Re: 3 Prime Suspects Identified

by mysterion 04.01.14 16:57

Okeydokey wrote:If Redwood doesn't disown this, then we know it's a fake inquiry.

Agreed. He needs to stamp his authority on this case by giving a brief update to the general public which circumvents all the "powers that be".

The way I read it is that the 3 burglars story is simply a wraparound for the main message that needs to get out before the 7th. That message is that the PJ are rubbish. The Mirror, today, has asserted that the McCanns are not allowed to speak at the libel trial to explain their devastation. We can all see what is coming next.

by Woofer 04.01.14 17:03

Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.

by ultimaThule 04.01.14 17:49

currio wrote:
NickE wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bristow wrote:
NickE wrote:3 Prime suspects,we already know two of them,who´s the third?
DP?
Or MO who was the last person known to have entered 5A before Kate discovered Madeleine had been 'taken', or RO'B who was also absent from the dinner table during the crucial period.

It's to be hoped these two are under no illusion as to the lengths K&G will go to in order to save their own skins.
I'm putting my money on MO or DP.
MO's story that he never saw Maddie sounds very strange to me.

I'd put my money on the partner of Jane Tanner's whichever one that is.

Was she not seen standing on the opposite side of the street, watching 5A for some time earlier.

J Wilks witnessed this, and an old Lady driving past to catch a local shop before closing spotted her on her way to and fro, still standing in the same spot.

Was she keeping an eye out while the scene was been sterilized?

As I recall, this was a woman of 'Portuguese appearance' wearing purple, currio, and she certainly sounded a dead ringer for Tanner who, despite not taking jeans, took at least one purple top on holiday with her and whose dark looks could easily be mistaken for those of a local/native of Portugal by a casual observer.

by currio 04.01.14 18:07

ultimaThule wrote:
currio wrote:
NickE wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bristow wrote:
NickE wrote:3 Prime suspects,we already know two of them,who´s the third?
DP?
Or MO who was the last person known to have entered 5A before Kate discovered Madeleine had been 'taken', or RO'B who was also absent from the dinner table during the crucial period.

It's to be hoped these two are under no illusion as to the lengths K&G will go to in order to save their own skins.
I'm putting my money on MO or DP.
MO's story that he never saw Maddie sounds very strange to me.

I'd put my money on the partner of Jane Tanner's whichever one that is.

Was she not seen standing on the opposite side of the street, watching 5A for some time earlier.

J Wilks witnessed this, and an old Lady driving past to catch a local shop before closing spotted her on her way to and fro, still standing in the same spot.

Was she keeping an eye out while the scene was been sterilized?
As I recall, this was a woman of 'Portuguese appearance' wearing purple, currio, and she certainly sounded a dead ringer for Tanner who, despite not taking jeans, took at least one purple top on holiday with her and whose dark looks could easily be mistaken for those a local/native of Portugal by a casual observer.

The jeans were probably sterilized too and replaced by a white skirt big grin

by bobbin 04.01.14 18:34

currio wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
currio wrote:
NickE wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
bristow wrote:
NickE wrote:3 Prime suspects,we already know two of them,who´s the third?
DP?
Or MO who was the last person known to have entered 5A before Kate discovered Madeleine had been 'taken', or RO'B who was also absent from the dinner table during the crucial period.

It's to be hoped these two are under no illusion as to the lengths K&G will go to in order to save their own skins.
I'm putting my money on MO or DP.
MO's story that he never saw Maddie sounds very strange to me.

I'd put my money on the partner of Jane Tanner's whichever one that is.

Was she not seen standing on the opposite side of the street, watching 5A for some time earlier.

J Wilks witnessed this, and an old Lady driving past to catch a local shop before closing spotted her on her way to and fro, still standing in the same spot.

