Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[hambirg]

I'm guessing that LE were intensely looking for the phones because they went missing at the same time as Lisa. And because of that, they could possibly lead to her whereabouts.

But apparently so did her outfit.

 

[hambirg]

Okay. I know how there are many that hate to hear comparisons from the Caylee Anthony case on this thread. But I was pretty well saturated with it for the last three years. I'm certainly no expert on all the cell phone threads, but IIRC, the only things that could be determined from the cell phone providers were the times and the pings (which indicated a general area of the cell phone.) This is very useful, of course, if you know who is in possession of the cell phone, to determine who was contacting whom.

It played out that LE was very pleased that Amy H (one of Casey's friends) had a plethora of texts that she had not deleted from her phone (all documented and available in the Caylee forum). Casey's mother seemed to have deleted hers and they were not available for the investigation. This leads me to believe that carriers do not have access to content of text messages. There were also a couple of pictures found on a couple of ancillary players' phones. These were accessed through the cell phones, themselves. The text messages did register as activity on the carriier"s records but LE needed the phones to actually see what they were.

From the history of that, it makes me wonder if the last recorded activity picked up by the carrier (Verizon?) could have been a text message rather than a voice call. (IIRC, there was an indication on the carrier's documentation that distinguished between text and voice ~ Hope I'm remembering this part right ~ but would have to be checked out if we ever get to see the records.)

It also explains why LE (and everyone else) is eager to get the phones physically in their possession. There could be texts or photos that would be helpful and IMO that's enough reason for them to consider the cell phones important.

Privacy
In general, Verizon doesn't store text messages on its network for a considerable length of time, so the sender, receiver and bill payer can't retrieve the messages. While Verizon limits the length of time a message is stored, the company has never publicly admitted to exactly when messages are deleted. Investigators with a court order gain access to any text messages stored on the network, which should be only the most recent.

http://techtips.salon.com/can-verizon-bill-payers-see-texts-sent-20243.html


It is not a secret that LE can see the content of recent text messages. It's a matter if how long the provider keeps the data as to how far back LE can see them.

 

[vlpate]

Privacy
In general, Verizon doesn't store text messages on its network for a considerable length of time, so the sender, receiver and bill payer can't retrieve the messages. While Verizon limits the length of time a message is stored, the company has never publicly admitted to exactly when messages are deleted. Investigators with a court order gain access to any text messages stored on the network, which should be only the most recent.

http://techtips.salon.com/can-verizon-bill-payers-see-texts-sent-20243.html


It is not a secret that LE can see the content of recent text messages. It's a matter if how long the provider keeps the data as to how far back LE can see them.

That's why I think they were telling DB the truth when they told her there was a 2:30 a.m. text. It's not been made public by LE, but it wouldn't be, yet.

 

[RANCH]

Privacy
In general, Verizon doesn't store text messages on its network for a considerable length of time, so the sender, receiver and bill payer can't retrieve the messages. While Verizon limits the length of time a message is stored, the company has never publicly admitted to exactly when messages are deleted. Investigators with a court order gain access to any text messages stored on the network, which should be only the most recent.

http://techtips.salon.com/can-verizon-bill-payers-see-texts-sent-20243.html


It is not a secret that LE can see the content of recent text messages. It's a matter if how long the provider keeps the data as to how far back LE can see them.

So if it's possible for LE to get a court order to see stored text messages from Verizon. Could it be possible that texts from Oct 3rd be in LE possession?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Privacy
In general, Verizon doesn't store text messages on its network for a considerable length of time, so the sender, receiver and bill payer can't retrieve the messages. While Verizon limits the length of time a message is stored, the company has never publicly admitted to exactly when messages are deleted. Investigators with a court order gain access to any text messages stored on the network, which should be only the most recent.

http://techtips.salon.com/can-verizon-bill-payers-see-texts-sent-20243.html


It is not a secret that LE can see the content of recent text messages. It's a matter if how long the provider keeps the data as to how far back LE can see them.

Thank you, hambirg, you are absolutely right. I should have said that the carriers only have temporary access to the texts. But the cell phone will keep them indefinitely if the owner saves or otherwise does not delete them.

 

[hambirg]

So if it's possible for LE to get a court order to see stored text messages from Verizon. Could it be possible that texts from Oct 3rd be in LE possession?

Yes. There is always the off chance that data had been deleted, but I think companies are suppose to keep then for a minimum of 2 weeks. I read a case where on a fluke the company didn't delete them and LE was able to get 9mos worth.

 

[hambirg]

Thank you, hambirg, you are absolutely right. I should have said that the carriers only have temporary access to the texts. But the cell phone will keep them indefinitely if the owner saves or otherwise does not delete them.

