Missing cell phones

[Littleone48]

Someone over on another thread posted an interesting theory. What if one of the boys used the phone while mom was outside/passed out/drunk/gone and mis-dialed the number? She then comes inside/wakes up/whatever and convinces the child it was all a bad dream...(hence the supposed nightmare).

One of the Vandam boys had a "supposed nightmare" the night Danielle was taken....

 

[ruby2]

The phones and all of their info IS ALL ACCESSIBLE TO LE.. each and every phone number dialed, each and every incoming call whether answered or not.. Even if the *67 was used to block an incoming number, this is still all included in the itemized statement..even the blocked number shows up, every exact time and date stamp for each call incoming/outgoing, with the precise time of each and every call.. Every single text or media msg(pic/video) is also easily accessible as well, with time and date stamp and every word of the text msg.. Along with all pings of the phone.. All of this info is easy accessed WITHOUT HAVING THE ACTUAL PHONE.. hundreds of pages of detailed and itemized data of every single thing done on each of these phones.. Included in that as well is all Internet usage from each phone.. Each download or Internet or website surfed is time/date stamped.. The actual phone is not needed for Any of this easily accessed data from each of these phones..

The only thing that is not able to be accessed are photos/videos that were taken with the phone.. But the catch with that is all that has to be done if there were a photo that someone wanted to hide is to delete it from the phone.. There is no process to retrieve deleted photos/videos.. So the truth Is there is nothing that could have been hidden or concealed by these phones being destroyed or hidden.. Every single tiny bit of the data and details is easily accessed.. The phones being physically hidden would not have kept anything hidden whatsoever..

As far as perps taking the phones being stupid due to gps Tracking.. Well the truth of this is that dependant on the model phone they wouldn't be traced when they're powered off and if happened to be a newer model cell still would be untraceable or untrackable by simply popping the battery out of the back of the phone.. Takes 2 secs to do this and the phones are rendered absolutely UNTRACEABLE IN EVERY WAY WITH NO PINGS WHATSOEVER, period..

In knowing the ^above^ described information there is nothing that Debbie or Jeremy would have been able to conceal from LE by their destroying or discarding the cell phones.. Therefor IMO I do not see it as a motive for hiding the phones when the truth is hiding the physical phone in reality hides NOTHING WHATSOEVER!

BBM. This is not true. We had an assault in our neighborhood recently where 2 tweens assaulted a couple of little kids (one of the tweens lives just 4 houses away from me & I have 2 little girls!). They photographed and videoed the assault, but then deleted the pics/videos. The police were able to retrieve the pics and videos. It's just like a computer: you can delete a pic, you can even empty the trash can; but UNTIL THAT "SPACE" IS WRITTEN OVER WITH NEW DATA, IT CAN BE RESTORED.

Link from MSM for the case in my neighborhood where they state the video was recovered after the boys tried to erase it:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110628/NEWS97/706289927

 

[Sigh Sister]

Ayup. She's drunk, he's late, she's jealous - real or imagined reasons - bad things happen under those circumstances. And she has him convinced it's all his fault...so he helps.

That's my theory in a nutshell!

 

[JeannaT]

About 1:40 in the video. MW with pink hair: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29612215/detail.html#ixzz1c5NTJ5st

OH MY GOSH I JUST LISTENED TO IT AGAIN - she says "I don't know who answered it or what was said"

WHAT?????? Her phone was answered at 2:30 a.m. and she DOESN"T KNOW WHO ANSWERED IT?

Uhh it would surely be a very short list of people. This is just nuts. Did everyone else hear her say that? "I don't know who answered it or what was said"

 

[Wendy101]

I hope this all means the walls are closing in .....

 

[Cher352]

Thinking out loud here................

Wasn't one of the stolen phones donated by "grandpa"? What if it was THAT phone that called MW? Does she know him? IDK if the donated phone was even working - but just a thought I had.

JMHO

Kind of on the lines of what I am thinking.

So maybe the grandpa had just removed the sim card from his old phone and put into his new phone, then gave his old phone to DB.

If LE were to pull the records on the old phone's telephone number they would actually be pulling the records of grandpa's calls made on his new cell phone.

Someone pls refresh my memory....was this "grandpa" related to JI or DB?

 

[tehcloser]

That's my theory in a nutshell!

