Cell Phone Activity Timeline as of 11/11

[cityslick]

bbm

I believe you're right katy! Parents have a huge influence on their children. moo

The interviewer doing the questioning is highly trained to ask questions that reveal whether the children were coached. The FBI use these people. If you still can trust the answers your getting from any of the interviews from the boys, why were people upset that the parents would not submit them to an interview a second time?

 

[Jaxson]

I just watched a video of DB on the second day and she said only ONE cell phone wasn't working. I'm confused.... She said she was reprogramming the other two. WTH!

One of the phones (hers) was broken. Her father/grandfather (confused which one) loaned her an old unused phone to replace it. She was programming numbers from broken phone (speaker breaking up when she spoke or was listening not sure which) to borrowed phone. However phones ended up on restriction that day for non payment also.

 

[Jaxson]

The interviewer doing the questioning is highly trained to ask questions that reveal whether the children were coached. The FBI use these people. If you still can trust the answers your getting from any of the interviews from the boys, why were people upset that the parents would not submit them to an interview a second time?

BBM You're being facetious, right? I bet you already know why! lol :angel:

 

[cityslick]

I just watched a video of DB on the second day and she said only ONE cell phone wasn't working. I'm confused.... She said she was reprogramming the other two. WTH!

Perhaps she meant 'not working' as in 'physically cannot power it on' not 'can't use the phone because verizon cut service'. You could still program the phones in that regard then.

 

[KateNY]

BBM

Exact-a-mundo..........A stranger would have tried ALL three phones, not just the one that HAPPENED to be Debs.

BBM

Do we know they didn't... try ?

 

[cityslick]

BBM You're being facetious, right? I bet you already know why! lol

I wasn't trying to be, but I guess my point is you can't have it both ways. Be upset with the parents because they won't let the boys be interviewed but yet trust nothing that the boys say in the interviews as accurate because they are being coached.

They very well might be coached, but the person doing the interviews knows how to tell if they are lying or not.

 

[Kamille]

I just watched a video of DB on the second day and she said only ONE cell phone wasn't working. I'm confused.... She said she was reprogramming the other two. WTH!

When she says that only one cell phone wasn't "working" she is not referring to whether or not the phones were connected and operating via the service provider. She is referring to the fact that one of the phones had "issues" and therefore was not in complete working order.

MOO

ETA: Actually now that I think about it she could also have been referring to the fact that only two of the phones were actually connected to a service provider. What we don't know is which two. We don't know if she'd actually made the switch from her phone to the grandfather's phone on the plan.

 

[MissFine]

Re: neighbor sees Lisa at 4:30pm

Jmo, tho!

snip

It all boils down to-- what? Mom being the main caregiver to her son, step-son and daughter the night mom's bf happens to work nightshift-second job. The night mom drinks --as reported-5 -10 glasses of wine with a friend. Mom's phones go poof at the same time her and her bf's baby disappears. moo

By chance have you heard of Occam Razor?

 

[Jaxson]

BBM

Do we know they didn't... try ?

Well, unless FBI only has DB's records. I guess I assumed they would check records for both phones and they have only talked about hers being used. I don't know that the borrowed phone had service. I would expect that if it did they would check the number specific to that phone for records also, and nothing has been stated on that one either. I assumed (I know, I know) that it was an old phone with no service and Deb was using her number for that phone.

 

[DeAnn]

I have the People magazine article in front of me. Can someone point me to where Samantha Brando is quoted in the article because I just cannot find it.

PN and DB leave the Festival Foods at 4:52 p.m. Oct. 3 based on the surveillance video.

The People magazine article says, "Bradley cooked a chicken dinner for herself, the boy, a neighbor and the neighbor's four-year-old daughter."

I would not expect her to cook a chicken dinner for her 10-month-old baby right? Lisa would eat something else right? So then there would be no reason for the writer to mention Lisa in that sentence because the dinner was not cooked for her. Based on my experience, WSers are spending far more time analyzing what the author wrote and didn't write in that sentence than the author did in composing the sentence. We also don't know what an editor may have cut out.

The People magazine article says DB "put down" Lisa around 6:40 p.m. That certainly implies she was "up" to be put down.

 

[In da Middle]

I have the People magazine article in front of me. Can someone point me to where Samantha Brando is quoted in the article because I just cannot find it.

PN and DB leave the Festival Foods at 4:52 p.m. Oct. 3 based on the surveillance video.

The People magazine article says, "Bradley cooked a chicken dinner for herself, the boy, a neighbor and the neighbor's four-year-old daughter."

I would not expect her to cook a chicken dinner for her 10-month-old baby right? Lisa would eat something else right? So then there would be no reason for the writer to mention Lisa in that sentence because the dinner was not cooked for her. Based on my experience, WSers are spending far more time analyzing what the author wrote and didn't write in that sentence than the author did in composing the sentence. We also don't know what an editor may have cut out.

The People magazine article says DB "put down" Lisa around 6:40 p.m. That certainly implies she was "up" to be put down.

Yes. The only thing I have seen is a 'sources say that SB says' about the 4:30 time. Not something I will take as a truth at all. Let alone let it guide me as to it was the ONLY time the baby was seen.

 

[RANCH]

Yes. The only thing I have seen is a 'sources say that SB says' about the 4:30 time. Not something I will take as a truth at all. Let alone let it guide me as to it was the ONLY time the baby was seen.

