I agree. The police appeals describe her as being "in the company of" a man but personally I would have described it more as "being followed by", unless I'm mistaken about which of them is which (which I may be).
The "in company of" quote implies that the man in the CCTV was known to OD and that they were or had been together.
The CCTV is from a static position, so I think there must be more footage of the two figures than has been released publicly, based on the distance they cover with each image jump. It would be interesting to know if it's been cut just to highlight the vehicles that may have witnessed something, or whether something happened next that's been suppressed for the time being for operational reasons.
It's quite possibly a time lapse recording, i.e. one image taken ever few seconds. Continuous recording takes a lot of memory and requires video functionality rather than still image collection. As with everything the cost/benefit ratio is at play.
I can't find any updates yet on whether the arrested men are still in custody, given there would have to have been a PACE extension by now. The timing of the renewed appeal (more than 24 hours after the third arrest) makes me wonder if the police have lacked enough evidence for a charge.
Once there is enough evidence to charge, interviewing must cease and the arrested person must be charged. The senior investigator will be in close contact with the CPS, discussing the evidence and identifying when the charging threshold has been reached. Once charged no further interviews are allowed, unless it is a voluntary interview at the request of the charged person, which is very unusual.
FWIW.....upon arrival the the Custody Suite the offence and circumstances of the arrest are relayed to the Custody Sergeant, by the arresting officer. The Custody Sergeant then either authorises or refuses detention, i.e. the arrest needs to be lawful
After no more than 6 hours after arrival at the Custody Suite the lawfulness of continued detention and satisfaction that active investigation is taking place, has to be authorised by an Inspector or above, who is not involved in the investigation.
Further reviews are no more that 9 hours after the previous one
Detention beyond 24 hours can be authorised by a Superintendent or above, to a maximum of 36 hours. (I expect that these individuals were released under investigation or police bail some time before the custody clock reached 36 hours)
Continued detention beyond 36 hours and up to a maximum of 96 hours can only be authorised by a Magistrate. The Magistrate will want it shown that the continued detention is lawful, necessary and that the police are actively investigating and not dragging their heels. The full allocation of extension is rarely given in only one appearance in front of the Magistrate.
At 96 hours it's either charge or release without charge.
Terrorism cases have longer time police custody time limits.
Would be intrigued to know if she knows any of those arrested, seems strange that 2 are on suspicion of murder & 2 just on kidnap
Two persons are arrested on suspicion of murder and the police still insist it's still a missing person investigation. This could be police politics in terms of the additional operational demands that kick in if a murder investigation is declared.
For me it's mixed messaging and it would engender more confidence in the police if they were more open and straightforward about what they are doing and why, whilst not undermining the investigation.
www.dailymail.co.uk
