Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[cityslick]

I wonder, if a battery was removed from a cell phone that is in the "turned off" state and that phone # then had it's recorded pulled would it show that the batteries had been removed. just curious

I don't see how a cell phone record would be able to know that. Once all power leaves the phone, it's no longer transmitting any data to be captured.

 

[cityslick]

So 5 hours in they knew, so it's obvious by that report LE knew right away.

I too suspected they knew right away based on where they were searching.


I was listening to Independence on the scanner last night and they were tracking a cell phone of a guy that went into a local burger joint displaying a gun. Assuming someone there knew this perp and they gave LE the cell number.

I believe LE can track cell phones based on the severity of a crime with a simple phone call. This is about the 3rd time I've heard Independence PD track a cell phone in the past 6 months. I heard another incident about a year or so ago when they did this too.

It has me wondering if phones were still pinging at that time, or if they were basing their searches off of the last known place of ping.

That's been my question as well and I don't think anyone knows the answer unless LE tells us. At what point did the pings actually stop? Was it when the last vm was made or much later?

 

[Elley Mae]

I was under the impression that the phones had been turned off for failure to pay, well 2 of the phones the third iirc was deborah's fathers phone that he lent her because her's had been turned off.
OK so if the phones had been turned off for failure to pay then why couldn't they be turned on to help find a baby that was taken with the phones? It seems that is what happened they Triangulated and found that the phones are with in 1/3 to 1/5 mile from the house. Yet they could not find them.
Well dang now if what I just said is true then they would have done the same with deborah's fathers phone too.

 

[matou]

The date on this video is October 6th, but I believe it was published online the next morning after this interview that I believe took place on the night of October 5th.

This is the first mention of cell phones made public that I can find.

Baby Lisa's Parents Take Questions From Reporters - YouTube (embedding disabled, copy/paste to watch you youtube)
Mention of phones: 3:22
Reporter asks about phones: 4:43

It was from early in the morning on the 6th. A poster Davehead posted about it first as he/she watched it live on TV that morning and posted at 7:29 am.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7192819&highlight=cell#post7192819

 

[In da Middle]

I was under the impression that the phones had been turned off for failure to pay, well 2 of the phones the third iirc was deborah's fathers phone that he lent her because her's had been turned off.
OK so if the phones had been turned off for failure to pay then why couldn't they be turned on to help find a baby that was taken with the phones? It seems that is what happened they Triangulated and found that the phones are with in 1/3 to 1/5 mile from the house. Yet they could not find them.
Well dang now if what I just said is true then they would have done the same with deborah's fathers phone too.

They might have done this, but if the batteries were taken out, that would not have done any good as help to find them.

 

[indepmo]

It was from early in the morning on the 6th. A poster Davehead posted about it first as he/she watched it live on TV that morning and posted at 7:29 am.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7192819&highlight=cell#post7192819

But Elly pointed something interesting out here:

Ashley told the reporter "police took their phones".
As it was speculated here, what was most likely said and misreported was, "told the police they took their phones"

That was 9am Oct 4th, 5 hours or less from when the 911 call was made.

 

[Karmaa]

That's been my question as well and I don't think anyone knows the answer unless LE tells us. At what point did the pings actually stop? Was it when the last vm was made or much later?

Another question would be if they all stopped pinging at the same time? That is assuming that "they" were all pinging. Actually do we know if "they" were pinging or "it" was pinging?

Because if 2 or 3 were, and they stopped at the same exact time, it would seem like someone did it fast - like ran over them with a car. If they stopped one after another quickly it might mean that they were maybe burned? Or if it was a little slower, but one after another - it would maybe indicate that the person knew what to do, and pulled the batteries out one by one.

 

[Sparklin]

I was just thinking out loud... because it says the phone in the drawer was "later determined" not to be one of the missing phones. At the date the search warrant was drafted, police were still calling the missing phones "reported" missing phones.

I've always wondered why the family would have three phones. One for J and one for D would seem to suffice.

If you go through my drawers here, I have anywhere from 7 to 10 cells
And up until a few months ago, I had two working cells in my purse or on my bedside table - one for work, one for personal. Then hubby has his.

As for the three phones - it's already been determined that one of them wasn't working properly and therefore the third one which was given to them. That's old news no?

 

[indepmo]

Another question would be if they all stopped pinging at the same time? That is assuming that "they" were all pinging. Actually do we know if "they" were pinging or "it" was pinging?

Because if 2 or 3 were, and they stopped at the same exact time, it would seem like someone did it fast - like ran over them with a car. If they stopped one after another quickly it might mean that they were maybe burned? Or if it was a little slower, but one after another - it would maybe indicate that the person knew what to do, and pulled the batteries out one by one.

This is why I was hoping someone, just one media outlet would bring on a ping expert during this whole situation. I even contacted a moderator on here associated with WS Radio hoping they could get a ping expert on the show. There are some unanswered questions in regards to pinging that I would love to know the answers to, and I feel it would help us all answer some questions regarding not just this case, but other cases where cell phones come into play.

If you listen to the statement DB made in the video I linked to DB states the following:

DB 3:22 "I said call 911, call 911 and he said where are the phones?" (her asking JI where are the phones)

Reporter asks: Are you saying both of your phones were taken?
DB 4:49 "Yes, 3 were taken and 1 wasnt even working"

We can take that last comment for what it's worth. It can be twisted.
1 wasnt working: Broken? Wouldnt power on?
1 wasnt working: Did not have service
1 wasnt working: Had service but maybe functions were broken on it?

There is so much information we don't know about the cell phones.


We have a FB post on DB's dads wall early on stating he gave her a phone and she transferred her service to it.
I have to question this:
Most carriers won't do anything if service is restricted or payment is past due. I don't see how two days later service is restricted after transferring service, but then again one could argue on the phone with a carrier that they are behind because their phone has been broken and they cant even use it, customer service rep feels sorry for customer, transfers service with payment arrangeents.

We don't know if they were or were not restricted.
We don't know if the call times placed from one of the phones is accurate.
We don't know who's phone a call attempt was made if one was.
We don't have LE confirmation that a call text vm internet access was attempted.
LE has not released official information about the phones, who the provider was, the types of phones, if the phones were active or restricted.
LE has not released official information regarding pings, where they were pinging, how many were pinging, which phone or phone(s) were pinging, if the pings stopped before the 911 call, if the phones were pinging when they were searching areas away from the home in the woods.

Without the facts from LE, it's really hard to speculate on any of this.
Did MWs phone receive a call? Was an attempt really made to call MWs phone? Was this a ploy stating there was a call because they wanted to find Jersey and they thought they could do so through MW? Did they investigate MW early on because a neighbor may have told LE a strange handyman known for stealing may have been involved? Based on the dumpster fire and Jerseys arson record from New Jersey, did they want to go through MW to find him? Did LE make up the phone call trying to get people to talk "just incase"?

I still think "behind the scenes" the cell phone pings contain one of the most important pieces of evidence in this case, we the public just don't know all of the details.

 

[Sparklin]

This is why I was hoping someone, just one media outlet would bring on a ping expert during this whole situation. I even contacted a moderator on here associated with WS Radio hoping they could get a ping expert on the show. There are some unanswered questions in regards to pinging that I would love to know the answers to, and I feel it would help us all answer some questions regarding not just this case, but other cases where cell phones come into play.

If you listen to the statement DB made in the video I linked to DB states the following:

DB 3:22 "I said call 911, call 911 and he said where are the phones?" (her asking JI where are the phones)

Reporter asks: Are you saying both of your phones were taken?
DB 4:49 "Yes, 3 were taken and 1 wasnt even working"

We can take that last comment for what it's worth. It can be twisted.
1 wasnt working: Broken? Wouldnt power on?
1 wasnt working: Did not have service
1 wasnt working: Had service but maybe functions were broken on it?

There is so much information we don't know about the cell phones.


We have a FB post on DB's dads wall early on stating he gave her a phone and she transferred her service to it.
I have to question this:
Most carriers won't do anything if service is restricted or payment is past due. I don't see how two days later service is restricted after transferring service, but then again one could argue on the phone with a carrier that they are behind because their phone has been broken and they cant even use it, customer service rep feels sorry for customer, transfers service with payment arrangeents.

sbm/bbm = His fb post (which I have saved somewhere) states that her phone was BROKEN so he gave her his fathers old plain jane phone to use. He did NOT say she had transferred service to it ~ at least not in the post I saw/saved, which was later deleted.

 

[crimecurious]

Sorry to ask again if this has been addressed (this cell phone info is all over the place)... Anyway, do we know if the phone chargers were supposedly taken or not? TIA

 

[Nixie]

IIRC her phone worked but the speaker was broken so she couldn't be heard. She hadn't transferred service yet and was in the process of transferring numbers from the phones to her "new" phone (the one she received). JI had a work phone so he left his phone home I assumed it was because hers was broken (so they could talk) but I am unsure if they were restricted why his phone was there unless they didn't realize it was restricted until after he left or he just left it because it couldn't be used anyways.

 

[Nixie]

Sorry to ask again if this has been addressed (this cell phone info is all over the place)... Anyway, do we know if the phone chargers were supposedly taken or not? TIA

I haven't seen it reported they were missing.

 

[hambirg]

Sorry to ask again if this has been addressed (this cell phone info is all over the place)... Anyway, do we know if the phone chargers were supposedly taken or not? TIA

This was my question as well.