Was she keeping an eye out while the scene was been sterilized?
As I recall, this was a woman of 'Portuguese appearance' wearing purple, currio, and she certainly sounded a dead ringer for Tanner who, despite not taking jeans, took at least one purple top on holiday with her and whose dark looks could easily be mistaken for those a local/native of Portugal by a casual observer.
The jeans were probably sterilized too and replaced by a white skirt

Jeremy Wilkins also referred to a woman whom he later came to know was Jane Tanner, being in the car park, wearing purple. It's in his statement.

by bobbin 04.01.14 18:53

Ristretto wrote:
ulyssesoh wrote:To be fair it makes perfect sense to get pay as you go phones if you anticipate staying in another country for more than a week or two - and making lots of in-country calls, which would undoubtedly have been the case here. I've always bought a local SIM for my unlocked mobile if I'm visiting another country for a while. Otherwise you get totally hammered with roaming charges for local calls. I'd have also kept my existing phone for calls back home.

I agree absolutely. As a regular traveller there is nothing remotely surprising or odd about someone getting hold of local phones or sim cards if they are likely to make local calls in other countries. The roaming charges were horrendous even just six or seven years ago though they are a bit better now.

A few years ago it wasn't as easy to just get hold of a sim card when abroad and there were companies offering local mobiles for short term rent at most airports as you arrived and this was cheaper than getting a big bill for roaming charges. If you knew somebody local you could get them to get hold of a cheap phone for you with local sim though and that worked out cheaper still.

The fact that the phones were delivered to Payne at the police station is probably explained by the fact that the friends lived nearer to that place than PDL.

The problem with your response is,
Why would they think that they would be there for any time. Maddie (or her body) could have turned up any minute if she had woken and wandered through the open door and either been found or had an accident.
Also, if she had been abducted, she would be far away, anywhere in the world, it would be better for her parents to get back to English speaking UK, leave the Portuguese police to get on with the search without interruption or steering from the parents, and use the many services offered by the UK govt to liaise with the Portuguese police.
Above all, why on earth would they be making 'in country' calls. They didn't speak a word of Portuguese, didn't apparently know any local people, had no need whatsoever to be contacting local Portuguese numbers, the police were in charge of the investigation already interviewing people, sealing the area off, dogs out searching, and the Tapas crew were ringing and texting their family in the UK.
Texts cost LESS than PAYG on a mobile contract and there are a whole range of minutes available for free talking on most contracts.
Furthermore, why would they be even thinking about the cost.
They would not know that their stay would be more than a short time (OR DID THEY ?) and how much do new PAYG phones cost, (and how many were bought) versus the savings in charges on phone calls, most contacts being text messages only.
I suspect the greater reason was so that calls could not be traced, as is evidenced in the current SY investigation, or at least not easily.
Trying to find a 'good and honest' reason for getting PAYG phones is not likely to be fruitful, given the slithering and obfuscation which has not only salted but also heavily peppered this whole saga.

by Monty Heck 04.01.14 19:00

Woofer wrote:Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.

Precisely. Why such urgency for delivery of an unspecified number of PAYG mobiles, a matter of hours after the disappearance of a child who at that point could have turned up any minute? So urgent that delivery could not wait until statements being taken at Portimao PJ station were complete, which seems surprising since giving statements would normally be the matter given greatest priority that day.

Is it possible that they could have been tipped off about the phone tapping apparently rife within the print media, which didn't become public until much later? They certainly appear to have gone to great and immediate lengths to ensure private communications remained so.

by Ristretto 04.01.14 19:07

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Ristretto wrote:
ulyssesoh wrote:To be fair it makes perfect sense to get pay as you go phones if you anticipate staying in another country for more than a week or two - and making lots of in-country calls, which would undoubtedly have been the case here. I've always bought a local SIM for my unlocked mobile if I'm visiting another country for a while. Otherwise you get totally hammered with roaming charges for local calls. I'd have also kept my existing phone for calls back home.

I agree absolutely. As a regular traveller there is nothing remotely surprising or odd about someone getting hold of local phones or sim cards if they are likely to make local calls in other countries. The roaming charges were horrendous even just six or seven years ago though they are a bit better now.

A few years ago it wasn't as easy to just get hold of a sim card when abroad and there were companies offering local mobiles for short term rent at most airports as you arrived and this was cheaper than getting a big bill for roaming charges. If you knew somebody local you could get them to get hold of a cheap phone for you with local sim though and that worked out cheaper still.