It's really starting to make more sense. The neighbor/drinking buddy goes home about the time hubs is supposed to be home from work, they had prolly' been dissing him all night. She' already worked up and ready to confront him...ugly things.

 

[Katana]

And could she have snapped to the point she did something to Lisa to get back at him?

It's possible. I thought maybe she became overwhelmed with the kids and flipped out but, JI messing around could have caused her wrath. If she expected JI home at 10 and here it is the middle of the night and he still isn't home so she begins to think he is with this other woman. Maybe this has even been an issue for them before and maybe JI was really with someone else that night. This would explain his suspicious behavior and what he is hiding. Plus, he could have felt guilty so he helped cover for DB.

 

[nursebeeme]

IS this Jersey's girlfriend? Have I missed something or is everyone just speculating on something here - to me, he'd be in cuffs if so.

Just jumping off your post:

it has not been reported that this is the ex girlfriend of Jersey... if anyone would like to pose that as a theory please take it to the theory thread as a possibility

thanks peeps:rocker:

 

[not_my_kids]

What if...while DB was outside having her wine and the boys were inside supposedly being good and watching a movie, they played with the phone, dialed a random number, later, already schnockered, DB looks at the phone, sees the last number dialed, and without looking at the time it was placed, assumed that it was JI that called someone and that someone is the reason he's not home.

(However, then we would likely be hearing that there were two calls made from the stolen/broken/restricted phones.)

 

[frankie069]

Ok here is my question, how doesnt this MW girl, not sure if we can use her name even though she was on TV but, she doesnt know who answered her phone or what was said?? I have to relisten to the interview with her again, but once again that doesnt make sense to me. Now in her defense she said she doesnt know this family and has sat down with LE 4x now which is more than DB or JI have. What if her phone number was close to another number that DB or JI was trying to call and when they dialed they dialed wrong and got MW instead? Maybe the police should check out if this is a possibility, we have all misdialed a number before. Either that or this MW is lying too and thats just too many people not telling the truth as far as I am concerned. I think her number was dialed by mistake, her exchange is probably the same as the person they were trying to call (maybe this person was supposed to be at their house by this time and were late, hence the reason another call wasnt made after that because this person showed up in the meantime) Just a guess here... But I guarantee she might have been a misdial. Any thoughts and here is the vid once again in case you didnt see it from up above...

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29612215/detail.html#ixzz1c4vqPWj6

 

[Sigh Sister]

OH MY GOSH I JUST LISTENED TO IT AGAIN - she says "I don't know who answered it or what was said"

WHAT?????? Her phone was answered at 2:30 a.m. and she DOESN"T KNOW WHO ANSWERED IT?

Uhh it would surely be a very short list of people. This is just nuts. Did everyone else hear her say that? "I don't know who answered it or what was said"

Maybe her cell was stolen too! :crazy:

 

[Cazzie]

This is sort of coming together for me. With Jersey originally living with this girlfriend a few houses down from the Irwin's home per his court dockets, (their landlord who was in the news had orange hair didn't he in the one video?), JT having a friend he'd visit per the older woman who dropped him off across the street from the Irwins home, the phone call to the girlfriend's phone....now what happened DB to Lisa that night? hmmm

ICBM, but I thought the former landlord lives a few doors down from the abandoned house that was torn down after its cistern was searched. And that's where Jersey visited his g/f, who former landlord kicked out becuz she didn't pay her rent.

A nice older lady neighbor of his gave Jersey a ride to the house across from JI's.

That's my understanding...

Is there a house a few doors down from JI in Jersey's court dockets? Do you have a link?

 

[josh816]

The phones and all of their info IS ALL ACCESSIBLE TO LE.. each and every phone number dialed, each and every incoming call whether answered or not.. Even if the *67 was used to block an incoming number, this is still all included in the itemized statement..even the blocked number shows up, every exact time and date stamp for each call incoming/outgoing, with the precise time of each and every call.. Every single text or media msg(pic/video) is also easily accessible as well, with time and date stamp and every word of the text msg.. Along with all pings of the phone.. All of this info is easy accessed WITHOUT HAVING THE ACTUAL PHONE.. hundreds of pages of detailed and itemized data of every single thing done on each of these phones.. Included in that as well is all Internet usage from each phone.. Each download or Internet or website surfed is time/date stamped.. The actual phone is not needed for Any of this easily accessed data from each of these phones..

