Cell Phone Activity Timeline as of 11/11

[Sparklin]

The lawyer seems totally unaware of what his clients have already said. They started out saying the phones didn't work and implied cops were lying about the pings and burned clothing.

JMO

The phones weren't working and no one said they were lying about the burnt clothes. Deb said she 'hoped' it wasn't real (true). I would be hoping the same thing!

eta: regarding the pings. How many people have we seen on here asking a trillion questions about cell phone pings? Not everyone is aware that even if a cell has no service it still pings. I doubt Deb was any more aware of this than some of us were. No doubt when she shared what they showed her, others who weren't aware either, convinced her they had to be lying because it had no service, so in their minds, couldn't ping. (does that make sense?) lol

 

[MyBelle]

Regarding the internet browser. If the phones were restricted for incoming and outgoing calls, I can't imagine that they would be able to access the internet browser via the data plan from the service provider. So why would someone try to access the internet 5 times if they were unsuccessful the first couple of times? Does this mean that they did access the internet and if so how? Would a wireless connection to the internet browser on the phone show up on the phone bill as access to the internet since it does not use mb's from a data plan?

And if so, were the phones in an area where there was an unsecured wireless connection? No wonder LE wants those phones so bad.

Then again I suppose it could be just someone hitting buttons repeatedly on a phone trying to see what features they could access.

MOO

LE haven't said the phones were "restricted." Only the lawyers and their clients have said that and I have no reason to believe they are truthful just as I don't believe some stranger entered the house, turned on all the lights and stole 3 cell phones and a baby.


JMO

 

[MyBelle]

The phones weren't working and no one said they were lying about the burnt clothes. Deb said she 'hoped' it wasn't real (true). I would be hoping the same thing!

DB implied LE was lying about the pings. LE haven't confirmed the phones weren't working. I think the fact that calls were made to and from the phone is proof the phones were working just fine.

JMO

 

[Sparklin]

MK: So the cellphones never got more than 1/3rd of a mile away from the Irwin home?

JP: Not according to the powerpoint presentation that the FBI showed to both Mr.Tacopina and myself on Nov.1st when we met with them for 3 hours.

rsbm from the amazing transcript of askfornina: I'm wondering why, if the lawyer is lying, he would not put the pings at a further distance from his clients house????

 

[belimom]

Link-
Bradley & Irwin lawyer John Picerno on Megyn Kelly Fox Show. 2 videos on the page. Article highlights:

11:57pm - 50 second call to MW phone number
3:17am - attempt to get into voicemail and use internet
3:22am - attempt to get into voicemail and use internet
Pings were never more than 1/3 of the mile from Irwin residence. It does not give a time when the pings stopped.

The 2:30am phone call was a rumor.

It is also not mentioned whether this was DB's broken cell or the one she received from her grandfather on Oct. 3rd.

THANK YOU. I backed away from this case a little b/c it is so maddening. I didn't realize there were the two calls around 3:00am. That would have been about the time JI was coming home from work, correct?

 

[Kamille]

LE haven't said the phones were "restricted." Only the lawyers and their clients have said that and I have no reason to believe they are truthful just as I don't believe some stranger entered the house, turned on all the lights and stole 3 cell phones and a baby.


JMO

Again from the transcript of today's interview...

investigators in this case have told the family that they have phone records proving that even though DB and JI's phones were restricted on the day that the baby went missing, a call was at least attempted at 11:57pm on DB's phone that night.

It was on Fox so keep the salt handy. :crazy:

 

[3doglady]

DB implied LE was lying about the pings. LE haven't confirmed the phones weren't working. I think the fact that calls were made to and from the phone is proof the phones were working just fine.

JMO

John P stated that he had a 3 hr meeting with the FBI and was given this info in a power point presentation. I doubt that any attorney is going on National TV and lie about what the FBI said. No one, including LE, has ever said the calls went through. John P stated the calls were attempted based on the info from the FBI. If you have a link with LE stating that the calls went through please post it.

 

[Kamille]

He said the phones were turned off 'early' in the afternoon. We don't know that Jeremy didn't try to call on his way home at 2:30, which would be when they realized it.

He tried to call her in the early evening to let her know he'd be late from the Starbucks job as per the transcript.

She recieved a uh, her husband, uh not her husband, her fiance Jeremy tried to contact her early in the evening to tell her that he was going to be late coming home, it went direct to the verizon message, stating that the phone is not operable

He wouldn't have tried to call her if he knew the service was cut off then. I think that is when at least JI found out about the phone restrictions.

MOO

 

[Sparklin]

DB implied LE was lying about the pings. LE haven't confirmed the phones weren't working. I think the fact that calls were made to and from the phone is proof the phones were working just fine.

JMO

What calls were made to the phone? and the calls out were attempted. Let me go the MSM coverage and find InDaMiddles post confirming that the phones were in fact disabled.

MK: as we here at America live reported this week, investigators in this case have told the family that they have phone records proving that even though DB and JI's phones were restricted on the day that the baby went missing, a call was at least attempted at 11:57pm on DB's phone that night. That's the time in which DB told investigators she was sleeping. That call went to the phone of a woman named MW, who lives in a questionable house, and who tells police and other that she does not know DB or her husband JI, and says she did not get any call or voicemail. Now, we here at America Live are learning that at 3:17 am and at 3:32am that same night, someone tried to access DB's voicemail on DB's phone. Someone also tried to use the internet on that phone repeatedly. Joining me Live now, for the first time, the attorney for the Irwin family, John Picerno. These events are starting to create a timeline that you believe could support an intruder theory. Tell us why.l

**borrowed from Missing Cell Phone #2, posted by IDM** **bbm**

And I edited my original post to add re: pings.

 

[TheDuchess]

Unfortunately, I have some experience with disconnected phones. Sometimes my phone may be shut off but the Internet still works. I have also seen where I can't make calls but can receive them. When you have a smart phone you can access the Internet if you are using a wireless connection. Also I think that the phone that was used was the borrowed phone that did work.

 

[twall]

MK: And then the next phone record that evening shows that somebody attempted to call DB's voicemail at 3:17 and 3:22am?

JP: That is correct. Along with the fact that the internet browser was activated 5 times although from the records you can't tell exactly the time that the buttons were pushed to search the internet.

MK: so was the internet successfully accessed, do we know?

JP: I believe so. I don't believe that there would be a record of it.

Taken from an excellent transcript of the cell phone part of the interview by askfornina on the previous cell phone thread...

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Missing Cell Phones #2

Right, I think the opening post should be changed to reflect the internet browser was activated 5 times but the times are not known. I disagree with JP about there not being a record of the internet being accessed. I explain why below.
To me it seems someone unfamiliar with the phone was pushing buttons seeing what they do. (like me, I am terrible with cell phones!) I don't have internet access on my phone. DH and I have AT&T prepaid GoPhones. We're not big phone users so that is the most inexpensive for us.
DH can access the net but rarely does because it is expensive without a data plan. He works outside so if he does use it he checks the weather radar. I can get online and see our phone activity, including his net access, the time accessed and how many kpbs or whatever it is called he used. So if the person accessed the web I think it would be on the activity. Just because the browser was accessed doesn't mean they accessed the web. I hit my network button all the time and get an error message because my phone is not set up for web access or e-mail. I can leave my home and live without it. JMO from my experience.

 

[hambirg]

BBM

Can any phone other than a smart phone access the internet? With all of the different kinds of phones out there I really have no idea about this. :waitasec:

Yes.

I have a cheap pre-paid Virgin mobile flip phone and I can access the internet. It's fairly useless though because my phone isn't really made for it, but I can. My daughter does not have a smart phone. She has a LG Rumor Touch and she can access the internet (better than my phone). We have used it before when we've picked up computer viruses to search how to fix the problem with the computer. It's surely not as good as a smart phone, but it does work and was helpful for when we needed to do that.

What I don't understand is why someone would do it if they are at home with a perfectly good working computer. That doesn't make any sense.

MOO

ETA- my daughter does use hers to check and post on her FB when she is out and about.

 

[Kamille]

Unfortunately, I have some experience with disconnected phones. Sometimes my phone may be shut off but the Internet still works. I have also seen where I can't make calls but can receive them. When you have a smart phone you can access the Internet if you are using a wireless connection. Also I think that the phone that was used was the borrowed phone that did work.

Well her lawyers are stating that the FBI indicated that it was DB's phone that had all the activity. The "borrowed" phone, if it did come with some paid airtime, would not be considered DB's phone in the context of what her lawyers are saying. DB's father also indicated that the phone from her grandfather was a "plain jane" phone and likely did not have access to the internet.

Here is a link to my post regarding the borrowed phone from the previous thread.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7342543&postcount=386"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Missing Cell Phones #2[/ame]

The phone was not borrowed due to the non payment of the other phones. It was borrowed so that DB could have a phone that she could make calls on. Her phone was likely still fine and could be used for every other feature so she didn't care that it was a "plain jane" phone that her grandfather gave her.

MOO

 

[MyBelle]

What calls were made to the phone? and the calls out were attempted. Let me go the MSM coverage and find InDaMiddles post confirming that the phones were in fact disabled.

**borrowed from Missing Cell Phone #2, posted by IDM** **bbm**

And I edited my original post to add re: pings.

LE has not confirmed the phones were disabled. A reporter making a comment based on third-hand information doesn't mean it is true information.
I'll believe it when I hear it straight from cops.

JMO

 

[JohnBull]

To me it seems someone unfamiliar with the phone was pushing buttons seeing what they do.

I have a different take on it. I believe that someone on foot, carrying a baby, who had expected a rendezvous with someone who had a car, was trying desperately to get in touch with the person who had the car. For some reason the rendezvous didn't come off as planned. But there were three cell phones on hand, and the "someone on foot" decided to try one of them, first via voice and then via internet. If the phones had been active, this case would probably have been solved by now. Just my current opinion!

 

[MyBelle]

John P stated that he had a 3 hr meeting with the FBI and was given this info in a power point presentation. I doubt that any attorney is going on National TV and lie about what the FBI said. No one, including LE, has ever said the calls went through. John P stated the calls were attempted based on the info from the FBI. If you have a link with LE stating that the calls went through please post it.

I can't provide a link to something that never happened. The FBI has made no public comments.

All calls are "attempted." Not all calls attempted are completed. It is my opinion there were completed calls. No reason for LE to share the details with a defense attorney who insisted his clients are suspects and hours later, backpeddled.

It is entirely accurate and appropriate for the FBI to tell the attorneys the calls were attempted without revealing to them all the details they do have.

JMO

 

[twall]

Well, he wasn't able to let her know he'd be late, because although he tried to call, their phone was restricted and it went to verizon message.

If that was the case I don't understand why in the sentence right before that he said they could receive incoming calls and texts? :waitasec: Is he saying the restriction changed from early afternoon to when JI tried to call DB later that night? I am so lost!

JP:
This phone problem that they had was when the phones were cut off and could only recieve incoming phone calls and incoming texts from early in the afternoon. She recieved a uh, her husband, uh not her husband, her fiance Jeremy tried to contact her early in the evening to tell her that he was going to be late coming home, it went direct to the Verizon message, stating that the phone is not operable.

 

[hambirg]

I have a different take on it. I believe that someone on foot, carrying a baby, who had expected a rendezvous with someone who had a car, was trying desperately to get in touch with the person who had the car. For some reason the rendezvous didn't come off as planned. But there were three cell phones on hand, and the "someone on foot" decided to try one of them, first via voice and then via internet. If the phones had been active, this case would probably have been solved by now. Just my current opinion!

BBM

This is what I'm starting to believe. It makes sense that someone that was unfamiliar with the phones and the fact that they were restricted might be in a situation where they "try" them out.

No wonder LE wants to find those phones! They really need to be able to lift prints to find out who was trying to use it. It makes sense.

 

[twall]

The phones weren't working and no one said they were lying about the burnt clothes. Deb said she 'hoped' it wasn't real (true). I would be hoping the same thing!

eta: regarding the pings. How many people have we seen on here asking a trillion questions about cell phone pings? Not everyone is aware that even if a cell has no service it still pings. I doubt Deb was any more aware of this than some of us were. No doubt when she shared what they showed her, others who weren't aware either, convinced her they had to be lying because it had no service, so in their minds, couldn't ping. (does that make sense?) lol

I think they were showing her a ping that was not near enough to be pinging from her home. (we now know the farthest ping from the home was 1/3 mile) Her response was that it couldn't be her that was in possession of the phone for that ping, because she was at home in bed sleeping at that time. JMO

 

[Sparklin]

Right, I think the opening post should be changed to reflect the internet browser was activated 5 times but the times are not known. I disagree with JP about there not being a record of the internet being accessed. I explain why below.
To me it seems someone unfamiliar with the phone was pushing buttons seeing what they do. (like me, I am terrible with cell phones!) I don't have internet access on my phone. DH and I have AT&T prepaid GoPhones. We're not big phone users so that is the most inexpensive for us.
DH can access the net but rarely does because it is expensive without a data plan. He works outside so if he does use it he checks the weather radar. I can get online and see our phone activity, including his net access, the time accessed and how many kpbs or whatever it is called he used. So if the person accessed the web I think it would be on the activity. Just because the browser was accessed doesn't mean they accessed the web. I hit my network button all the time and get an error message because my phone is not set up for web access or e-mail. I can leave my home and live without it. JMO from my experience.

I think the difference would be that there was no service, so whoever was using the phone, had to be using someones open wireless network, therefore it wouldn't be recorded or charged to the phone...possibly??