The fact that the phones were delivered to Payne at the police station is probably explained by the fact that the friends lived nearer to that place than PDL.

In that case, what is known about Simon Aldridge and his friend who supplied the phones? Why did Payne not just hotfoot it down to "telefonos4tu", credit card in hand. How very coincidental that he should have a relative, with a "contact", so close at hand.

Not sure about Portugal as I don't know that country but I do know that there were restrictions on who could buy phones in other countries and that people who lived there could do so more easily than tourists and there is the question of language, not everybody in the local phone store would speak English. I know that I would prefer to buy something like that with the assistance of someone who spoke the language.

But if you think there is something suspicious about Payne wanting local phones, and then getting help from someone better able to get them than him, that's your right. Its not my opinion about the matter though.

Lots of things do make me suspicious. This doesn't because it matches just what I would have done in the situation,

by Ristretto 04.01.14 19:12

Monty Heck wrote:
Woofer wrote:Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.
Precisely. Why such urgency for delivery of an unspecified number of PAYG mobiles, a matter of hours after the disappearance of a child who at that point could have turned up any minute? So urgent that delivery could not wait until statements being taken at Portimao PJ station were complete, which seems surprising since giving statements would normally be the matter given greatest priority that day.

Is it possible that they could have been tipped off about the phone tapping apparently rife within the print media, which didn't become public until much later? They certainly appear to have gone to great and immediate lengths to ensure private communications remained so.

When you know you are racking up horrendous roaming charges as they would have been in the first few days it is very likely that they would simply have sought the most effective way of dealing with that and lessening the costs. If you had ever needed to make lots of calls while abroad you would recognise just how urgent it is to reduce those costs.

All these scenarios are guesswork. There is nothing that I can see in the files that answers the questions. Some will pick the most lurid explanations and some like me will pick the most mundane and obvious. As to who is right, will we ever know?

by lj 04.01.14 19:15

But Scotland Yard’s hopes of early arrests have been thwarted by the reluctance of the Portuguese authorities to agree to a formal joint investigation.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Just as I predicted: blaming an noncapturable "person" and blame Portugal for it's failure.

Really Andy, it's so predictable, can you not come up with something better for the whitewash?

by Woofer 04.01.14 19:16

Monty Heck wrote:
Woofer wrote:Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.
Precisely. Why such urgency for delivery of an unspecified number of PAYG mobiles, a matter of hours after the disappearance of a child who at that point could have turned up any minute? So urgent that delivery could not wait until statements being taken at Portimao PJ station were complete, which seems surprising since giving statements would normally be the matter given greatest priority that day.

Is it possible that they could have been tipped off about the phone tapping apparently rife within the print media, which didn't become public until much later? They certainly appear to have gone to great and immediate lengths to ensure private communications remained so.

Does anyone know if the PJ took possession of their personal phones? Would this be normal in the case of a missing child? Perhaps Peter might know.

by squeaker 04.01.14 19:17

If one of my children had gone missing on holiday, the cost of the calls on my mobile phone would have been the very last of my worries. I would rather have kept the phone that had a number everybody knew.

by Tangled Web 04.01.14 19:17

Ristretto wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Woofer wrote:Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.
Precisely. Why such urgency for delivery of an unspecified number of PAYG mobiles, a matter of hours after the disappearance of a child who at that point could have turned up any minute? So urgent that delivery could not wait until statements being taken at Portimao PJ station were complete, which seems surprising since giving statements would normally be the matter given greatest priority that day.

Is it possible that they could have been tipped off about the phone tapping apparently rife within the print media, which didn't become public until much later? They certainly appear to have gone to great and immediate lengths to ensure private communications remained so.

When you know you are racking up horrendous roaming charges as they would have been in the first few days it is very likely that they would simply have sought the most effective way of dealing with that and lessening the costs. If you had ever needed to make lots of calls while abroad you would recognise just how urgent it is to reduce those costs.

All these scenarios are guesswork. There is nothing that I can see in the files that answers the questions. Some will pick the most lurid explanations and some like me will pick the most mundane and obvious. As to who is right, will we ever know?

I have to say that, had my 3 year old vanished from her bed on holiday, the cost of calls would absolutely have never entered my mind.

by Newintown 04.01.14 19:28

Ristretto wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Woofer wrote:Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.
Precisely. Why such urgency for delivery of an unspecified number of PAYG mobiles, a matter of hours after the disappearance of a child who at that point could have turned up any minute? So urgent that delivery could not wait until statements being taken at Portimao PJ station were complete, which seems surprising since giving statements would normally be the matter given greatest priority that day.

Is it possible that they could have been tipped off about the phone tapping apparently rife within the print media, which didn't become public until much later? They certainly appear to have gone to great and immediate lengths to ensure private communications remained so.

When you know you are racking up horrendous roaming charges as they would have been in the first few days it is very likely that they would simply have sought the most effective way of dealing with that and lessening the costs. If you had ever needed to make lots of calls while abroad you would recognise just how urgent it is to reduce those costs.

All these scenarios are guesswork. There is nothing that I can see in the files that answers the questions. Some will pick the most lurid explanations and some like me will pick the most mundane and obvious. As to who is right, will we ever know?

You seem to be missing the obvious, most conveniently, that the McCanns had millionaire backers from the moment that Madeleine went "missing", their funds were unlimited when it came to having top class lawyers, spokespersons, media gurus all dancing to their tune, I don't think the PAYG phones were brought in because the McCanns couldn't afford the cost of normal phones, we're not all that stupid however much you spin it.

by bobbin 04.01.14 19:32

Ristretto wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Woofer wrote:Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.
Precisely. Why such urgency for delivery of an unspecified number of PAYG mobiles, a matter of hours after the disappearance of a child who at that point could have turned up any minute? So urgent that delivery could not wait until statements being taken at Portimao PJ station were complete, which seems surprising since giving statements would normally be the matter given greatest priority that day.

Is it possible that they could have been tipped off about the phone tapping apparently rife within the print media, which didn't become public until much later? They certainly appear to have gone to great and immediate lengths to ensure private communications remained so.

When you know you are racking up horrendous roaming charges as they would have been in the first few days it is very likely that they would simply have sought the most effective way of dealing with that and lessening the costs. If you had ever needed to make lots of calls while abroad you would recognise just how urgent it is to reduce those costs.

All these scenarios are guesswork. There is nothing that I can see in the files that answers the questions. Some will pick the most lurid explanations and some like me will pick the most mundane and obvious. As to who is right, will we ever know?

Your mundane, as you put it, explanation is based on 'hindsight'.
The phones were bought and delivered within just over 12 hours of Maddie's disappearance.
Roaming charges for phone calls are more expensive but hardly 'horrendous' and as I say, the McCs and bunch were texting nearly all the time, whereupon, with a mobile contract, it is CHEAPER to text than with PAYG.
If costs (Horrendous) were their quest to avoid, then weigh that up against the COST of the new phones, (again how many of them) and the fact that phone analysis shows they were texting, with occasional very short spoken conversations.
Again, if your daughter has just disappeared and you do not know how soon it will be before she is found, why calculate that you will make an overall savings, given the cost of the PAYG phones spread over a certain number of weeks/months, since the PAYG phones bought in Portugal will be of little use once back in the UK.
And as you pointed out, sim card replacement was not necessarily very available at the time, so the new phones would be a wasted and unnecessary expense if the McCs and bunch did not stay long enough to make an overall financial gain.
They would not know (unless they did) that they would be there so long, and who had these new phones?
Only the Paynes stayed on, the rest went home.
Payne was quick to dismiss the social worker on the morning of Maddie's disappearance.
Perhaps after all, PAYG phones would be a necessity.
So what does anyone know of these friends of Payne who managed to deliver how many phones at what cost.

by Monty Heck 04.01.14 19:41

Ristretto wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Woofer wrote:Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.
Precisely. Why such urgency for delivery of an unspecified number of PAYG mobiles, a matter of hours after the disappearance of a child who at that point could have turned up any minute? So urgent that delivery could not wait until statements being taken at Portimao PJ station were complete, which seems surprising since giving statements would normally be the matter given greatest priority that day.

