Squidgygate: Encyclopedia II - Squidgygate - Analysis of the tape

Squidgygate - Analysis of the tape

In 1993, The Sunday Times published the findings of an analysis of the "Squidgygate" tape, commissioned from Corby-based surveillance specialists Audiotel International.

Audiotel concluded that the presence of data bursts on the tape was suspicious. Data bursts ("pips" at intervals of approximately 10 seconds, containing information for billing purposes) would normally be filtered out at the exchange before Cellnet transmission. That these "pips" were present at all was therefore anomalous, but they were also too fast, too loud, and exhibited a "low-frequency [audio] 'shadow'," implying "some kind of doctoring of the tape," said Audiotel's managing director, Andrew Martin, in his firm's report. "The balance of probability suggests something irregular about the recording which may indicate a rebroadcasting of the conversation some time after the conversation took place ^[11]."

Within a week of the Times's announcement, a further independent analysis was carried out for the same newspaper by John Nelson of Crew Green Consulting Ltd, with assistance from Martin Colloms, audio analyst for Sony International. Their analysis demonstrated convincingly that the conversation could not have been recorded by a scanning receiver in the manner claimed by Mr Reenan. Amongst several relevant factors, there was a 50-hertz hum in the background of the "Squidgygate" conversation together with components in the recorded speech with frequencies in excess of 4kHz. Neither could have passed through the filters of Mr Reenan's Icom receiver or indeed have been transmitted by the cellular telephone system. The 50Hz hum was consistent with the effect of attempting to record a telephone conversation via a direct tap on a landline.

Since Gilbey was known to have been speaking from a mobile phone, inside a parked car, this left Diana's telephone line at Sandringham. Nelson's analysis, written after a visit to Mr Reenan and an examination of his unsophisticated receiving system (which consisted essentially of an Icom wideband scanning receiver and a conventional television antenna), showed that the recording was most likely to have been made as a result of a local tapping of the telephone line somewhere between the female party's telephone itself, and the local exchange. Furthermore, narrow-band spectrum analysis showed this 50-hertz 'hum' to consist of two separate but superimposed components, possibly indicating a remixing of the tape after the initial recording. The spectral frequency content of the tape was demonstrably inconsistent with its supposed origin as an off-air recording of an analogue cellular telephone channel but quite feasible if the recording had been made via a local-end direct tap.

As well as the strong technical case he made against the recording, Nelson established two other salient points. The first was that Gilbey's mobile telephone was registered to the Cellnet network. Secondly, the Cellnet base-station transmitter site in Abingdon Town, the data channel of which was the only one receivable on Reenan's receiving system at the time of his visit, was not in service at the date of the alleged telephone conversation; it was first commissioned on 3 March 1990. It was therefore not possible that the purported recording could have been made off-air by Reenan and Norgrove in December 1989 or January 1990 (see below).

With regard to the data-bursts that had aroused the suspicion of Audiotel International, Colloms and Nelson stated: "We are forced to conclude that these data-bursts are not genuine, but were added later to the tape. They originated with a locally-made recording, and show that an attempt has been made to disguise a local tap by making it appear that it was recorded over cellular radio."

Telecommunications company Cellnet admitted that it had automatically conducted its own internal investigation after publication of the "Squidgygate" transcript, because Gilbey had been speaking on a Cellnet phone. "It is a very sensitive issue if a cellular network has been bugged," said Cellnet spokesman William Ostrom: "We wished to satisfy ourselves exactly what happened." Cellnet's inquiry, claimed Ostrom, had 'replicated' the findings of Colloms and Nelson: Cellnet announced that it was "completely satisfied that we can dismiss this as an example of our network being eavesdropped ^[12]

In other words, three independent expert analyses of the "Squidgygate" tapes showed beyond any doubt that the recorded conversation had been the result of a direct tap on Diana's landline. Since Sandringham, like all the Royal Palaces, has its own exchange, the person who installed the tap must have had access to the premises. The person or persons responsible had then edited and remixed the fruits of their eavesdropping, doctored it to look like a live transmission by adding data bursts, and had then rebroadcast it, four days after the recording, in the vicinity of a locally-known snooper's 20ft aerial. Unfortunately the perpetrator did not realise that Reenan's receiving installation was much less impressive than it looked to a layman and the media.

Squidgygate - The timing discrepancy

After the publication of the Squidgygate story, Cyril Reenan told a reporter from the Oxford Mail: "It has been the biggest mistake of my life. To all those who have felt upset and disturbed by my stupid actions, may I say I am so sorry."

The Sun, he said, had attempted to get him to give them the tape for nothing, and had told him he could be prosecuted for the recording: "I thought 'blimey, I've dropped myself right in it'. I was in a bit of a panic then."

Obviously Reenan held firm and finally received his money - although the Sun seems to have got the upper hand by using a classic tabloid "cloak-and-dagger" tactic to ensure that their unwitting subject wasn't initially available for further comment after the story broke: "For four days we were walking around in the dark because the Sun advised us to draw our curtains and not to touch our mail or newspapers." Jane Norgrove was also reported by the Mail to be "in hiding."

But the most startling claim was made almost in passing. From references made in the taped conversation, it was clearly evident that Diana and Gilbey were talking on New Year's Eve, 1989, the time at which the Sun claimed both Reenan and Norgrove had recorded it.

But now, Reenan informed the Mail that he had recorded the tape on "January 4, 1990". This was reported without comment by the Mail, directly contradicting the by-now nationally-known version of events.

A delay of four days between the call taking place and its interception is not ascribable to any known atmospheric phenomenon.

The next day, an energised Reenan made more surprising admissions, telling the Oxford Mail that certain parts of the "Squidgygate" conversation had been left out by the Sun. The Sun confirmed this to the Mail, saying that they had not made public certain sections of the recording, "for fear of damaging Diana irreparably."

"All the reporters in London seem to know what's on that tape," complained Reenan, "and they've all been to me to confirm it. Both my wife and I have said we can't remember, but we know what was in there." Reenan hinted darkly that there was "a lot about that tape" that had never been made public: "And I'm damn glad that it wasn't."

In 1997, it was revealed that the withheld section was a ten-minute discussion of masturbation or actual phone sex itself ^[13].

The Mail also issued a correction: the previous day, Mr Reenan had claimed that he had been paid £1,000 by the Sun. He now admitted it was £6,000, and he would be giving it to charity. The glaring anomaly of the date of the recording, 4 January 1990, was conspicuously not corrected ^[14].

The national media, however, were racing ahead with their coverage of the developing Royal split, and had already dropped Reenan. The Oxford Mail's article alleging press harassment, censored recordings, and - crucially - a revised date, were ignored. The Guardian quoted a Sun spokesman as saying that: "Our interest in the Royal story has moved on from Mr Reenan ^[15]."

Months after the story had broken, Reenan spoke to non-Sun reporters, expressing his anger over his treatment by the Sun: "When I read the transcript of the conversation between the Princess and the man, there were large chunks which I knew had not come from my tape." The Sun, it seemed, had produced a hybrid of Reenan's tape and Norgrove's, Reenan's tape having run out before the end of the conversation. As for the date of the recording: "I did not understand it. I know when I heard that call, and it was 4th January. I was not even at home on New Year's Eve ^[16]."

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Analysis of the tape", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki