Cell Phone Activity Timeline as of 11/11

[natsound]

But the phone could still receive calls but if no one answered, I guess she couldn't retrieve her voice mails. But I know I read somewhere that JI didn't try to call and tell DB he would be late and that she wasn't worried. I need to keep a notebook of where I have read things!

This is the big conflict. If DB's phones could still receive calls, then why did JI's call attempt go straight to the call center?

 

[Whisperer]

Re: neighbor sees Lisa at 4:30pm

IMO we do not have a clue what SB truly states about the night in question.. We have a bunch of "media outlets" reporting on this subject.. That is why I will not personally nail to the wall any of the times associated with SB.. IMO that's what causes such an uproar is that people are solely dependant upon media reports to prove or not prove human beings guilt..this IMO just is NOT RELIABLE IN THE VERY LEAST.. we've all seen and read and watched with our very own eyes MSM reportings made by supposed legitimate reporters stating ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT INFORMATION, DETAILS, AND TIMES..

Why then would it be the info coming from sources we've seen be mistaken and/or downright reporting false information.. How can those sources be reliable to the point of people making a decision of a human beings guilt or innocence of murdering a child..

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being on the fence and after witnessing the extremely faulty, all out crappy and false reporting done in this case I do not feel that there is anything reliable to the point of deciding someone is guilty..

That is not being blind to the existence of particular details(as was stated upthread about DB supporters).. And personally I don't see anyone hailing their support of DB and I would be placed in the DB category when the truth is far from that.. I have been extremely open about issues and details that I find disheartening and do not condone.. Just because I do not judge DB with Bashings over the head DOES NOT EQUAL MY BEING A DB SUPPORTER..

I have no problem being "on the fence" and moo but with the inaccurate bunk we've got as the basis Of this woman's guilt.. I have no desire to be anywhere else than on the fence until we actually have facts to work with.. And here on the fence there is nothing that is ignored, disregarded, or turned a blind eye.. It's all looked at equally.. I just refuse to base an opinion of someone's guilt when the vast majority of info and details are extremely questionable and unreliable..

Jmo, tho!

Hey SmoothO..I have never seen you sitting on a fence before. :fence: How long have you been there and how long are you planning on staying? If you're waiting on facts, we may have to take turns bringing you something to eat.

 

[josie1986]

This is the big conflict. If DB's phones could still receive calls, then why did JI's call attempt go straight to the call center?

do we only have JI's word for that or has it been confirmed by LE? i mean would a call that went to the call center show up on the cell records as just that?

if it came from either DB or JI's mouth,i believe nothing they say anymore


JMO MOO

 

[Sigh Sister]

do we only have JI's word for that or has it been confirmed by LE? i mean would a call that went to the call center show up on the cell records as just that?

if it came from either DB or JI's mouth,i believe nothing they say anymore


JMO MOO

I think that came from Joe Picerno. Don't have a link handy.

 

[natsound]

do we only have JI's word for that or has it been confirmed by LE? i mean would a call that went to the call center show up on the cell records as just that?

if it came from either DB or JI's mouth,i believe nothing they say anymore


JMO MOO

This came from Picerno's mouth, in the interview with Megyn Kelly. He said JI's call to DB went straight to Verizon a message saying the phone was "not operable".

 

[josie1986]

I think that came from Joe Picerno. Don't have a link handy.

i don't know,i just don't believe it.its just a gut feeling.

IF the phone(s) were restricted how did they call out to MW? if that call was supposedly at 11.57 i'm sure if JI was meant to be home by 10.30 (is that right?) he would have called DB around then. so what could have happened in those 1 1/2 hours (approx) that the phone was no longer restricted and able to call out?

i always go with my gut feeling with things and my gut it saying HINKY.

i sure hope i'm wrong about everything in this case,i have no problem with eating crow but i don't see a good outcome for this.

 

[Whisperer]

....Doc had made the comment a few weeks ago that the media is turning these missing people's cases into a reality TV event. He wasn't far off...but then he usually isn't.

I started getting frustrated with the coverage back in 2001...with the Chandra Levy Case. I called a reporter and was stunned. She told me that nowadays they get their information from the AP and start using that as the base. They may or may not get a chance to interview a witness. If they don't they take what other reporters said and recycle it.

I was told they can never get confirmation on any facts that LE have because LE doesn't talk or confirm anything for them anymore. I caught one that recycled in another case and he made it appear that the event occurred that week when it was a year prior. This is riciculous. It is bad enough we have to have an interpreter for an attorney now we need to hunt down the truth and where they got it from reporters. I have dismissed the written reports in entirety. They are full of errors in grammer, quotes and information. They don't correct them either.

I think it is best to listen to the witnesses. That is all I can depend on. It may not be the truth but I know who said it and when.

 

[josie1986]

This came from Picerno's mouth, in the interview with Megyn Kelly. He said JI's call to DB went straight to Verizon a message saying the phone was "not operable".

do you know what message you would get if a phone had no signal?

im my experience when trying to call a cell that has either no signal or has been cut off/restricted you get the same message of "the number you have called is unavailable" thats with UK carriers i'm not sure of US?

just thinking out loud that she may have had no signal and the phone wasn't actually cut off? although i suppose JI could be talking bull hockey as well i guess and that call never even happened :waitasec:

 

[natsound]

i don't know,i just don't believe it.its just a gut feeling.

