For the first time in weeks, there has been vigorous, but healthy dialogue being posted on this thread. The cdiscussion has been heated, but has not had the nasty tone that was prevalent in previous weeks........that's good! The thread hasn't been shut down for cleanup yet.......that's great!
Now, it is my understanding that the Verizon system, in general, sends out a blanket signal periodically, which could be compared to broadcasting "I'm here, if anybody needs me." Let's say that the person in possession of KB's phone wants to know what time it is, and doesn't wear a watch because they can always check the time on their phone. So they swipe KB's phone to see the time. The phone wakes up, and broadcasts a message similar to " This is KB's phone. I just woke up and have no idea where I am. Is there a tower available for me to hook up with?" Then a tower answers, with a message something like "Welcome KB's phone, I hear you, and am locking you in on my northeast facing antenna. It's going to take me exactly sixty seconds to do the busy work, during which time you will get those mysterious dropped calls and dead air that are so fristrating, then you're good to go for the next six hours. If I lose you before then, or you wander on over into the field of my other antennae, I'll ping you again, and there will be that darn one minute period again before you can continue." In reading through LE's data, you can pretty well identify the pings that are of this "sign on" type.
Again, it is only my understanding, but the Verizon system will also go through this process when the phone attempts to make a call from a spot that has very weak reception. For example, if you walk in a WalMart super store, they have a small circle of jammed cellular waves centered on the cell phone sales desk back in electronics. Only the vendor that pays to set up a kiosk near that sales desk can co nnect to anything. I can't remember who that is, but it's not Verizon. When a person starts circling the checkstand area trying to decide whether to wait for a real checker or risk the self-check, the phone may appear to the Verizon tower to be just entering it's space, and initiate a ping. If the phone user actually tries to make a call, the ping will be initiated and the call will not go through during that sixty seconds of ping terror.
With that explained, the best way to describe a Verizon ping is........"It's a ping, they don't get fancy on Verizon. Take it for what it is."
So.....in examing the data a few things are true, that were not explained well by LE:
First, the pings can be measured in distance from the tower up to the hundred of a mile, or 52.6 feet. A car motoring along at 60 mph has a rate of travel of a mile a minute, or 88 feet per second. so if two phones are traveling along in a shoebox, and one tries to call the other, we would most likely see the calling phone ping the tower, and then the called phone pinging. at 60 mph, every minute of time lapse between the first ping and the second would represent a mile of travel in the shoebox. When the distance is given in hundreths of a mile, and the time is stated in seconds, the position and rate of travel can be calculated to a very fine margin of error.
2. Second, if you examine the final diagram, on Page 19 of SW 18-118 Attachment A, you will see that there are a whole lot more ping rings than the other ten diagrams have. There are at least 28, but could be 33. If you have looked up the drive from KB's house to the Walmart parking lot in Jerome, and on to the Malad Canyon overlook, it's a whole lot of not much. In my opinion, that countryside resembles BFE just as much, if not more, than the drive from Woodland Park to Nash ranch barn. Those minimum 28 pings were logged in just 3 hours and 17 minutes on November 25, 2018. There are pings from five separate towers, 3 of which are Verizon, and one each of other providers. The data a phenomenally accurate. LE admits they do not have that kind of normal data for the six diagrams that are provided to show the two phones traveling together. In fact, when they show three pings, the data is only 3/28ths, or 11% of what data is commonly produced.
3. Tower to phone distances are not directional. which is why they are represented on the map as arcs. What that arc represents is literally that distance from the tower antenna drawn as a complete circle and then trimmed back to the edges of a directional coverage. It is an absolute fact that the phone has to be located somewhere along that arc at the time stated. The second phone, pinging at the later time, is the second arc. If two phones are traveling together in shoebox and both are swiped awake at the same time, the chart could very well end up having only one arc, because they would both be in the same distance from the same tower. In reality, that would be extremely rare. The odds are than being in a moving vehicle and minor difference between two cell phones and hitting two slightly diffferent spots on the smae antenna, or even a bird flying through the line of distance of one and not the other, would throw that slightly off and the phone's would be a minite, or two minutes, apart. TGhere would be two concentric rings, trimmed to two parallel arcs on the diagram. LE's statement that two arcs intersecting on one towers vicinity is where the two phones were when they pinged is a false assumption. It is possible that it COULD BE CORRECT when one phone is poinging off one tower, and the other is pinging off a second tower; but that isn''t a conclusion. The point at which two arcs intersect, would only be one of hundreds of possibile locations along either arc.
4. LE's premise, in all diagrams, is that the phones are moving in a vehicle, which travel on roads, which are very definite lines on a map. Where a road that the phone might reasonably have been expected to travel on, and a ping arc intersect, id the lost likely, of the hundreds of possible spots along the arc, where that phone was. In Sandy's calculation, there is only one road that instersects the arcs, which is Highway 24. the point at which eaxch phone arc crosses Hwy 24 is where that phone was at that moment.
If the same phone rings twice, then the distance between the two places where the arcs cross Hwy 24 represent where phone was, and where the phone was again, later. The difference in time can be used to calculate the rate of travel, and the direction of trhe direction of travel can be affirmed by simply following the path down Hwy 24 from A to B.
LE did that, and determined that PF's phone was traveling from the direction of Woodland Park, IN THE DIRECTION of his ranchette. It is impossible to say that for KB's phone, because they only have one ping arc to intersect Highway 24 with. Calculating the speed and distance in which it does nothing is impossible. Calculating anything for KB's phone is impossible, except that the ping proves the phone was on Highway 24 at the place where the arc crosses at the time stated.
LE states that the two phones had to be moving in the same direction, but have no proof at all to back it up. So, what happens if you just look at the ativity of PF's phone? It shows him leaving Woodland Park and driving about the speed limit for the entire trip, and stopping at his front gate while he attempted to call KKL and it was dropped. Why was tghe call dropped? It couldn't have been for poor coverage, because that's where the lawmen searching his place staged all of their calls from. KKL must have had her phone turned off, wherever she was.
Back to KB's phone, SandyQLS said PF would have had to have been traveling 90 mph, which is impossible on that stretch of road. I said I agreed, and further stated that KB's phone could just have likely been moving in the opposite direction, back towards Woodland Park. That's just simple logic. It had to be coming or going. There's only two lanes on the highway. It was 50-50 odds, until SandyQLS showed us that one was impossible.
So, I admit I was a bit vague in stating my opinion, which is that that KB's phone was moving in the opposite direction of PF's.
IMO
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/04th_Judicial_District/Teller/caseofinterest/2018CR330/002/18-118 Search Warrant.pdf