Is it possible that they could have been tipped off about the phone tapping apparently rife within the print media, which didn't become public until much later? They certainly appear to have gone to great and immediate lengths to ensure private communications remained so.

When you know you are racking up horrendous roaming charges as they would have been in the first few days it is very likely that they would simply have sought the most effective way of dealing with that and lessening the costs. If you had ever needed to make lots of calls while abroad you would recognise just how urgent it is to reduce those costs.

All these scenarios are guesswork. There is nothing that I can see in the files that answers the questions. Some will pick the most lurid explanations and some like me will pick the most mundane and obvious. As to who is right, will we ever know?

(Bold is mine) Yes I would agree that somone might well take the measures you suggest when, after a period of time it became apparent charges were being racked up unnecessarily. However what is described above is delivery of (how many?) PAYG mobiles within what, 12, 14 hours of a child's disappearance? This seems to be an odd early priority not entirely explained by possible worries about rising mobile costs. There is as you say nothing in the files which answers these questions so the situation remains anomalous and very much open to question.

Like you I tend to agree the mundane and obvious is generally the most likely scenario, but costs are hardly likely to have been accumulating at a such an early stage as to cause such concern requiring delivery of phones to the police station while the first statements were being taken. Delivery that urgent suggests the need to ensure privacy in mobile phone communications was a high priority at that particular time - the question of course is why would that be?

by bobbin 04.01.14 19:49

Monty Heck wrote:
Ristretto wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
Woofer wrote:Regarding the Payasyougo phones - on the 4th May they didn`t know that Madeleine wouldn`t turn up that day or the next - so didn`t know they would be staying on.

Also, could it be that the PJ took possession of their personal phones? So they were put in touch with someone who could supply them with temporary phones.

Just trying to eliminate all possibilities.
Precisely. Why such urgency for delivery of an unspecified number of PAYG mobiles, a matter of hours after the disappearance of a child who at that point could have turned up any minute? So urgent that delivery could not wait until statements being taken at Portimao PJ station were complete, which seems surprising since giving statements would normally be the matter given greatest priority that day.

Is it possible that they could have been tipped off about the phone tapping apparently rife within the print media, which didn't become public until much later? They certainly appear to have gone to great and immediate lengths to ensure private communications remained so.

When you know you are racking up horrendous roaming charges as they would have been in the first few days it is very likely that they would simply have sought the most effective way of dealing with that and lessening the costs. If you had ever needed to make lots of calls while abroad you would recognise just how urgent it is to reduce those costs.

All these scenarios are guesswork. There is nothing that I can see in the files that answers the questions. Some will pick the most lurid explanations and some like me will pick the most mundane and obvious. As to who is right, will we ever know?

(Bold is mine) Yes I would agree that somone might well take the measures you suggest when, after a period of time it became apparent charges were being racked up unnecessarily. However what is described above is delivery of (how many?) PAYG mobiles within what, 12, 14 hours of a child's disappearance? This seems to be an odd an early priority not entirely explained by possible worries about rising mobile costs. There is as you say nothing in the files which answers these questions so the situation remains anomalous and very much open to question.

Like you I tend to agree the mundane and obvious is generally the most likely scenario but costs are hardly likely to have been accumulating at a such an early stage as to cause such level of concern as to require delivery of phones to the police station while the first statements were being taken. Delivery that urgent suggests the need to ensure privacy in mobile phone communications was a high priority at that particular time - the question of course is why would that be?

Now that is a very interesting angle, given that later on, Kate and Justine McGuinness were texting messages out of the police interviews, even whist they were ongoing, it is behaviour that is clearly not outside of the bounds of McCann thinking.
Very likely then, Payne et alia would need to be making discrete contacts, perhaps even corroborating responses at an immediate stage, if Yvonne Martin and Katharine Gaspar's statements are anything to go by.
There is nothing mundane about any of this protracted, slippery and convoluted case.

by Guest 04.01.14 19:55

If you consider that one of the priorities the night before was deleting phone contacts then the delivery of PAYG mobiles with 24 hours is a little suspicious at the least.
WHY on earth would somebody be worried about roaming charges when their three year old daughter was missing?? Only hours before. Taken by a gang of paedophiles.
How on earth did anyone have the time or the lucidity of thought to even arrange such a thing?
Why did they not think or hope she could be found at any minute?

Please, pull the other one Ristretto

by Monty Heck 04.01.14 19:55

It would indeed be interesting to know more about the helpful friends who supplies these phones, plus:
- who contacted them to request this
- what explanation was given for this
- when that happened
- how many handsets were supplied

This seems a more direct route to solving the mobile data conundrum currently exercising SY, apparently sifting through countless thousands of calls made by a population of 3,000 during a fairly short time period, not all of whom adults or in possession of a mobile phone at the time.

by Guest 04.01.14 19:55

squeaker wrote:If one of my children had gone missing on holiday, the cost of the calls on my mobile phone would have been the very last of my worries. I would rather have kept the phone that had a number everybody knew.

***
Yes.

ETA Good gracious, you've all been tapping away at high speed, whilst I [with a fever] was replying to an "oldie" ... Anyway. It seems, we all agree that there's something fishy with the PAYG phones. ... as with so many more other things ...

by Monty Heck 04.01.14 20:12

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 6:49 pm

Not only the texting between KMcC and JMcG on arguida day but the undisguised glee with which this was later reported was an eyebrow raiser. Strange priorities indeed.

In terms of timescale, the decision to get PAYG mobiles must surely have been made very early a.m. 4 May 2007, to allow time for contacting the friends in question and making the request. The friends would have had to get to the phone store, make the purchases (paid for how?) and get to the PJ station in Portimao presumably while DP was still waiting his turn to be questioned, all of which suggestive of a lot of organising at a very early point in the day. Not bad for people who described themselves as so non functioning they were unable to join the on the ground searches, although they did say they were working incredibly hard at the time.

by bobbin 04.01.14 20:28

Monty Heck wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 6:49 pm

Not only the texting between KMcC and JMcG on arguida day but the undisguised glee with which this was later reported was an eyebrow raiser. Strange priorities indeed.

In terms of timescale, the decision to get PAYG mobiles must surely have been made very early a.m. 4 May 2007, to allow time for contacting the friends in question and making the request. The friends would have had to get to the phone store, make the purchases (paid for how?) and get to the PJ station in Portimao presumably while DP was still waiting his turn to be questioned, all of which suggestive of a lot of organising at a very early point in the day. Not bad for people who described themselves as so non functioning they were unable to join the on the ground searches, although they did say they were working incredibly hard at the time.

So whilst Gerry and other were long-distanced photographed by the rockpool, Gerry on the phone, were they trying to call/find a lost phone, if so whose. Was David Payne's mobile phone handed to police for investigation. I don't recall seeing that he had deleted any calls, in fact i don't recall seeing mention of his phone. Does anyone have any info on this.

by Newintown 04.01.14 20:30

Châtelaine wrote:
squeaker wrote:If one of my children had gone missing on holiday, the cost of the calls on my mobile phone would have been the very last of my worries. I would rather have kept the phone that had a number everybody knew.
***
Yes.

ETA Good gracious, you've all been tapping away at high speed, whilst I [with a fever] was replying to an "oldie" ... Anyway. It seems, we all agree that there's something fishy with the PAYG phones. ... as with so many more other things ...

We've all known there's been something "fishy" about the PAYG phones for some years......... keep up Châtelaine with or without your "fever".

by Daisy 04.01.14 20:32

Sorry it's a bit long, but this should answer quite a few questions regarding the PAYG phones. It also raises many more.

DP's Rog statement:

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.'
01:08:40 DC MESSIAH leaves the interview room.
01:09:00 DC MESSIAH re-enters the interview room.