Interestingly, even if they are deleted they might still be recoverable on the actual phone. It works the same as a computer. .. it makes that space available, but the messages aren't really deleted until they are written over. I forget what the actual technical term for that is, but I'm sure most here are familiar with that with regards to computers.

 

[s.lash]

I have never heard of a phone company restricting the phone to incoming calls for a few hours and then restricting all calls. What would be the point? Either it was totally restricted or it was restricted to only accept incoming calls.

I can vouch (I have Verizon Wireless) that on the day that my service is scheduled for disconnection (and up to a few days after if I forget to pay them) that our cell phones get restricted to incoming calls/texts only. After about a week of this, we lose the ability to both send and receive calls. During the outgoing restriction phase, if I try to call out, I am immediately redirected to an automated system that funnels me to the "If you'd like to make a payment, please press..." message.

In some cases, it's just the primary phone on the line that gets cut off first. Last month my husband's grandmother died and in the confusion of funeral and travel arrangements I forgot to pay them. My phone lost all service immediately (it was the primary), but his just lost outgoing. Weird I know, but it's happened a couple of times so it's got to be Verizon's process.

When I asked them about this once they told me that they will remove services one-by-one to prompt people to pay without having to completely disconnect service.

 

[GoodGurl]

I have always wondered if JI was intentionally letting the phones get disconnected. IF he's concerned that DB is identifying too much with neighbor SB - or just suspicious in general - he might be using that as a way to control her.

 

[pistolina]

Okay several things about the phones bug me and I can’t get past them.
Why was it only DB’s phone that was attempted to be used if all of the phones were stolen?
Why didn’t JI or DB call the “stolen” phones?
Why didn’t they try to get the phones turned back on asap and try to contact the kidnapper?
Who steals cell phones and a baby?
Since the mystery call was attempted at 11:37pm – Does that mean that BL was missing by 11:37pm?

IMO opinion the phones hold the answers in this case. The only way to wrap my head around this is if –
DB took her phone with her when she went behind the house to dispose of evidence in the river. (I can’t type BL there – it’s just too hard to think about) I think she took her phone with her incase JI called to let her know what time he was coming come. She lost her phone along the way and it was found by the mystery dialer. When DB got home and realized that her phone was gone, she had to make the others disappear too.

Every scenario I come up with where the mystery dialer is also a kidnapper just doesn’t work out. The phones are going to get them caught because they are traceable.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Okay several things about the phones bug me and I can’t get past them.
Why was it only DB’s phone that was attempted to be used if all of the phones were stolen?
Why didn’t JI or DB call the “stolen” phones?
Why didn’t they try to get the phones turned back on asap and try to contact the kidnapper?
Who steals cell phones and a baby?
Since the mystery call was attempted at 11:37pm – Does that mean that BL was missing by 11:37pm?

IMO opinion the phones hold the answers in this case. The only way to wrap my head around this is if –
DB took her phone with her when she went behind the house to dispose of evidence in the river. (I can’t type BL there – it’s just too hard to think about) I think she took her phone with her incase JI called to let her know what time he was coming come. She lost her phone along the way and it was found by the mystery dialer. When DB got home and realized that her phone was gone, she had to make the others disappear too.

Every scenario I come up with where the mystery dialer is also a kidnapper just doesn’t work out. The phones are going to get them caught because they are traceable.

BBM - EXCELLENT theory!

 

[psychomarz]

What if the phone calls mean nothing? Literally?
Sometimes when my son gets fussy, I give him my phone to play with. And he's dialed lots of people before, also accessed the internet a few times. Perhaps whoever has Lisa gave her one of the three phones to play with, and she just randomly called voicemail and accessed the internet?
I'm not sure how MW fits into that, though...

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

What if the phone calls mean nothing? Literally?
Sometimes when my son gets fussy, I give him my phone to play with. And he's dialed lots of people before, also accessed the internet a few times. Perhaps whoever has Lisa gave her one of the three phones to play with, and she just randomly called voicemail and accessed the internet?
I'm not sure how MW fits into that, though...

I would think the chance of a 10 mon old dialing a local # would have the odds stacked against it quite heavily. MOO

 

[psychomarz]

well, that's why I said I'm not sure how MW fits into that scenario unless whoever had her called and figured out the phone wasn't working so he/she/they gave it to Lisa to keep her occupied. Another possibility is that when DB was programming the numbers in the phone, perhaps she put one number in incorrectly (like 555-5554 instead of 555-5545, for example). That's assuming you believe MW and DB really didn't know each other. There's no evidence suggesting otherwise, I just thought they both were extremely aggressive in saying they didn't know each other.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

well, that's why I said I'm not sure how MW fits into that scenario unless whoever had her called and figured out the phone wasn't working so he/she/they gave it to Lisa to keep her occupied. Another possibility is that when DB was programming the numbers in the phone, perhaps she put one number in incorrectly (like 555-5554 instead of 555-5545, for example). That's assuming you believe MW and DB really didn't know each other. There's no evidence suggesting otherwise, I just thought they both were extremely aggressive in saying they didn't know each other.

BBM: In that instance I could see it, since hitting redial would make a connection, but then, wouldn't we have 2 calls to MW's #?

 

[psychomarz]

it IS easiest for my son to hit the redial button (I have a Samsung Restore), but he can also get into my contacts pretty easily and dial just by hitting random buttons.
I wouldn't say that it's extremely likely-- it just bothers me that someone who knew the police would be after them would bother trying to use the phones at all... It just seems they'd be too easy to track. The fact that there was an attempted call... and then several attempts to access the internet and voicemail... that just seems hinky to me. If someone were just stealing a cell phone, sure.
(I'm trying to make sure to say "person who had Lisa," not "kidnapper"... there's no solid evidence that Lisa was kidnapped, and I don't trust DB)

 

[KsStormy]

Do we know for a fact that no stranger fingerprints or DNA was found on or in the house?
I don't recall LE ever stating this.
I do remembering reading that a DNA sample was taken from a teen neighbor, who knows the garage code.
I do know that LE has said that they need to know from the parents who was at the home that night. Might that be to exclude or include their DNA from evidence collected?

I do remember local media stating that no evidence of an intruder was found at the home during the search...however that and a lot more from local media has mysteriously vanished from the 'net.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I've been going back and reading the stuff from the very beginning. I read a news blog the other day that was basically a play by play for the first few minutes, hours, days, weeks that Lisa went missing.

Today I started reading through the discussion threads here, I do it from time to time to see if there is anything I had missed previously.

In the very first thread, post #83 there is a link to a video that has since been removed but there is infor from the video posted in the thread. It was initially reported by the aunt (I'm assuming Ashley since she did a lot of talking at first) that the parents cell phones were taken by LE.

It really made me think because we didn't hear about the cell phones missing until days later. So I wonder if JI and DB told family their phones were with LE to explain why they couldn't be reached by phone. I wonder at what point they told LE their phones were missing. I wonder if LE asked for them and that is what prompted the lack of cooperation.

 

[Salem]

Posting a post to see what is happening with this thread.

Salem

ETA: I guess the page was just stuck or something???

 

[RANCH]

I've been going back and reading the stuff from the very beginning. I read a news blog the other day that was basically a play by play for the first few minutes, hours, days, weeks that Lisa went missing.

Today I started reading through the discussion threads here, I do it from time to time to see if there is anything I had missed previously.

In the very first thread, post #83 there is a link to a video that has since been removed but there is infor from the video posted in the thread. It was initially reported by the aunt (I'm assuming Ashley since she did a lot of talking at first) that the parents cell phones were taken by LE.

It really made me think because we didn't hear about the cell phones missing until days later. So I wonder if JI and DB told family their phones were with LE to explain why they couldn't be reached by phone. I wonder at what point they told LE their phones were missing. I wonder if LE asked for them and that is what prompted the lack of cooperation.

It looks like we first heard about the missing cellphones on Oct. 6th. When LE was informed is hard to say. Steve Young made the statement that Lisa's parents had stopped talking to detectives also on Oct. 6th. They resumed talking to police on Oct 8th.

I'm trying to figure out why they would lie to their relatives about LE having the phones. If the phones were gone, why not just say that they were stolen the same night that Lisa disappeared? We know that at some point they said that. If they still had the phones, why use an excuse that is easily proven to be a lie? Or perhaps someone got the relatives statement wrong.

A couple of post's down(#85) from the post that iamnotagolem saw was a KCTV5 tweet saying that a front window appears to be missing glass. That's not an accurate statement. This could be a similar situation where facts can get twisted early on in a case. I'm inclined to believe that someone misunderstood what was said by the "aunt" or the "aunt" misunderstood what was told to her about the phones. JMO.

http://www.kmbc.com/Baby-Lisa-s-Par...ion/-/11664900/12264936/-/y2lt6l/-/index.html

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44798...sing-baby-no-longer-cooperating/#.UEeyvZaz5nA

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-08/...issouri-missouri-girl-police-station?_s=PM:US

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7185567&postcount=85"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - MO - AMBER ALERT: Lisa Irwin, 10 months, Kansas City, 4 Oct 2011 - #1[/ame]