IF the phone(s) were restricted how did they call out to MW? if that call was supposedly at 11.57 i'm sure if JI was meant to be home by 10.30 (is that right?) he would have called DB around then. so what could have happened in those 1 1/2 hours (approx) that the phone was no longer restricted and able to call out?

i always go with my gut feeling with things and my gut it saying HINKY.

i sure hope i'm wrong about everything in this case,i have no problem with eating crow but i don't see a good outcome for this.

I will jump ahead and post what some will post in response.... that the 50-second call did not go through, and it showed up on phone records anyway.

I don't believe all of this either.

 

[Whisperer]

I don't believe anything the Defense Team tells us...but it makes for good reading and trying to guess what they are hiding and why they are even speaking. It is always for a reason. It is always to make their client look good...if possilbe. They have their work cut out for them in this case...but they got a head start. Looks like Jeremy isn't going to be taking any poly.

The DT may have already tested him...at least they should have.

 

[Tuffy]

do you know what message you would get if a phone had no signal?

im my experience when trying to call a cell that has either no signal or has been cut off/restricted you get the same message of "the number you have called is unavailable" thats with UK carriers i'm not sure of US?

just thinking out loud that she may have had no signal and the phone wasn't actually cut off? although i suppose JI could be talking bull hockey as well i guess and that call never even happened :waitasec:

From my experience here, if there is no signal on the phone you're calling, it goes straight to voicemail. If I'm in a dead zone, that's what happens to my calls. If the phone is dead because the owner has had it shut off, you get the message from the carrier that the phone is out of service.

 

[natsound]

do you know what message you would get if a phone had no signal?

im my experience when trying to call a cell that has either no signal or has been cut off/restricted you get the same message of "the number you have called is unavailable" thats with UK carriers i'm not sure of US?

just thinking out loud that she may have had no signal and the phone wasn't actually cut off? although i suppose JI could be talking bull hockey as well i guess and that call never even happened :waitasec:

The more we think about it, the more confusing it becomes, and I think that's by design. I believe the simplest answer prevails. If calls/voicemail checks were made, and if JI tried to call DB's phone, that tells me DB's phone did have service.

 

[josie1986]

I will jump ahead and post what some will post in response.... that the 50-second call did not go through, and it showed up on phone records anyway.

I don't believe all of this either.

this is where i get confused........if the 50 second call didn't go through would the call not just last a few seconds with a pre-recorded message sending you to the payment centre?

if i was trying to make a call out of a phone that i thought was working and it turned out to be restricted and went to the payment center and i didn't intend to pay the bill to get service back at that moment i would hang up once that happened.

im SO confused :waitasec:

 

[Sigh Sister]

i don't know,i just don't believe it.its just a gut feeling.

IF the phone(s) were restricted how did they call out to MW? if that call was supposedly at 11.57 i'm sure if JI was meant to be home by 10.30 (is that right?) he would have called DB around then. so what could have happened in those 1 1/2 hours (approx) that the phone was no longer restricted and able to call out?

i always go with my gut feeling with things and my gut it saying HINKY.

i sure hope i'm wrong about everything in this case,i have no problem with eating crow but i don't see a good outcome for this.

I hear you. The thing is, we only know that a call was attempted at 11:57 to MW. Originally, it was reported that it went to voicemail which would mean the phone was working. But then I read (I think!) that the call actually never went through, only that it was attempted. IDK. It's all so confusing. :waitasec:

 

[josie1986]

i just wish LE would come out and confirm some of these details BUT their playing their cards close to their chests which is only a good thing i suppose when a suspect finally gets arrested and LE sit them down and hits them with evidence/facts they haven't had time to fabricate any stories.

 

[Sigh Sister]

What I do know is that some posters way back in the beginning of this case said that the cell phones will be central to solving this case. I believe they were right on the money!

 

[natsound]

i just wish LE would come out and confirm some of these details BUT their playing their cards close to their chests which is only a good thing i suppose when a suspect finally gets arrested and LE sit them down and hits them with evidence/facts they haven't had time to fabricate any stories.

I'm with ya.

 

[josie1986]

From my experience here, if there is no signal on the phone you're calling, it goes straight to voicemail. If I'm in a dead zone, that's what happens to my calls. If the phone is dead because the owner has had it shut off, you get the message from the carrier that the phone is out of service.

i think i get the same message when a cell is switched off too that the number is unavailable.i always thought most carriers were the same.

 

[cityslick]

bbm


Some of us can't entertain an abduction/stolen cell phone theory because of the elephant in the room that we can't discuss in this thread. It's discussed here:

Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I understand your opinion, I just cannot assign guilt based on a singular isolated event that even dog experts on this forum agree it's not a 100% guarantee. Yes, it could mean there was a dead body in that room, but it could also be a false hit. Even if it was a 100% guarantee, it still doesn't automatically mean harm came from DB's hand.

 

[natsound]

I understand your opinion, I just cannot assign guilt based on a singular isolated event that even dog experts on this forum agree it's not a 100% guarantee. Yes, it could mean there was a dead body in that room, but it could also be a false hit. Even if it was a 100% guarantee, it still doesn't automatically mean harm came from DB's hand.

I understand that... and if I were on a jury with only the facts that we know right now, I wouldn't be convicting her. I just know in my mind what the facts are suggesting to me, and I look forward to getting more facts.