I'm still confused about DB saying they were on the counter and were being reprogrammed. From what I can tell from Googling around, you must have service to be able to do that. Also, it only takes a few minutes, it's not something you would put the phone down and let it "reprogram" for a long time. :waitasec:

Here's some info about OTA programming (which is what she would have been doing if they were on the kitchen counter.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-air_programming

ETA-Unless what DB meant is that she was syncing the phones, which would mean she already transferred service onto the plain jane phone. I'm still confused though because everything that I've read so far seems to say you would have to have service to do this. I wish we had a cell phone expert here.

 

[Nixie]

This was my question as well.

I'm still confused about DB saying they were on the counter and were being reprogrammed. From what I can tell from Googling around, you must have service to be able to do that. Also, it only takes a few minutes, it's not something you would put the phone down and let it "reprogram" for a long time. :waitasec:

Here's some info about OTA programming (which is what she would have been doing if they were on the kitchen counter.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-air_programming

ETA-Unless what DB meant is that she was syncing the phones, which would mean she already transferred service onto the plain jane phone. I'm still confused though because everything that I've read so far seems to say you would have to have service to do this. I wish we had a cell phone expert here.

Some phones you can store numbers without service I thought she was putting numbers in the phone so when it was turned on they would be there.....honestly though not much in this case makes sense so no clue.

 

[hambirg]

Some phones you can store numbers without service I thought she was putting numbers in the phone so when it was turned on they would be there.....honestly though not much in this case makes sense so no clue.

That would make sense. . she was syncing the phones.

But according to this. . .you would still have to activate the new phone to do that. :waitasec:

http://support.verizonwireless.com/how_to_use/transfer_contacts/brew.html

 

[indepmo]

sbm/bbm = His fb post (which I have saved somewhere) states that her phone was BROKEN so he gave her his fathers old plain jane phone to use. He did NOT say she had transferred service to it ~ at least not in the post I saw/saved, which was later deleted.

This is what I saved

Debbie's cell phone had been acting up and the speakers and microphone on it were continually only working intermittently. So Sunday October 2 <Modsnip> my Dad gave Debbie his old plain jane phone that has NO way to collect contact information on it. Debbie transferred the service from her old phone to the one that my Dad (her Grandpa) gave her. When she went home later that night she had both of her phones out and started coping numbers one by one into the phone she got from her Grandpa. She didn't get them all done of course so she left them on the table. Jeremy's PERSONAL cell phone was also on the table. These 3 phones were the ones that were stolen.

 

[hambirg]

This is what I saved

Thank you for that.

So she wasn't syncing them because the old phone wasn't capable of doing that. THAT makes sense. But she was transferring the contacts one by one and the phones were on the table (I hope he meant counter, just so we can avoid a whole nother go round)?

 

[Sparklin]

This is what I saved

Yikes...same one I have saved. Sorry about my mis-post. I absolutely did not remember seeing the "transferred service".
She got the phones on Sunday and their service was apparently disconnected Monday afternoon so I agree it is very doubtful that the provider would transfer the service when they were delinquent on their account, unless it's a sim, then it would be easy enough...but then that would be the phone used? How darn confusing does this case have to get...every question brings on more questions...and so few answers.

 

[indepmo]

Yikes...same one I have saved. Sorry about my mis-post. I absolutely did not remember seeing the "transferred service".
She got the phones on Sunday and their service was apparently disconnected Monday afternoon so I agree it is very doubtful that the provider would transfer the service when they were delinquent on their account, unless it's a sim, then it would be easy enough...but then that would be the phone used? How darn confusing does this case have to get...every question brings on more questions...and so few answers.

Have to wonder what DN's definition of transferring service:
She removed the sim card from the old phone and stuck it in grandpas?

She called the carrier because it was a sim-cardless phone so the provider had to do it for them?

Was the service transferred on a Sunday?
Was it done the next day?
Did she have to go into a wireless store to have it done?

I'm still skeptical IF there was a call made to transfer the service on Sunday and the account was delinquint why they would have transferred the service. It just seems like a long shot to me. I'm sure there was a pretty good balance on the account for it to go "restricted" a day later IF we go by their attorneys accounts that JI tried to call the phone that next night around 6pm.

The comment "transferred service" appears prior to "that night".
Is that the order in which the events took place?


"She went home later that night and started copying numbers one by one"
Did she go in the night of October the 3rd and start programming numbers into her phone when she was programming in MW's number she accidently drunk dialed her #? If that call OR attempted call even took place, is that possibly what transpired?

All three phones that contained any evidence are gone. What if MW was in her phone book and she never dialed that number before until there was a call made the night of the 3rd and she was in fact programming the phones drunk that night?

See? So many unanswered questions.