The only thing that is not able to be accessed are photos/videos that were taken with the phone.. But the catch with that is all that has to be done if there were a photo that someone wanted to hide is to delete it from the phone.. There is no process to retrieve deleted photos/videos.. So the truth Is there is nothing that could have been hidden or concealed by these phones being destroyed or hidden.. Every single tiny bit of the data and details is easily accessed.. The phones being physically hidden would not have kept anything hidden whatsoever..
...
In knowing the ^above^ described information there is nothing that Debbie or Jeremy would have been able to conceal from LE by their destroying or discarding the cell phones.. Therefor IMO I do not see it as a motive for hiding the phones when the truth is hiding the physical phone in reality hides NOTHING WHATSOEVER!

BBM. Much of the above is inaccurate or only applies to certain carriers. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/09/cellular-customer-data/

 

[frankie069]

Courtesy of NotMyKids post here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7292129&postcount=573

I just have a problem with MW saying she doesnt know who answered her phone or what was said because, well, if someone answered my phone it would have to be someone in my house and I could narrow that down asap. Hubby or son.. which one of you answered my phone... Unless that is a burgular came in and answered it..

Thats what I find hinky about what this woman said. Otherwise I would like to think it a mis-dial like i said before. But that is odd she doesnt know who answered her phone, does anyone else feel that way.

 

[Nannn]

Could be.

But.

At some point these "coincidences" are going to stop being someone else's fault.

At what point do we stop making excuses and coming up with wild theories explaining away DB's lies?

It's possible the phone company screwed up, yes. It's also possible DB lied.

I'm just so frustrated and want Lisa found, and this case is driving me bonkers!!

Agree and I'd bet the farm the police think the same thing...it is too much for any rational mind to suspect anyone besides the parent(s) I hope they do have a paralell investigation going, as they should, but I think they are quietly building their case against DB and/or JI...particularily with the CA case so fresh in everyone's minds and attitudes...I would be holding anything very close to the vest, if I were them...I assume they have the answers to these questions that are making us all nuts, but as much as we want to know, it is in the best interest in justice for them to keep silent...they are getting much better advice than DB and JI, and are listening to it!

 

[Marple]

Could be.

But.

At some point these "coincidences" are going to stop being someone else's fault.

At what point do we stop making excuses and coming up with wild theories explaining away DB's lies?

It's possible the phone company screwed up, yes. It's also possible DB lied.

I'm just so frustrated and want Lisa found, and this case is driving me bonkers!!

When people hold an opinion, they tend to seek out and attend only to the evidence that will support the conclusion they've already reached.

This is something I learned when studying about Confirmation Bias and it seems we've seen this proven in little Lisa's case. I'm not saying that YOU are doing this, just that your question made me think of it. I personally want to believe that little Lisa's parents loved her and would never have harmed her. IOW, I am on the fence but perhaps I am the last one!

 

[nursebeeme]

Ok here is my question, how doesnt this MW girl, not sure if we can use her name even though she was on TV but, she doesnt know who answered her phone or what was said??

http://www.kmbc.com/news/29612215/detail.html#ixzz1c4vqPWj6

respectfully snipped by me..

it has been said the call went to her voicemail... I think her statement about not knowing who answered it was taken out of context... just my :twocents:

(aside: we are only using her initials at this time)

 

[Cher352]

Exactly, and this is the reason the children are not being interviewed today.

moo

OT but I think the reason this interview along with the press tour of the house scheduled for yesterday were cancelled is because Cyndy Short, the local attorney representing little Lisa’s parents has been taken off the case.

From the same link as video about phone call.
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/2...wins-brothers-lawyer-off-the-case/#more-78323

 

[Sigh Sister]

I just have a problem with MW saying she doesnt know who answered her phone or what was said because, well, if someone answered my phone it would have to be someone in my house and I could narrow that down asap. Hubby or son.. which one of you answered my phone... Unless that is a burgular came in and answered it..

Thats what I find hinky about what this woman said. Otherwise I would like to think it a mis-dial like i said before. But that is odd she doesnt know who answered her phone, does anyone else feel that way.

It is an odd thing to say.