Missing cell phones

[Kamille]

I think this is a case of bad wording by the reporter. It doesn't say that MW knows or was told that it was specifically Debbi's phone. The author seems to have wrongly surmised this from the one brief interview of MW that was aired. It hasn't been revealed anywhere which of the 3 allegedly stolen phones made the call. JMO.

P.s. Yesterday, examiner.com released an article stating that Debbi's husband SB was arrested in 2008 for a drive by shooting. The article was by an author previously approved by WS (and who, imo, has done some really good work on other missing person's cases). Some WS members contacted the author because it appeared that she got the wrong SB from another town in Missouri and it isn't Debbi's husband who was involved in the shooting; the author took down the article. I'm leary of examiner.com, regardless of the author, at this point. ALL JMO.

The examiner.com is just an online "news" site with freelance "writers". These "writer" are just people like the rest of us who comb the internet looking for info on a particular case and then write stories about them. They have no more info that we do and usually get things wrong.

MOO

 

[Claudette]

I am leary of ALL media at this point! They have done very little but get in the way as far as I am concerned in this case.

The only news source I 100% trust anymore is the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. They still take their news seriously. As someone who studied Journalism and wrote editorials for a newspaper in college, I get why they struggle nowadays not only with 24/7 on-air news, but now also 24/7 written news articles online. My hope is that in a few years they'll all figure out what they need to do to keep up with all of this and still keep their integrity. It is important to MANY (notice I don't say most or all) to keep integrity with spelling, grammar and facts and I trust that these people will finally settle into their news programs/papers/blogs in a few years and learn how to manage 24/7 news properly.

 

[katshep]

Gonna bounce off your post as I was backtracking trying to find actual words MW spoke...if she said she doesn't KNOW who answered it, that means she doesn't KNOW...(Right??) she won't be able to testify in court (if and when it comes to that) and change her story...it would either be impeached or never allowed in and I do think she is in (cooperative) touch with LE... IF that is the case...she does NOT know who answered the call...Since she spoke to the media, I am making the leap that she was asked to.. or else she went wayyyy rougue (I wish there was a smiley to represent rambling, random thoughts because I would have one on every single post of my own)

If MW provided sworn testimony that was inconsistent with her unsworn out of court statement to a reporter, that would be seen as an inconsistent statement and it would damage her credibility. However, she could possibly have her credibility rehabilitated by testifying that the reason her out of court statement was at variance with her sworn statement was that she was cooperating with authorities and was instructed not to disclose those facts to the media. It's not hard to imagine the response from the media, etc., if MW had said, "I can't tell you who placed the call, what was said or whether I, or someone else, took the call," instead of "I don't know..." The media caravan would have moved to her front step.

 

[balaney]

who is MW's boyfriend?

 

[Kamille]

When thinking about this 2:30ish am phone call, remember that it directly contradicts the 12:15am witness sighting with man carrying diaper clad baby on next street over. Unless we are to believe that the abductor was in an area "very near" to the Irwin home for at least 2 hours after the abduction.

MOO

 

[Wise Old Owl]

When thinking about this 2:30ish am phone call, remember that it directly contradicts the 12:15am witness sighting with man carrying diaper clad baby on next street over. Unless we are to believe that the abductor was in an area "very near" to the Irwin home for at least 2 hours after the abduction.

MOO

Very good point!

 

[Geralyn]

Its my belief (moo) that LE was looking for 'stolen' cell phones at the Irwin home. They searched the grounds both with metal detectors, and by hand...for something. Searching the roof, gutters, in the ring of homages under the flag pole, etc. Obviously not a search for the baby in those instances or with a metal detector.

In comes the MW call received info.

Putting two and two together, I think the cell phone call to MW pinged from the Irwin home.


A ping is generated when a call is initiated. A ping was obviously generated when the Bradley/Irwin stolen phone initiated a call to MW phone. So LE knows where that phone was at the time the call was initiated.

This could be a larger part of why LE is still so focused on DB. DB did say in an interview with JJP that the phones couldn't dial out...and she stated unequivacally that she knows that ...because she tried! (they replayed this bit again last night on JJP)

Unless someone paid the bill unbeknownst to DB....then DB lied when she said she tried to call out on them and they wouldn't call out. JMO Now...why would she have lied about that?

 

[Nannn]

If MW provided sworn testimony that was inconsistent with her unsworn out of court statement to a reporter, that would be seen as an inconsistent statement and it would damage her credibility. However, she could possibly have her credibility rehabilitated by testifying that the reason her out of court statement was at variance with her sworn statement was that she was cooperating with authorities and was instructed not to disclose those facts to the media. It's not hard to imagine the response from the media, etc., if MW had said, "I can't tell you who placed the call, what was said or whether I, or someone else, took the call," instead of "I don't know..." The media caravan would have moved to her front step.

Yep good point... She could also be speaking the "literal" truth meaning she Doesn't "know" as in met or is an aquaintance of ..the person who called OR ANSWERED it......she could be in the knowledge that it was DB's phone but she does not nor has ever "known" DB (or whoever called from the cell)

 

[la_cavalière]

Remember: Assuming MW is telling police she doesn't know where her phone was or who had it on Oct. 4, police can get the phone records and find out which cell tower the phone pinged on when receiving the call. So they will be able to get an approximate location of the phone -- whether it was at MW's house or somewhere else (friend, ex, etc.).

 

[yllek]

When thinking about this 2:30ish am phone call, remember that it directly contradicts the 12:15am witness sighting with man carrying diaper clad baby on next street over. Unless we are to believe that the abductor was in an area "very near" to the Irwin home for at least 2 hours after the abduction.

MOO

Enter motorcycle man... throw in a blob video between the couple and the motorcyle man and you've got the story of a man walking around with a baby for hours, or 3 men playing pass the baby. This, imo, is what BS either believes or, more likely, wants us to believe. I think the neighbor couple probably did see something, but it was either not related and ruled out quickly, or LE is holding it close to the vest. Motorcycle man identifying "the man whose picture they were showing around" (Jersey) who is much shorter and doesn't fit the description of the couple negates his sighting, imo. Blob is just ridiculous, imo.

No matter when Lisa was removed from the home, a 2:30ish call from a supposedly broken phone doesn't prove or contradict anything until we know who made the call and who answered it, imo. Could have been someone calling for help after something happened to Lisa, could have been someone calling to say the task is complete but we need to burn some evidence, etc... So many possibilities, it's driving me batty...:crazy:

 

[Nannn]

@yllek.. it is making me nuts too, as I over-think and then rethink as I am thinking... and then forget what I was thinking in the first place...I do know I am smarter than I 'sound' sometimes lol

 

[Geralyn]

I'm going to made a long anecdote short here:

My daughters purse with cell phone stolen at school. I reported to LE and to cell company (Verizon). (school reported to LE also)

All calls from that point routed to customer service. As phone owner, I was provided with all calls answered and dialed out from the the stolen phone... from time of stolen... to time of rerouted to cs.

I provided those numbers to the school... who ran through their database. One outbound call matched a student home number. Student was called in...confessed and returned the phone. The student info was given to LE but not to me, due to privacy laws, rules.

This took all of about 3 hours from my first call to Verizon to the school running the data and getting a hit. So...in our case, Verizon did not need an LE or court order to release that data to me.

 

[Geralyn]

I am leary of ALL media at this point! They have done very little but get in the way as far as I am concerned in this case.

I don't know, I get what you're saying but...it's a double edged sword.

They have been almost single handedly reponsible for keeping Baby Lisa in the news.

 

[balaney]

just wondering if the phones were tossed in water or burnt and that causes a malfunction and it dialed a random number or a number and nobody actually said anything or it dialed a preprogrammed number and in that case whichever phone dialed knew M or somebody actually dialed M on purpose - maybe they tried to call and the phone was shut off - not working but when it misfired due to water or fire it went thru for 50 seconds?

 

[balaney]

once again - is M's boyfriend any of the people that have been interviewed? anybody in M's family? a bro

 

[SuziQ]

sooo.... Three cell phones. None with service. One broken (which must have been discovered before service was turned off- or broken in an obvious manner, like having been smashed). Enter kid napper. Takes baby Lisa. Takes the phones (including the broken one). Carries all 4 out of the house (lotsa pockets?). Chooses the one that DOES happen to have service that DB thought did not. Able to make a call. Do i have this correct?
I am still :fence: and hanging on tight... It is just VERY windy up here...

Three cell phones total.

 

[balaney]

? who was working with J that night that may have called home and told their family they would be working until 4? If J did not or could not relay that info to D it does not mean someone else did not communicate that info to the "wrong" person

 

[Geralyn]

just wondering if the phones were tossed in water or burnt and that causes a malfunction and it dialed a random number or a number and nobody actually said anything or it dialed a preprogrammed number and in that case whichever phone dialed knew M or somebody actually dialed M on purpose - maybe they tried to call and the phone was shut off - not working but when it misfired due to water or fire it went thru for 50 seconds?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that LE questioning MW four times...is indicative of that not being the case. JMO

 

[not_my_kids]

Bear in mind, the examiner is a blog. Nothing more. There are some contributors that are verified to be reliable, but other than that, they are not a reliable news source. JMO.

 

[Sigh Sister]

@yllek.. it is making me nuts too, as I over-think and then rethink as I am thinking... and then forget what I was thinking in the first place...I do know I am smarter than I 'sound' sometimes lol

:floorlaugh: You explained me to a tee! I wish I would have taken a logic course or two in college. My mind has gotten tied into so many knots with this case. :waitasec: