Missing Cell Phones #2

[3doglady]

Funnyl 3gl. I see the cell phones as motion by DB to throw off LE and anyone else trying to find Lisa. IMO

John T stated today that DB's phone records show no calls to MW's number before that night. SB stated that DB's lights were out around 11pm. Why would DB dial 86? Why would DB try to access the internet from her phone? She stated that she knew the phones were restricted and also that she used the computer earlier that day. If she were trying to throw off LE why would she attempt to use the phone so close to home? If I wanted to make it look like some else was using my phone I wouldn't do it from my neighborhood. I would go somewhere to draw attention away from my home.

 

[MyBelle]

Exactly what telephone evidence?

Records of calls made, times and durations. Both DB and JI told the media that the phones couldn't make calls. Their media interviews also are evidence.

JMO

 

[katshep]

According to DN, DB's father, her phone was "malfunctioning" ie: the speaker and microphone were working intermittently. So her phone was technically working, it was just a problem hearing people and people hearing her when using it. I'm assuming it was a smart phone based on the picture of Lisa and the boy's taken in the window of the door where you can clearly see DB holding a smart phone.

So DB was at her grandfather's house for the party the day before and her grandfather (not DN, her father)gave him one of his old "plain jane" phones to use. She would have had to have it connected to her plan which she would have been unable to do if the bill was not paid. So IMO, the borrowed phone, while it was a working phone, was not connected to any plan and could not make or receive calls. Both her phone and JI's phone would still have been connected to the plan but were on some kind of restricted service.

So the phone that was accessed by someone that night is said to be DB's
phone. I have no doubt it is her original "broken" phone that they are talking about. An intruder would not know about the speaker/microphone issues either. It's quite possible that they tried to make a call to MW's number, the call was redirected to the call centre, but they couldn't really hear properly...hence why they may have stayed on the line for 50 seconds
wondering what was wrong. Her grandfather's "plain jane" phone also would unlikely have been able to access the internet and would not have had DB's voicemail feature so again, I believe that it is DB's "broken" phone that was being used that night.

I still do not have an opinion if DB is involved in Lisa's disappearance but I have to say that this phone information makes me believe that someone other than her was in possession of the phones that night.

Now what would really floor me is to find out that someone who lived within that 1/3 mile radius did take the phones at some point during the evening but had nothing to do with Lisa's disappearance. Jersey is a petty theif. All of this phone information points directly to him IMO. But I just don't see him taking a baby although he did have access to an empty house on N Chelsea.

MOO

I agree. Jersey was probably around there turning off sprinklers sometime around 11-11:30. He seems the likely guy to grab the phones and then try to sell them to a ring or the Dane fellow. Jersey's watering job was within a third of a mile and he would stay at that house.
Very interesting about the FBI...

 

[cityslick]

The dog hit and phone records are still evidence. I don't believe it will be difficult to get an indictment in this case.

JMO

What does the dog hit actually prove? The experts in the 'hit' thread even say its not a guarantee that it was a deceased body the dog hit on. Plus there were no other hits in the house.

Is there any evidence that excludes an intruder at this time?

 

[3doglady]

The dog hit and phone records are still evidence. I don't believe it will be difficult to get an indictment in this case.

JMO

If LE were able to get an indictment it would have been done IMHO. Even the dog experts will tell you that a dog hit plays a very small part in a trial. It is used to back up other evidence. Usually more than one dog has to hit in order to give it creditably.

 

[Evan's Mom]

Records of calls made, times and durations. Both DB and JI told the media that the phones couldn't make calls. Their media interviews also are evidence.

JMO

And you're still assuming evidence that has not been presented or shown to be any kind of fact. Nothing in known evidence proves Deb made the calls.
You can't just grasp at straws and assume guilt without real evidence. Anyone can guess and surmise anything, but nothing you've posted has pointed towards guilt. Period.

Seriously, prove Deb made the calls as opposed to someone else attempting to make a call. If you can't prove that, then you can't validate your argument.

 

[MyBelle]

John T stated today that DB's phone records show no calls to MW's number before that night. SB stated that DB's lights were out around 11pm. Why would DB dial 86? Why would DB try to access the internet from her phone? She stated that she knew the phones were restricted and also that she used the computer earlier that day. If she were trying to throw off LE why would she attempt to use the phone so close to home? If I wanted to make it look like some else was using my phone I wouldn't do it from my neighborhood. I would go somewhere to draw attention away from my home.

You're right. It doesn't look like anybody but DB used her phone. Drunks don't always make intelligent decisions. It's not a stretch for me to conclude the phone was tossed because DB didn't want cops to find her 'net browsing history.

imo, the lights on or off in the house at 11 PM isn't evidence of innocence.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

What does the dog hit actually prove? The experts in the 'hit' thread even say its not a guarantee that it was a deceased body the dog hit on. Plus there were no other hits in the house.

Is there any evidence that excludes an intruder at this time?

Are we sure there were no other hits? They would not necessarily list all of the hits in a request for a warrant, but only enough needed to succeed.

 

[In da Middle]

There is evidence. The dog hit in the bedroom is evidence. The telephone records are evidence. Changing stories are evidence. Lies are evidence. The more evidence they gather, the better.

JMO

The dogs hits in of of them selves are not evidence -they need clarification for very good reason, When it is verified by multiple hits or whatever they hit on is tested and found to have definite proof of it being baby Lisa being deceased, then it is evidence.

The phone records are evidence to me that somebody else that did not know the phones were restricted were trying to use them.

I have not seen any proof of lies. Remember LE wants the media's raw video and the media is STILL fighting the order for it.

But yes, the more they gather, the better for any conviction whomever it may be.

 

[Sparklin]

When did JI & DB find out their phones were on restricted access?

Oct 3rd in the afternoon, with no exact time specified.

 

[Kamille]

I agree. Jersey was probably around there turning off sprinklers sometime around 11-11:30. He seems the likely guy to grab the phones and then try to sell them to a ring or the Dane fellow. Jersey's watering job was within a third of a mile and he would stay at that house.
Very interesting about the FBI...

I really wish we knew how extensively that house with the sprinklers was checked. Was it checked inside and out for any traces of Jersey, Lisa and the phones? I know they were checking footprints outside but they should expect to find Jersey's footprints outside if he was maintaining the sprinklers. Any trace of him inside the home, and especially any traces of Lisa inside the home would pretty much point to him as being responsible for kidnapping her. I think once LE realized that he was in the area and that he had a habit of occupying empty homes when the homeowner was away that house should have been checked out as thoroughly as the Irwin house.

MOO

 

[katshep]

Ok then that would mean two people entering the home unseen unheard and snatching a baby along with three phones and then leaving the home with a baby still remaining unseen. Then making calls to get rid of one of the phones and then what? Idont get it

They weren't unseen. Neighbors first saw a man with a baby at 12:15am. The call to MW's phone was about 15 minutes earlier. Neighbors knew that Jersey had left the sprinkler on at the neighbor's, but it was off by 11:30 at about the same time a neighbor noticed the lights off at the Irwins. There is nothing terribly odd about two burglars. One might be a look-out and get rewarded with phones.

 

[MyBelle]

And you're still assuming evidence that has not been presented or shown to be any kind of fact. Nothing in known evidence proves Deb made the calls.
You can't just grasp at straws and assume guilt without real evidence. Anyone can guess and surmise anything, but nothing you've posted has pointed towards guilt. Period.

Seriously, prove Deb made the calls as opposed to someone else attempting to make a call. If you can't prove that, then you can't validate your argument.

I'm not grasping at straws. I saw the interview when both DB and JI said no calls could be made on the phones. The prosecution doesn't have to prove DB made the calls but they can prove she said no calls could be made on the phone. She also implied LE lied about the calls. Do you suppose LE also fabricated the burned clothes she said she was shown?

JMO

 

[Jacie Estes]

http://g.co/maps/7qpvg

please further note that the river is NOT in the direction of all these baby in a diaper sightings..............

if the phones were pinging (per the DT) by the river at 3am... than how does the perp get from the gas station to there.. and how does the perp than get back to the location of the 4am sighting..????

It may be near the Waffle House?

 

[cityslick]

I'm not grasping at straws. I saw the interview when both DB and JI said no calls could be made on the phones. The prosecution doesn't have to prove DB made the calls but they can prove she said no calls could be made on the phone. She also implied LE lied about the calls. Do you suppose LE also fabricated the burned clothes she said she was shown?

JMO

We haven't seen any proof yet that a completed call had been made either.

 

[In da Middle]

Records of calls made, times and durations. Both DB and JI told the media that the phones couldn't make calls. Their media interviews also are evidence.

JMO

They were records of calls ATTEMPTED. That word tells me they did not complete.

 

[Kamille]

The dogs hits in of of them selves are not evidence -they need clarification for very good reason, When it is verified by multiple hits or whatever they hit on is tested and found to have definite proof of it being baby Lisa being deceased, then it is evidence.

The phone records are evidence to me that somebody else that did not know the phones were restricted were trying to use them.

I have not seen any proof of lies. Remember LE wants the media's raw video and the media is STILL fighting the order for it.

But yes, the more they gather, the better for any conviction whomever it may be.

I agree In da Middle. The dog hit means nothing unless they were able to extract evidence from the area of the hit. The hit itself is not evidence.

I also believe the phone records point to someone other than DB "playing around with" the phones.

Where I have to disagree with you is on the lies part. I do believe that DB painted an incorrect picture to LE of how the evening went down in the beginning. She had very specific times and activities in her original story. LE said the next day there were no holes. But unfortunately, very large holes started to show up in her story and LE has still been unable to speak with her as to why she misled them in the first place. Personally, I think she was trying to cover for her negligent drinking and irresponsible parenting while being in charge of the children. It was only after the lawyers came on that she fessed up to the drinking and that she really wasn't the mother of the year that she had led us to believe she was. The lawyers likely told her that she would not be charged for her negligence which gave her the incentive to pronouce this on the "drunk media tour". And I'm sure it was their idea that she do this to gloss over all the lies that are now very apparent.

MOO

 

[Sparklin]

My view:
Cell phone is restricted on Oct.3 in the afternoon. Perhaps Jeremy is unaware this has happened. He calls, get verizon message.
Debs cell phone is broken, cuts out, hence the loaned phone.
Someone takes the cell phone, not knowing about the restriction, attempts a call - the phone 'cuts' out when it connects to verizon message...they carry on with whatever they are doing, possibly hiding out with Lisa. Later they try the voice mail in hopes there is no code...possibly it cuts out again..they try again, get verizon message. They need to contact 'whoever' they were calling on mw's phone. They try accessing the internet, possibly facebook to get in contact with said person....

Far fetched? Possibly...but no more so than Deb attempting to call from a phone she knew was restricted and she knows is broken, then attempting to access voice mail, on a phone she knows is restricted and broken, then attempting to access the internet, when she has a computer in her house. All while expecting Jeremy home at any minute.

 

[Sparklin]

JP says there is no other evidence than the FACT that DB was asleep. He's good!

We have NO evidence she was asleep Mr Lawyer. You have to take every single word they say and analyze it. They are masters at word manipulation.

Except the two boys went to bed with her at 10:30 and the 8 year old got up at some point and went into his own bed. I'm sure he would have noticed her up and about.

 

[MyBelle]

The dogs hits in of of them selves are not evidence -they need clarification for very good reason, When it is verified by multiple hits or whatever they hit on is tested and found to have definite proof of it being baby Lisa being deceased, then it is evidence.

The phone records are evidence to me that somebody else that did not know the phones were restricted were trying to use them.

I have not seen any proof of lies. Remember LE wants the media's raw video and the media is STILL fighting the order for it.

But yes, the more they gather, the better for any conviction whomever it may be.

The dog hit is evidence. It was enough for a Judge to order a search that lasted 17 hours. Multiple evidence bags were seen being carried out of the house.

The phone records are evidence that both DB and JI lied when they said no calls could be made from the phones.

JMO