.'

1485 "Yeah.'

01:07:23 Reply "Err you know and the other reason that we, we had the, one of the phones is because Fiona didn't have a phone either so you know, so it's like she had the use of the other phone as well.'

1485 "Right, so out of the two of you then, who predominantly used that phone''

Reply "I'd say Fiona.'

1485 "Fiona''

Reply "Yeah.'

1485 "And has it been used since it's been in the UK''

Reply "No.'

1485 "Okay, okay.'

Reply "And I'm just trying to think you know how much, you know the, the, I can't remember you know obviously we were there for four weeks after but when the actual credit ran out, because I remember the credit running out and not being able to actually put anymore on even though it's supposed to be quite straight forward but again, you know whether that was after, you know, three weeks of being out there or whatever I can't remember.'

1485 "Yeah, how many times do you think you topped it up then''

Reply "I don't, I don't think we did, I don't think I did. I don't think I could work out how to do it to be honest.'

1485 "So when both of them arrived both of them had credit on them''

Reply "They put, I think they put, I think err I think they put forty pound credit or forty euros, you know, which seemed to last a lot longer than the amount of credit we were (inaudible) we were using our own err mobile phones.'

1485 "Just wait there a second I'll just (inaudible).'

Reply "Okay.'

by Guest 03.09.22 11:17

nothing new in those laws, germany has already had for inland use a lot of stronger regulations, and even in portugal it could have been on other points of law able to gather such information and store it on for further use.

usually when you have to make use of legal material from abroad, there has first to be permission from your own government to use it, and also a verdict from a judge from the original country that this material is of the accepted standard for use in that country itself, than the country that want to use it had to ask their own investigation judges for a verdict that it could be legally used.

but it could very well be the ground why germany want to have that caller as a witness. they also could go beyond that data, by using the officer who did the find of that number much earlier, when no extra restrictions by law and eu guidance did matter to fill that gap.

when the caller also had use of a pre paid or pay as you go phone in use at that moment, there would never be a bill to prove the call was made, without te data or an by now very old device that still has it on it, and yes that can still be of use. the caller can only talk from hearsay and impressions, that will be never hard evidence. but the data earlier worked on, could be handled by the officer that did exactly that. just like we did these kind of things in the old days before modern facilities.

in itself it never can be hard evidence someone did something, only that said person was in traveling distance of place later classified as crime scene.

if phoning, as in receiving or making a call in or near pdl or 5a was to be seen as evidence there was actually a very long list of possible suspects there. most actually did told that informal and formal.

the weak link in using that caller as a witness is, that witness has to declare that it was indeed him/her in conversation with the culprit of choice, and that can sounds okay, but is never to be proven. credibility is always a problem. so they have a need for information exchanged that could be traced.

and with this quality of lawyers in a case, you can hardly use other standards for this caller as a witness, as they are using against the possible alibi that is been under discussion.

and that calling out in the german crime program was of course never about just a phone call, they could have got that question out without naming a case with it. by naming the case , they did know it would get around the world, and a chance to easy reach out to people who do want to declare something else.
it is not news that phone data are not that hard as we like to place someone at a specific place. so in itself it can hardly have been a sound reason to go out in the open. but just a minor lead was usable to try and fish the public for more, for that it worked a bit to good.

the problem with the 'not really new guidelines' only sits with all not for crime solving purpose other databases with dna, fingerprints or other personal and private information. and in most cases we already had a check in place so not needed for a case personal and private information had to set apart and later be wiped of the archives. there was no reason to keep it on, only wasting a lot of space, even on computers before the clouds got there. but each country and service has their own protocol for that.

and these mass grabbings could also be eating up a lot of time, and the information in it, is nice to have access too but it would be better, if we could have a database for information about convicted criminals equal in threshold to dna and fingerprint storing, so you could only check numbers and other data coming up in the investigation could be just checked to what is already known of criminals.

it is also not the only way information that gets to an investigation, that has the 'can not be used in this form' stamps on it. so as soon as you do know the information, it would not be that hard to find another way to use as access.

also before the germans go to court with this case, there could be already repairs done. it could take years before they got there, they are not in a hurry, as they say.

by joeyxoto 09.09.22 10:29

Hey all, long time lurker here but also long time researcher!

I came across something on the companies house formation of the company and wasn't sure if this had been picked up.

I cannot post links yet, but it can be found on Companies House, search the organisation "No Stone Left Unturned" and go to the first public record of the company.

You'll see that the date of abduction is written as April 7th. I'm sure this can be seen as a mistake because it was May 7th, however, given the fact that there is a large emphasis on April 29th being the true date of reference, whomever was getting this document created may have made that mistake from confusion, i.e. they wrote April because they knew it was April, but meant to write May.

Anyways, just a random observation and could be nothing.

There is also a paragraph I found interesting which talks about how the funds are to be used, it reads:

"...seek to influence public opinion and make representations to seek and influence governmental and other bodies and institutions" - make of that what you will! I find it an odd statement and a strange way to "spend money".

by Guest 09.09.22 13:29

Hello joeyxot and welcome

to CMOMM.

I think you are referring to this..

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

blah

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

If you read in context you will note..

3.2: If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom Portugal or elsewhere.

The April entry is clearly an error, in the interest of accuracy the document actually reads 3rd April 2007, not the 7th April as you say.

by **PeterMac** 10.09.22 7:25

Given that it was drawn up by the leading Solicitors and Accountants in London who specialise in Charities, it is another extraordinary lack of attention to detail, given the importance of that date in the scheme of things.

We remember the correspondence in which I brought up the issue of gross lack of "due Diligence" in the appointment of the various Private detective agencies, and their outraged response, shortly before the accountants HaysMcIintrye withdrew suddenly without having drawn up final accounts . . .