Tina Satchwell News updates MOD NOTE POST ONE

fuzzyduck4

tara73 wrote: »

banie01 wrote: »

Its a little more complex than just pinging the tower.
In and of itself a powered on mobile phone will always attempt to connect to a celltower.
Location is not available from a cell tower information other than in a very generalised location.
To get more detailed location, the Gardaì make a request for further detail from the network operators.
With this additional detail, info regarding all masts the handset was connected to.
The handset will generally prioritise the strongest Tower, but it will ping all available towers.
A general location can then be worked out via Triangulating the towers pinged and the ping time/connection strength.
The more towers pinged the more accurately a location can be determined, 2 towers minimum are needed to give enough data to use this method.
This data can then be assessed against the claimed movements of the suspect to assist in refuting or confirming their account of movements.

Where it is at odds with the suspect's alibi, movement can be plotted on a triangulated basis with a reasonable degree of confidence.
This allows a circumstantial proof of a suspects whereabouts at particular time.

For definitive mobile phone location data, handset GPS logs can be reviewed aswell as Exif data from any application tracking apps on the handset(assuming of course a GPS handset with location enabled is used).

thanks for that, that's very telling and interesting.

so I would strongly like to presume the investigators did this and tracked his mobile phone movements the 4 days after her disappearance. It would be very telling whether he left it at one place, i.e.at home for that days or where he's been.
The guards must definately know a lot about Richard Satchwells whereabouts in the 4 days.

This is presuming that he had his mobile phone with him moving to different locations..

tara73

Effects wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. Depends on the case perhaps.
I'm not completely up top speed but I believe Graham Dwyer is challenging use of mobile phone data used to track him. Breaching data protection or something.

yes, he's doing that, you can literally say at this moment.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/my-privacy-was-breached-in-trial-says-graham-dwyer-36626374.html

Gravelly

tara73 wrote: »

technical question regarding some posts earlier detecting mobile phones via checking a mobile phone tower of location of interest: is it possible to get information on a mobile in getting the data from the mobile phone tower even when the owner of the mobile of interest didn't do a call in that location?

fuzzyduck4 wrote: »

This is presuming that he had his mobile phone with him moving to different locations..

Did you?

gozunda

fuzzyduck4 wrote: »

I'd be looking closely at those attending that car boot sale, had any of them previous form/convictions, ect

The Gardai are unlikely to exclude anyone likley to be a suspect at this point in time...

banie01

tara73 wrote: »

thanks for that, that's very telling and interesting.

so I would strongly like to presume the investigators did this and tracked his mobile phone movements the 4 days after her disappearance. It would be very telling whether he left it at one place, i.e.at home for that days or where he's been.
The guards must definately know a lot about Richard Satchwells whereabouts in the 4 days.

Currently network operators hold this metadata for 2yrs and the logs would be available on foot of the appropriate requests.
The utility of the data is really dependent upon the interview with the suspect, and usually as part of the interview/alibi process Gardaì will query whether a person had their handset with them.
Hence why I mentioned

This data can then be assessed against the claimed movements of the suspect to assist in refuting or confirming their account of movements

Without actual GPS logs or eye witness statements/cctv, it really would only be an indication of a location.
A circumstantial rather than a definitive proof, that can be used to build an overall case.

tara73

banie01 wrote: »

Without actual GPS logs or eye witness statements/cctv, it really would only be an indication of a location.
A circumstantial rather than a definitive proof, that can be used to build an overall case.

I didn't mean to suggest he could be arrested on mobile phone data movements, I know it can only be a piece of the puzzle in substantial evidence.

But it can be the last piece in the puzzle as the Joe o'Reilly case showed.

fepper

Effects wrote: »

When Joe O’Reilly murdered his wife, they used the phone data along with CCTV footage of a car the same make and colour in the area.

This was before people know how incriminating your phone could be.

Hardly coincidental leaving your phone at home but making sure to pack the suitcases and money....

Shurimgreat

Came across this interesting article on cadaver dogs.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html

If they are well trained, the chances are they will find a body in that forest, if there is a body to be found.

I hope the gardai keep an eye on their chief suspect to prevent them moving the body.

fepper

ligerdub wrote: »

In the case of Joe O'Reilly it was pretty much the only piece of the puzzle.* It established that he lied about where he was, as well as identifying him as being in the area at the time.

What other evidence was there to convict him of the crime? That's a sincere question by the way, I'm not having a pop or anything. My memory on that one though was that the phone evidence was a massive part of the conviction and not much else.

The difference in this particular case as I understand it, is that there's no obvious date on which this poor woman may have met her demise, and therefore the phone evidence can only prove he (or her had she had her phone) was in the area at a certain date and time. They'd have to prove that his location matches the date and time a crime may have been committed.

*Again, I'm not defending Joe. More so suggesting that if that's all they have then it could be very difficult to make a case against anybody really.

They said Joes planning was meticulously well thought out and was the perfect murder so its obvious that people do get away with murder at times,and everyone has copped on to phone signal now so

Spanish Eyes

I've often wondered why the cadaver dogs were not used in the search for Trevor Deely recently.

humberklog

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I've often wondered why the cadaver dogs were not used in the search for Trevor Deely recently.

