"Jersey" and MW #2

[natsound]

It's frustrating to me because Jersey is such a yummy suspect. Criminal record, drifter, etc- I think that LE felt the same and really took a hard look at him. I have to double down on this though. They know where he was and it was somewhere else.

Which makes me wonder about something else that night. You have Mom and the neighbor sitting outside on the stoop drinking and smoking and talking and laughing. You also have reports of JT being in the area on foot that night. { If what was said about the sprinklers up the street is correct.]

BBM

Which of these is correct about Jersey?

 

[Kamille]

If they'd already gotten the data they needed from it, up to that point...and wanted to do a continued surveillance on that phone (& those who use it)..they might give it back temporarily to that end. Just a thought.

That's what I think too Geralyn. By giving her the phone back after hitting her with the info that they know there was a call between her phone and one of the Bradley/Irwin phones, it would be interesting to see what phone activity happened after that.

By not giving it back, she could and would likely have just gone out and gotten another throwaway. Or maybe she did and there was no phone activity after they gave it back to her. That would be a red flag too.

MOO

 

[natsound]

Here's the video where DB talks about the 2:30 call (can't give you the minute mark, though cause I've got to run).

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1225075619001/lisa-irwins-parents-claim-intruder-took-cell-phones/

Thanks for the link... if PD told Megyn Kelly that a call came into one of the phones "around 2:30 a.m.", then I doubt this is the 8:30 call. I know there's been speculation that the 8:30 may have been spoken about in military time, or 20:30, but PD told MK it was 2:30 a.m., and apparently also told DB it was 2:30 a.m., because DB says she was asleep.

So there are two separate calls, it appears... one before Lisa disappeared (I believe it was before she disappeared), and one in the time frame of her disappearance.

 

[katshep]

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...et-gives-cops-quick-access-to-cell-phone-data





They don't need the cell phone company.

Great! Thanks for that. I didn't know about UFED. The last cellphone discovery I was involved in was about 2008 and I was relying upon that information.

 

[katshep]

If they'd already gotten the data they needed from it, up to that point...and wanted to do a continued surveillance on that phone (& those who use it)..they might give it back temporarily to that end. Just a thought.

Or if she is cooperating with them and setting up a sting. If so, LE wouldn't want her blabbing about it to reporters, would they?

 

[lil momma]

Would a cell phone hold finger prints or would it be too pouris (?spelling) to acutally hold a print?

 

[justamommy]

Then why are they just taking casts of prints now? It doesn't seem like they did so very seriously or thoroughly, if they did so before.

They did it early on...MH said because the ground was still wet from the sprinklers having been left on all day. The casts were early in investigation, we just didn't find out until later.:twocents:

 

[katshep]

Would a cell phone hold finger prints or would it be too pouris (?spelling) to acutally hold a print?

Fingerprints can be lifted off a cellphone.

 

[Kamille]

Would a cell phone hold finger prints or would it be too pouris (?spelling) to acutally hold a print?

A cell phone would definitely hold fingerprints...lots of them. I spend way too much time cleaning them off mine. In fact, I would think it would be difficult to get a good print off a phone if it's used by multiple people. Each time someone used it, it would smudge or erase other prints. But I'm sure they could get some.

(Porous )

MOO

 

[Kamille]

I wonder how extensively LE searched the home, both inside and out, of the vacationing neighbour that Jersey was tending the sprinklers for.

Another neighbour has gone on camera to suggest that he had a habit of going into vacant homes or homes where people were on vacation for his own personal use.

Sorry..I have no idea where to find that video link at the moment.

MOO

 

[Sparklin]

I don't know if the 2:30 call or text has been confirmed in any way. I realize that the 8:30 call isn't confirmed through officials either, but PD did take MW's phone, so I'm assuming it's real.

I believe the 'call' is real, but not necessarily the time.

 

[Sparklin]

all phones-even burn phones-have a service provider and even with cash cards records are kept attatched to the phone number assigned to that phone. If you have the phone number for the phone in question, all calls-incoming and outgoing-are logged and recorded and easily verified. You don't have to have the physical phone in hand...just the phone number.

How weird is it that IF MW's # was on DB's hand (which I don't believe) that LE didn't just call the number as opposed to having to search for it???? I don't get that part. If they had the number already, which they must have in order to search, why search for it and not just call it???

 

[Kamille]

I believe the 'call' is real, but not necessarily the time.

That's what I'm thinking too Sparklin. There were too many reports of the 2:30am call at the beginning. Usually that's when the "true rumours" come out, before LE gets a handle on the leaks.

Not surprising that they wouldn't tell MW the real time. I suppose the questioning could have gone something like...who called you from that phone number at 8:30pm that night. She could have responded with something like, I didn't get a call at 8:30pm but *insert name* called me at 2:30am.

I can't see the FBI giving out pertinent information when questioning witnesses. They expect the witnesses to give the pertinent information to them.

MOO

 

[Sparklin]

Thanks for the link... if PD told Megyn Kelly that a call came into one of the phones "around 2:30 a.m.", then I doubt this is the 8:30 call. I know there's been speculation that the 8:30 may have been spoken about in military time, or 20:30, but PD told MK it was 2:30 a.m., and apparently also told DB it was 2:30 a.m., because DB says she was asleep.

So there are two separate calls, it appears... one before Lisa disappeared (I believe it was before she disappeared), and one in the time frame of her disappearance.

I am still leaning towards the 8:30 call being made from PN's phone. Originally, iirc, MW said it came from a family members phone in the B/I household...then she added apparently from one of the stolen phones. Just throwing options out, I truly don't know what to think about it all at this point :waitasec:

 

[Kamille]

How weird is it that IF MW's # was on DB's hand (which I don't believe) that LE didn't just call the number as opposed to having to search for it???? I don't get that part. If they had the number already, which they must have in order to search, why search for it and not just call it???

Answered this before...what could they possibly say? Who are you and where do you live? It would have been a complete tip off. The phone obviously was a throw-away with no name attached to it. Finding that number on a Craigslist ad was a big bonus for them IMO.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

How weird is it that IF MW's # was on DB's hand (which I don't believe) that LE didn't just call the number as opposed to having to search for it???? I don't get that part. If they had the number already, which they must have in order to search, why search for it and not just call it???

Maybe LE did call MW's phone. We just don't know what they did or did not do.

 

[katshep]

How weird is it that IF MW's # was on DB's hand (which I don't believe) that LE didn't just call the number as opposed to having to search for it???? I don't get that part. If they had the number already, which they must have in order to search, why search for it and not just call it???

Because LE did not have a name identified with the phone number or an address. As Donjeta pointed out a couple of days ago, calling and saying this is the FBI we want to meet with you to talk about your cellphone might not work out well.

 

[vlpate]

I have trouble getting past her statement, "If they find the baby..." twice in one interview as well as abruptly changing her statement in mid-sentence in the first interview about her ex-boyfriend's presence in the neighborhood.

How did she change her statement twice in the first interview about her boyfriend's presence in the neighborhood?

What's wrong with saying "if they find the baby"? How does this implicate her?

Her lies about her own presence in the neighborhood when those are readily controverted by people are flags.

I sincerely don't recall anyone credible saying she had been in the neighborhood...would you have a link for this?

MW says she did not have her prepaid phone at 8:30 that night when a call was received from an Irwin number and does not know who had the phone, but it was "returned at 11:00-11:30."

Link?? Edited to say neve rmind, I found this link on CNN

According to MW, the unknown user of her phone deleted the call history before returning it to her.

She didn't say this. The FBI gave her back her phone the first time with the history deleted. Then they came and took her phone a second time.

There is also the mystery of where this woman in her circumstances got a GPS to sell on Craigslist.

I agree with you - valid point.

These things led me to look at other psycho-social factors about her, such as the interest in pyromania, affiliation with the Insane Clown Posse and Juggalos, her admitted drug use, her affiliation with a criminal,

I agree, more valid points to consider when looking at her as part of the case...

lying, her self description as a victim of child abuse, etc.
She's now been interviewed seven times. I don't think I am alone in looking at her.

Do you have a link of her self description as a victim of child abuse? Abandonment is neglect, not abuse.

She's been interviewed FOUR times. She lives with SEVEN people.

Lots of misinformation here.

 

[cindysue]

Answered this before...what could they possibly say? Who are you and where do you live? It would have been a complete tip off. The phone obviously was a throw-away with no name attached to it. Finding that number on a Craigslist ad was a big bonus for them IMO.

Is it possible they were looking to see if the missing phones were being sold on Craigslist.

 

[EllaMae]

Answered this before...what could they possibly say? Who are you and where do you live? It would have been a complete tip off. The phone obviously was a throw-away with no name attached to it. Finding that number on a Craigslist ad was a big bonus for them IMO.

They wouldn't have to say any of that. They make calls to cell phones all the time and get information without revealing who they are and what they want. LE has some pretty good actors....