My guess is, whether poly or by questioning everyone - the stories don't add up according to the timeline, and keep changing. Maybe it's just circumstantial evidence that points to them?SABBM
Will delete my post again if this is not allowed... but what would constitute "concrete physical evidence" ?
We know there were three 911 calls. And four polys given.
But would this evidence have to be something else ?
Anyone with some more experience with forensics have an idea ?
Tia.
:moo:
I am no expert but I think getting a search warrant for the house was simple enough as there is probable cause (missing child) same with the vehicles. Getting the cell carrier to release their info is probably legally more complicated. The cell carrier has a duty to protect it's customers privacy and can't just give out data easily. They also have corporate counsels who are going to make sure everything is legit before they open up. Factor in the pings come from whoever's tower is closest so now you are probably dealing with a carrier for phone service and whoever owns the tower that was supplying signal up at the campsite.
No forensic experience here..heck I'm still trying to figure out what SABBM means. I have no clue what they may have. I did hear Klein say there was physical evidence as to what happened in his KID Radio interview Part 2 @ the 42 second mark. http://590kid.com/2016/01/28/former-deorr-kunz-investigator/SABBM
Will delete my post again if this is not allowed... but what would constitute "concrete physical evidence" ?
We know there were three 911 calls. And four polys given.
But would this evidence have to be something else ?
Anyone with some more experience with forensics have an idea ?
Tia.
:moo:
Most likely because a reporter requested it.
IMO, there are probably copies of all 3 calls out there.
Otherwise how would Kline know the time of the calls, 14:22, 14:26 & 14:28.
I think he requested a transcript of the calls before SB decided not to release any more copies.
I'm certainly no expert either, but IMO they had all the cell ping information a long time ago. I'm not sure they needed a warrant for the cell ping information.
The parents willingly gave their phones to LE for examination. So I would assume that they'd also give consent for the company to give LE the ping info.
I believe the actual ping information comes from the cell phone company & towers and a warrant would be needed for those records to be released. But, as
SB: Sure. There were multiple calls, you know, and we’ve checked some of them out. Some of them were attempted and they didn’t go through. Some of them weren’t received. Some of them were made to them that didn’t go through. That’s kind of an area where the cell service is not consistent. We seized …we were actually given all cell phones and we gathered the data from those and have examined them extensively and still are.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Timelines-and-Maps-**NO-DISCUSSION-quot/page4
I'm certainly no expert either, but IMO they had all the cell ping information a long time ago. I'm not sure they needed a warrant for the cell ping information.
The parents willingly gave their phones to LE for examination. So I would assume that they'd also give consent for the company to give LE the ping info.
SB: Sure. There were multiple calls, you know, and weve checked some of them out. Some of them were attempted and they didnt go through. Some of them werent received. Some of them were made to them that didnt go through. Thats kind of an area where the cell service is not consistent. We seized we were actually given all cell phones and we gathered the data from those and have examined them extensively and still are.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Timelines-and-Maps-**NO-DISCUSSION-quot/page4
I think that when this case gets resolved (and they find DeOrr~~Hopefully)....and tell us all the news of what really came down, I'm going to totally lose it...It will then be so real and so final and so awful....There's a part of me holding onto a thread of hope that he is OK somewhere (but I don't really think so). This is like a slow drawn out grieving. I've gotten so attached to this little baby.
I thought he was referring to the other 2 calls that were made by GGF and DK as well as JM's. Everyone has asked him, why haven't they released VDK's? I had no idea GGF had made one too before Kleins Q&A.
Yes, I agree that he meant that all three calls could be evidence. I was referring to JM's call in my comment just because we have heard her call and I was wondering what part(s) might be evidence (or it could be that parts were edited out before it was released... who knows...).
I agree and disagree.I doubt that any LE can get ping data without a warrant. You can't just call up your cell phone company and get your own ping data, so I would assume you couldn't just consent to LE to get your ping data. Warrants are especially necessary for this type of data.
Location data can be accessed through a device if the owner opts to allow location tracking through Google, for instance, or other apps which use location services.But that data isn't as comprehensive as the historical cell tower data normally used by LE agencies to track a suspect's (or victim's) movements.Also, as @Dee10 mentioned, ping data comes from the cell company and/or the tower company's logs, it's not stored on the phone, so LE having possession of the phone(s) doesn't get them anywhere as far as ping data goes.
I would think LE could obtain a warrant for records and they likely have because companies do not keep data forever. I believe each company has there own policy but some only keep 6 months of data and others have more history.
Ping information has become such a valuable tool in investigations and trials that they must have obtained that data. Perhaps its incriminating even? I feel strongly that LE has much more evidence they have shared. Jmo but I think they will search for DeOrr's body asap and likely in new spots, but I think if they fail to locate it they will move forward with charges within the next few months.
I agree and disagree.
11th Circuit Finds No 4th Amendment Violation In Obtaining Of Cell Tower Data
Mealey's (May 26, 2015, 11:26 PM ET) -- ATLANTA — A trial court’s granting an order compelling a third-party phone company to produce cellular tower data related to the defendant in an armed robbery case did not violate his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals en banc majority ruled May 5, upholding the trial court’s judgment (United States of America v. Quartavious Davis, No. 12-12928, 11th Cir.; 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7385).
(Opinion available. Document #97-150521-024Z.)
This type of non-content evidence, lawfully created by a third-party telephone company for legitimate business purposes, does not belong to Davis, even if it concerns him. Like the security camera surveillance images introduced into evidence at his trial, MetroPCS’s cell tower records were not Davis’s to withhold.
The stored telephone records produced in this case, and in many other criminal cases, serve compelling governmental interests. Historical cell tower location records are routinely used to investigate the full gamut of state and federal crimes, including child abductions, bombings, kidnappings, murders, robberies, sex offenses, and terrorism-related offenses.
Such evidence is particularly valuable during the early stages of an investigation, when the police lack probable cause and are confronted with multiple suspects. In such cases, § 2703(d) orders—like other forms of compulsory process not subject to the search warrant procedure—help to build probable cause against the guilty, deflect suspicion from the innocent, aid in the search for truth, and judiciously allocate scarce investigative resources.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/15-146-op-below.pdf
Location data can be accessed through a device if the owner opts to allow location tracking through Google, for instance, or other apps which use location services.But that data isn't as comprehensive as the historical cell tower data normally used by LE agencies to track a suspect's (or victim's) movements.
As an FYI: In November, 2015, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition from the ACLU to review Davis.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-146.htm
I would think LE could obtain a warrant for records and they likely have because companies do not keep data forever. I believe each company has there own policy but some only keep 6 months of data and others have more history.
Ping information has become such a valuable tool in investigations and trials that they must have obtained that data. Perhaps its incriminating even? I feel strongly that LE has much more evidence they have shared. Jmo but I think they will search for DeOrr's body asap and likely in new spots, but I think if they fail to locate it they will move forward with charges within the next few months.
Do you have an opinion on what charges could be brought?
I get the sense that Grandpa and Issac's testimony could be paramount here in the absence of a body or confession of some sort.
Do you have an opinion on what charges could be brought?
I get the sense that Grandpa and Issac's testimony could be paramount here in the absence of a body or confession of some sort.