1485 "All done.'
Reply "Okay.'

1485 "The phone, is it likely that I could collect it when I take you home''
Reply "I can certainly have a look for it and I can give you, I mean if you, if you wanted to have my other mobile phone with all the numbers in and you know if you can access text messages on that you're welcome to have that phone.'

1485 "Okay, do you know where you'd be able to put your hand on it if you''
Reply "Err the Samsung one, again, there was a Vodaphone bag that was knocking around, and that would be where it is if err I can find it. Fiona might know.'

1485 "Okay, perhaps you could give her a call or something.'
Reply "Yeah, yeah.'

1485 "Alright then, it's now sixteen forty on this date.'
01:09:48 The interview ceased at 1640 hours when the tape recorder was switched off.
SIGNATURE (Sgd)
SLS

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

by Hongkong Phooey 04.01.14 20:33

Monty Heck wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 6:49 pm

Not only the texting between KMcC and JMcG on arguida day but the undisguised glee with which this was later reported was an eyebrow raiser. Strange priorities indeed.

In terms of timescale, the decision to get PAYG mobiles must surely have been made very early a.m. 4 May 2007, to allow time for contacting the friends in question and making the request. The friends would have had to get to the phone store, make the purchases (paid for how?) and get to the PJ station in Portimao presumably while DP was still waiting his turn to be questioned, all of which suggestive of a lot of organising at a very early point in the day. Not bad for people who described themselves as so non functioning they were unable to join the on the ground searches, although they did say they were working incredibly hard at the time.

They were working incredibly hard, there was an internet to search, a marketing strategy, PR, phones to be bought, free dinners and accommodation to be arranged.........

Would at that time, the purchaser of the phones be required to register them in his / her name and address?

by Guest 04.01.14 20:40

Daisy wrote:Sorry it's a bit long, but this should answer quite a few questions regarding the PAYG phones. It also raises many more.

If I was getting interviewed by DC Messiah I'd be dying to go "Come again?" after every question....

But I digress. Payne. What a dodgy sod. I can't believe it was allowed to rest at that, but it shows that the PJ were also suspicious about the additional phones. What make of phones were K and G's again? And what kind of halfwit goes away for a week and doesn't take a phone charger?

Credulity stretched beyond breaking point AGAIN.

by Newintown 04.01.14 20:46

Monty Heck wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 6:49 pm

Not only the texting between KMcC and JMcG on arguida day but the undisguised glee with which this was later reported was an eyebrow raiser. Strange priorities indeed.

In terms of timescale, the decision to get PAYG mobiles must surely have been made very early a.m. 4 May 2007, to allow time for contacting the friends in question and making the request. The friends would have had to get to the phone store, make the purchases (paid for how?) and get to the PJ station in Portimao presumably while DP was still waiting his turn to be questioned, all of which suggestive of a lot of organising at a very early point in the day. Not bad for people who described themselves as so non functioning they were unable to join the on the ground searches, although they did say they were working incredibly hard at the time.

Or even on 3rd May 2007.

by SixMillionQuid 04.01.14 20:52

New phones because credit was running out on their existing ones. What a load of tosh. big grin

by Guest 04.01.14 20:54

I'm reminded of Rebello - think of him what you want - sitting in & watching these rogatory interviews and then leaving within 2 days to go back to Portugal. I do have some understanding, as it must have been a very, very frustrating experience ...

by Monty Heck 04.01.14 20:54

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 7:32 pm

Excellent, many thanks Daisy. It answers a number of questions but as you say raises many more!

Unless I am misunderstanding, somebody went to a whole lot of trouble to get these 2 phones to them at a very early and critical stage in the investigation, when the child could have been found at any moment. They were so crucial (well, KMcC's battery might have been getting a bit low) they had to be delivered while they were all at the police station giving witness statements about the night before. But not that important really because they didn't know how to use them what with them being Portuguese so only used them sometimes to contact K and G and never bothered to top them up; but at the same time he claims they were needed to save the expense of using their own mobiles. If credibility were elastic there would not be enough here to make a garter for a canary.