Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[Detective Klimpt]

What good does it do to get rid of the phones when LE has access to records? See where I'm headed?

Do most people know about about cell phone pinging, triangulation, etc.? I sure didn't. I am still digesting and trying to understand what Indepmo has told us.

 

[indepmo]

Do most people know about about cell phone pinging, triangulation, etc.? I sure didn't. I am still digesting and trying to understand what Indepmo has told us.

I'm still trying to digest some of it myself, that's why I would LOVE to hear from an expert.

Search for "triangular pinging" on google. You will get the basics.

 

[indepmo]

Do most people know about about cell phone pinging, triangulation, etc.? I sure didn't. I am still digesting and trying to understand what Indepmo has told us.

ALso, if you followed the Casey Anthony ordeal, or if you live local and you followed the Kelsey Smith ordeal, triangulation was used in both for cell phone tracking, and in Kelsey's case, recovery.

 

[epiphany]

but the parents gave them permission to search the house immediately.

The search was limited in nature as indicated in the search warrant:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-lisa-...ogs-misleading/story?id=14790822#.TsxOA3FGz5I

"The only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry," the document states.

"The extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent" of the parents, police stated in the request for the search warrant.

 

[yllek]

And you know without a doubt they would stop pinging when you took the batteries out? What if the phones had capacitors inside of them that would hold enough power for them to ping for two more hours?

I'm the bad guy here (in our theorizing). I don't think I would guess that there was a capacitor inside that would keep the phones pinging for up to 2 hours, unless I had technical experience or I planned this out in advance. But, maybe yllek the WSer isn't as savvy as "the bad guy"! Whether I thought about that or not, I think I'd play it safe and quickly submerge the batteries in water, burn them or hammer them to bits - as close as possible to where I found them.

Here's what I assume most people who have watched crime shows or have committed crimes would know about cell phones:

1. If you turn the power off, they're still pinging until the battery dies.
2. If you take the battery out, the phone itself has no power and will stop pinging.
3. The location of a powered phone (dumped or in someone's posession at the time) can be determined from records of the service provider. If the powered phone was in an area that is fairly populated with cell phone towers, pings off of different towers (triangulation) can determine the location down to a pretty small area. If cell towers are far and few between, the phone wouldn't have been pinging off of different towers so it may be a much broader potential location.

This is just my novice understanding from following cases and watching true crime shows. One or more points could be wrong and I love to learn more about this stuff; cell phone pings are becoming quite a valuable tool for LE.

In regards to your question about getting rid of the phones when the service provider has records, I assume a lot of people know that dumping the hardware (phone itself) doesn't prevent LE from accessing the call logs that show the incoming phone/text number, outgoing phone/text numbers, durations, etc (and for texts, I understand the service provider can pull the actual message content if the records have not yet been erased). But, I don't know if my assumption would be correct. Maybe lots of people would think that tossing the hardware/phone is the same as destroying the phone activity records? Or, they aren't aware that text messages can sometimes be retrieved from the cell provider. I don't know whether cell phone pictures can be seen by the service provider; I assume most people wouldn't know that for sure.

I'm thinking whoever took the phones, was ignorant about service provider records altogether. Or, in contrast, they are smarter than I and knew for sure that incriminating text or pic contents could only be viewed from the phone itself.

And now, my head hurts!hone::crazy:

 

[indepmo]

In theory though, removing the covers off of three cell phones while driving down the road with a kidnapped baby (or walking down the road with a kidnapped baby) sure would take a lot of hands. I own an iPhone, and I used to own a Verizon slider. Not that much advanced of a phone, and that was in 2006. Both the old Verizon phone, and my iPhone requires me to take very small screwdrivers to take them apart to remove and replace a battery. Wouldn't that require a lot of hands even if they were simple slide off battery covers? First of all, I couldn't kidnap a child, but I'm thinking if I did, why would I steal a baby and cell phones just to destroy or dispose of them within 1/3 to 1/5 mile away from the home? I would like to think a hearless person who would kidnap a child that would take the phones so someone couldnt call 911 would simply dispose of them in some weeds or on the side of the road somewhere. Seems pretty complex to me for someone to go through all of the trouble to remove batteries from three phones.

 

[Sparklin]

The search was limited in nature as indicated in the search warrant:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-lisa-...ogs-misleading/story?id=14790822#.TsxOA3FGz5I

"The only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry," the document states.

"The extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent" of the parents, police stated in the request for the search warrant.

but they did search the entire house - they found another phone in a drawer!

 

[yllek]

In theory though, removing the covers off of three cell phones while driving down the road with a kidnapped baby (or walking down the road with a kidnapped baby) sure would take a lot of hands. I own an iPhone, and I used to own a Verizon slider. Not that much advanced of a phone, and that was in 2006. Both the old Verizon phone, and my iPhone requires me to take very small screwdrivers to take them apart to remove and replace a battery. Wouldn't that require a lot of hands even if they were simple slide off battery covers? First of all, I couldn't kidnap a child, but I'm thinking if I did, why would I steal a baby and cell phones just to destroy or dispose of them within 1/3 to 1/5 mile away from the home? I would like to think a hearless person who would kidnap a child that would take the phones so someone couldnt call 911 would simply dispose of them in some weeds or on the side of the road somewhere. Seems pretty complex to me for someone to go through all of the trouble to remove batteries from three phones.

It's just plain puzzling. Really, why take the parents' phones in the first place if you're abducting their baby? To sell? Doesn't make sense, imo. Not when you're stealing a child. Imo, you'd leave the dang cell phones at the house, no worries about being tracked with the baby by pings, no need to hassle with batteries.

I still believe that whoever dumped the phones did so because they believed the phones would incriminate them in regards to Lisa's disappearance. Either they didn't know that the service provider could give LE all the call/text logs, or they did know (or think) that certain phone content could only be seen with the phone itself - like text content, pics, unretrieved voice messages (hmm). IDK.

 

[In da Middle]

The search was limited in nature as indicated in the search warrant:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-lisa-...ogs-misleading/story?id=14790822#.TsxOA3FGz5I

"The only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry," the document states.

"The extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent" of the parents, police stated in the request for the search warrant.

But that CAN'T be the only places searched. If it was how did the dog hit in the bedroom to get this very warrant?

 

[Detective Klimpt]

Here's what I assume most people who have watched crime shows or have committed crimes would know about cell phones:

1. If you turn the power off, they're still pinging until the battery dies.
2. If you take the battery out, the phone itself has no power and will stop pinging.
3. The location of a powered phone (dumped or in someone's posession at the time) can be determined from records of the service provider. If the powered phone was in an area that is fairly populated with cell phone towers, pings off of different towers (triangulation) can determine the location down to a pretty small area. If cell towers are far and few between, the phone wouldn't have been pinging off of different towers so it may be a much broader potential location.

Thanks, I'm impressed with your knowledge. I am a crime show addict, specifically Investigation Discovery, and I've never heard anything about how they catch criminals based on cell phone usage and location.

So that I can make sure I understand the basics as it pertains to this particular case, am I correct to assume the following italicized facts:

The 3 cell phones continued pinging until a little after 3am and the location of them from Midnight to 3am was 1/5 to 1/3 mile from DB's home. After 3:15am, the pinging stopped, indicating the batteries died or were removed (and there was no internal circuitry that kept them pinging) or they were submerged in water.

 

[Littleone48]

In theory though, removing the covers off of three cell phones while driving down the road with a kidnapped baby (or walking down the road with a kidnapped baby) sure would take a lot of hands. I own an iPhone, and I used to own a Verizon slider. Not that much advanced of a phone, and that was in 2006. Both the old Verizon phone, and my iPhone requires me to take very small screwdrivers to take them apart to remove and replace a battery. Wouldn't that require a lot of hands even if they were simple slide off battery covers? First of all, I couldn't kidnap a child, but I'm thinking if I did, why would I steal a baby and cell phones just to destroy or dispose of them within 1/3 to 1/5 mile away from the home? I would like to think a hearless person who would kidnap a child that would take the phones so someone couldnt call 911 would simply dispose of them in some weeds or on the side of the road somewhere. Seems pretty complex to me for someone to go through all of the trouble to remove batteries from three phones.

IMO not as complex as people are making it out to be...actually in my mind it's simple...

1. Perp kidnaps BL and takes phones with them..tries to make call to person to come and help them and finds that the phones do not work. Perp gets scared and waits around in an empty house with BL...tries to access any part of the phone to see if they will work...figures out they don't and then tosses them

2. Phone call made to someones phone who has admitted that they did not know DB or JI while DB was sleeping. All phone history from receiving phone has been erased which tells me that this person was trying to hide something...

3. I am fairly sure that after BL was found missing and the parents were questioned LE KNEW every move they made...they could not have gotten those phones out of the house after the 911 call IMO

I don't understand how anyone can say that DB had time to do all of this or even why she would dispose of the phones in the first place...and reading JI's account of the reaction of DB when he came home they were not the reactions of someone who had killed BL, disposed of the body, got in the car, drove without a license and disposed of phones into a river on a bridge that has cameras, traffic and by account of IDM high walls...came back home, put the boys in bed with her, pretended she was asleep and act confused when JI came home...oh and let's not forget...she was drunk! whew

Next door neighbor saw DB go inside house and when she went into her house IIRC between 10:30 and 11:30 all lights were off inside DB's house..so when would DB have had the time to kill (either on purpose or by accident) BL and dispose of all evidence?

Nope I am going to stick by SODDI but you are right..the cell phones will lead us to that person ALL IMO

 

[Jaxson]

I don't know whether cell phone pictures can be seen by the service provider;

anic:
snipped and bbm

 

[epiphany]

But that CAN'T be the only places searched. If it was how did the dog hit in the bedroom to get this very warrant?

Cadavar dogs brought in on Oct. 17th:

The affidavit also revealed that "On October 17, 2011, an FBI cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of (Jeremy) Irwin and Bradley. The cadaver dog indicated a positive 'hit' for the scent of a deceased human in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed."

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29552254/detail.html#ixzz1eUfvP9pU

 

[Sparklin]

anic:
snipped and bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Sparklin]

http://www.kmbc.com/download/2011/1021/29552734.pdf

"Detectives obtained consent to search for (?) the house beginning on Oct. 4, 2011."
"Crime scene personnel recovered items from the home..."

 

[KsStormy]

Anyone know if this character posting on the FB pages is a crackpot, or the real uncle?
:waitasec:

 

[Sparklin]

Anyone know if this character posting on the FB pages is a crackpot, or the real uncle?
:waitasec:

wondering the same and not because I saw the posts because I stay away from that horror of a site, but I followed a link from JS twitter -- although in my opinion I wouldn't necessarily distinguish the two

 

[epiphany]

but they did search the entire house - they found another phone in a drawer!

Check the search warrant. The cell in the desk drawer was found on another search. Warrant implies that DB had not initially revealed that the 3 cell phones were missing.

 

[justamommy]

The search was limited in nature as indicated in the search warrant:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-lisa-...ogs-misleading/story?id=14790822#.TsxOA3FGz5I

"The only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry," the document states.

"The extent of the search had been limited in nature with consent" of the parents, police stated in the request for the search warrant.

bbm

I think they are stating this in support of obtaining search warrant. Hey, Judge, we got a HRD hit in the master bedroom; however, the only places we actually collected DNA was baby's room and possible point of entry. Because we got the HRD hit, we need to get in that master bedroom and really do some extensive collecting.

It doesn't mean they didn't search the house well. It just means exactly what it says, "The only areas extensively processed for DNA and fingerprints during the consent were the baby's bedroom and possible points of entry."

This is my opinion. This has been brought up in other threads too. I don't think the HRD hit would have ever happened if LE wasn't searching well. JMO

 

[In da Middle]

Cadavar dogs brought in on Oct. 17th:

The affidavit also revealed that "On October 17, 2011, an FBI cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of (Jeremy) Irwin and Bradley. The cadaver dog indicated a positive 'hit' for the scent of a deceased human in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed."

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29552254/detail.html#ixzz1eUfvP9pU

yes, WITH consent. And not just in the baby's room or rooms of egress.
Wouldn't make much sense to me to consent to a cadaver dog search if I knew I had a dead baby in my house.