Apparently 'sources say that SB says' is good enough to build some interesting theories. I need a little more than unnamed sources before I can state that events actually took place. JMO.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

I can't believe it is so da*n hard for LE, lawyers, witnesses, the PARENTS, anyone to, at the very least, inform the public the last time another human being saw Lisa alive. It's just not that hard.

 

[cityslick]

I can't believe it is so da*n hard for LE, lawyers, witnesses, the PARENTS, anyone to, at the very least, inform the public the last time another human being saw Lisa alive. It's just not that hard.

I think LE has a better idea of a timeline then anyone in the media or anyone on this forum for that matter. They said from the beginning they had no intention to investigate this case through the media. Perhaps they see how other cases (FCA) played out via the media and wants to do the exact opposite.

The problem of course is it sends everyone's mind in a different direction as to what actually happened that night. It's just guessing at this point.

 

[In da Middle]

I can't believe it is so da*n hard for LE, lawyers, witnesses, the PARENTS, anyone to, at the very least, inform the public the last time another human being saw Lisa alive. It's just not that hard.

Maybe LE has a very good reason to not say and advise all witnesses to keep quiet? That's all I can come up with.

 

[natsound]

When she says that only one cell phone wasn't "working" she is not referring to whether or not the phones were connected and operating via the service provider. She is referring to the fact that one of the phones had "issues" and therefore was not in complete working order.

MOO

ETA: Actually now that I think about it she could also have been referring to the fact that only two of the phones were actually connected to a service provider. What we don't know is which two. We don't know if she'd actually made the switch from her phone to the grandfather's phone on the plan.

So three phones were stolen, two had service and Db's didn't, and the phone the "abductors" tried to use three times, plus surf the internet, was the one phone with no service?

 

[JohnBull]

I am on the fence about DB's guilt or innocence. But she did lie. She originally said she put the baby to bed at 7:30 after giving her a bath, then checked on her again and changed her diaper at 10:30. That was a LIE. She has since admitted that was a lie and she actually put her to bed at 6:40 qnd has ne memory of checking on her again. So she did lie, and it was not the media messing that up, it was her.

She certainly didn't do herself any favors by telling a whopper. I'm fairly sure that the reason she did it was because she was ashamed of having been so neglectful of her parental responsibilities, to the point where her child was abducted. Lies like that don't seem like a big deal at the time, but if she'd been a bit more sophisticated she would have realized what a mess she was potentially creating for herself, and just admitted her neglect at the outset.

 

[Sparklin]

The person doing the interviews should be able to tell if the boys have been coached. IMO, there's a reason DB didn't want to sit down with her own children and ask them what they heard that night.... Because she's scared of what they will say. An 8 year old should be pretty on the ball. I do think police have learned some things from the interviews.

Apparently she wasn't so scared that she wouldn't allow another interview. Not to mention that people are picking and choosing what THEY want to believe. Mom said she did not speak to her children about what they heard or remember about that night. A whole lot of people were up in arms about that...how could she NOT talk to them about it?? Now people are saying she probably coached them...wow! There is nothing Deb can do right apparently. And people are shocked that she isn't talking to the media??? I'm very sure that SB is not speaking to anyone because she has been asked not to. She is still close to the family, so obviously she has no doubts. We are getting bits and pieces...not full stories from anyone.
As for Deb lying - I don't think that anything said in an original interview can be taken as exact. She is exhausted, scared, worried, heart broken, and probably somewhat angry. It's very possible by the 3rd interview they had the exact info - maybe we didn't, but we aren't DUE any info from her. If LE had some of the info that some people here seem to believe/trust from 'sources' then I'm sure they would be insisting Deb talk to them again.
I don't think Deb or Jeremy had anything to do with their missing baby, but I do find some things questionable. I haven't seen any actual answers to any of those questions, but then again, it's really none of my business until LE and/or Deb decide to share it.

 

[In da Middle]

So three phones were stolen, two had service and Db's didn't, and the phone the "abductors" tried to use three times. Plus surf the internet, was the one phone with no service?

What phone had service?

 

[DeAnn]

Maybe LE has a very good reason to not say and advise all witnesses to keep quiet? That's all I can come up with.

With all due respect to other posters, KCPD *did* inform the public the last time that Lisa was seen. The Amber Alert included that information. They quoted the mom as saying she was last seen about 10:30, 10:40 p.m. Steve Young repeatedly said that in his initial news conferences.

And then Mom began to publicly change her story and the timing. That obviously cast even more suspicions on her actions.

A neighbor has recently come forward and said he hung out with SB and DB for roughly 90 minutes and didn't see any sound or anything related to Lisa including hearing her via a baby monitor (meaning DB didn't have one on her).

Based on this changing timeline and that KCPD no longer considers this a missing persons case, why would they make something public (last time that she was seen) that could hinder their investigation? Other than satisfying armchair sleuths, what does KCPD or FBI gain by releasing that information? And if this is ever brought to trial, ensuring the defendant gets a fair trial is also important. Would I love to know? Sure. But I don't expect KCPD to tell us. And we know that DB's attorneys and herself are now saying the last time she saw Lisa was 6:40 p.m. or so.

Other than SB and her daughter, I don't know what witnesses are being quiet at this point.