They were. Brought in from GB too.

rawn

Does anyone else find it strange that he is "shocked" that they're searching a woodland for her? I mean, if they were so happy together and she disappeared, you'd think he'd be sure something had happened to her otherwise she would have spoken to her family at least to stop them worrying. I don't know - seems strange to me that he's "shocked".

Shurimgreat

suicide_circus wrote: »

What doesn't help his case is that he's wonky eyed like joe o'reilly

He's certainly a bit odd yes, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of anything.

He's certainly not a polished media performer!

I suppose you can't stop people believing what they want to believe.

BettePorter

Thing is ...why are the digging up a huge forest if the witness just saw someone of her description with a man acting suspiciously ....I mean that would suggest they saw her alive. Unless they were struggling. But even that just potentially puts her in area at time ...not necessarily buried there. Unless it was seriously premeditated.

fuzzyduck4

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

He can make up any yarn he likes if he knows she will not be able to confirm or deny them.

I assume the guards already know who their suspect is. You'd have to assume the are tracking every single movement and digital footprint of that suspect.

murpho999

fuzzyduck4 wrote: »

Also in sure the revenue commissioners would be interested in the origin of this cash

Why? People are entitled to have money and savings and may have paid tax already on it.

JeffKenna

murpho999 wrote: »

Why? People are entitled to have money and savings and may have paid tax already on it.

I thought the story was that it was a cash payment as part of their house sale in Fermoy. Surely a tax implication there.

Besides that, why not just ask the purchaser if they paid cash for the house as well. Surely that would tie that loose end up.

Shurimgreat

BettePorter wrote: »

Thing is ...why are the digging up a huge forest if the witness just saw someone of her description with a man acting suspiciously ....I mean that would suggest they saw her alive. Unless they were struggling. But even that just potentially puts her in area at time ...not necessarily buried there. Unless it was seriously premeditated.

I think if they don't' turn something up in this forest, serious questions will be asked about the competence of the entire investigation.

From the off gardai have taken at face value the word of someone who must be considered a suspect in her disappearance. Until he can be definitively ruled out which he never has been, his word has little or no value.

This I believe is last chance saloon for the gardai, otherwise she becomes another of the disappeared women in this country.

clfy39tzve8njq

Shurimgreat wrote:

From the off gardai have taken at face value the word of someone who must be considered a suspect in her disappearance.

How do you know what the gardai believe ?

jh79

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

The Guards knowing\believing something is one thing but proving it is another.

I'm beginning to think the Guards do know and the antics of the two at the darts match sums up their frustration at not being able to move on the suspect.

What happened at the darts match?

foxyladyxx

Gadgetman496 wrote: »

The Guards knowing\believing something is one thing but proving it is another.

I'm beginning to think the Guards do know and the antics of the two at the darts match sums up their frustration at not being able to move on the suspect.

Yes that is how I read it. .letting him know that he isn't off the hook

evolving_doors

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think if they don't' turn something up in this forest, serious questions will be asked about the competence of the entire investigation.

From the off gardai have taken at face value the word of someone who must be considered a suspect in her disappearance. Until he can be definitively ruled out which he never has been, his word has little or no value.

This I believe is last chance saloon for the gardai, otherwise she becomes another of the disappeared women in this country.

Why is he a suspect? Just because he was the last known person to have seen her?

MilesMorales1

jh79 wrote: »

What happened at the darts match?

The two Gardai holding the sign saying 'come home Tina' or whatever it was.

Cork Lass

This was all over the news yesterday and yet there’s not been a mention of it today that I’ve seen. Does anyone else think this is a bit strange.

fepper

Cork Lass wrote: »

This was all over the news yesterday and yet there’s not been a mention of it today that I’ve seen. Does anyone else think this is a bit strange.

Maybe press told to cool down the coverage for a while so to keep it low profile

fin12

Did the Sachwells own a pet Parrot?

Don’t know what the parrot references are about......

tara73

fin12 wrote: »

It’s right on a main road aswell so where would he have parked the car if dumping the body there?

does somebody has a link to google maps or screenshot to the woodland? thanks.

Spanish Eyes

Street View

https://www.google.ie/maps/@51.9093181,-8.0528534,3a,75y,202.99h,92.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqCF0_rydZG_BocsZbNQvcw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

LilMrsDahamsta

This is the forest entrance shown in the news.

https://goo.gl/maps/vFfDrbCXwgB2

If you look at the satellite on Google maps, the usual walking route is partially visible; you go in a few hundred metres from the road and there's a loop of about a kilometre going roughly south from there. But there's also a path that connects around the back of the golf course to the other half of the woods. This has its own separate access off the N25, and can also be reached down a local road labelled "The Demesne" on Google. You could drive a tractor the whole way through from there to the church ruins area, but not a car; it's unpaved and you'd need wellies most of the year.

It's generally a very quiet place to go for a walk. You'd meet people at the weekend alright, but you could easily do a lap during the week and meet no one, especially if it's wet.

refusetolose

Richard Satchwell is on Prime Time tonight i believe