Missing cell phones

[vlpate]

Doesn't it have to be mtDNA? THe oldest boy is not DB's son. There is only mtDNA in the mother not the father.. (I think) LOL

You should look up "Cynic" here and ask him - he's the forum DNA expert :rocker:

 

[katshep]

BBM
That is downright scary.

So you just pick up a card at western union or get activation numbers and pick up de-activated phone. Put the numbers into phone and voila! service w/ fake number? What's the purpose? Only to deceive people right?


ETA: i read the wiki link. It's crazy the lengths people go to deceive. imo

You can buy a spoof pin over the phone and pay for it by western union. Use a payphone or a prepaid phone with prepaid minutes. The purpose is deception and crime in far too many instances. It is scary.

 

[vlpate]

If they're in the river, or some other body of water.

MOO

Or could she have given the phones to whomever was there that night? Was Deborah searched before she went to the Police Department? Not saying she had them on her, but it is possible.

Do we have a timeline of exactly how everything went down from the time 911 was called? How long did they hang at the house - how long before they went to the KSPD? Did the boys have backpacks when they left the house?

And if someone could tell me, have they been at Deb's dad's house from the beginning, or did they go there sometime after all this happened?

 

[jadejazzkayla]

I've always wondered why someone felt that they had to get rid of all 3 phones if apparantly only one of them may have had an incriminating call made that night. Why not leave the others?

we don't know that the phones were taken in order to get rid of them. The three phones may have been stolen on a whim. then the stealer person called mw's phone with one of the phones.

 

[ela_ss teacher]

WHAT IFFFF..... The person who lent the phone to Deb (Dad/Grandfather? I forget) knows pink hair lady. While Deb was programming the phones, that number was in there already and she hadn't gotten around to deleting it? Meaning, maybe that phone did call phl (if that was indeed the phone that called her) but Deb or anybody else in the house really doesn't know her. It may have been a mere misdial while programming the phones... maybe?? :dunno:

 

[Marple]

Wish we knew which phone it was that made the call.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

I wish we knew who made the call.

 

[Whisperer]

Who is the owner of the phone jeremy was using? you know, the one he said he forgot about..em..that was in his pocket?

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

IIRC DB said she had set the phones together on the counter because she WAS GOING TO reprogram them, not that she had already done it, or even started to do it. But I could be wrong, I've slept since then.

 

[vlpate]

I've always wondered why someone felt that they had to get rid of all 3 phones if apparantly only one of them may have had an incriminating call made that night. Why not leave the others?

Because it would look even more suspicious if the kidnapper took only one of the phones - like, say, the one with incriminating evidence - so he had to steal all three of them.

 

[vlpate]

IIRC DB said she had set the phones together on the counter because she WAS GOING TO reprogram them, not that she had already done it, or even started to do it. But I could be wrong, I've slept since then.

Well, I think all of those things will be explained with a simple, "I don't recall, I may have blacked out". She's already played the "blacked out" card to explain away her time-line discrepancy.

 

[vlpate]

Who is the owner of the phone jeremy was using? you know, the one he said he forgot about..em..that was in his pocket?

The call wasn't made from Jeremy's work phone, the one they called 911 from. As to who owns it, I would assume the company he worked for. I've not seen him listed under any particular company, thought he might just contract his work out. I've not found an electrician's license for him either, but Missouri may not post licensing information.

 

[3doglady]

Still think this call could be major (and so hoping it's a strong link leading to Lisa). But, the more I wrack my brain about it, there are reasonable scenarios that would render it unrelated and insignficant. LE and the FBI electronics experts and crime investigators are smarter than I. They knew about this early on. They questioned MW 4 times (according to her, at least). If she really received a call and has been questioned 4 times (we only have her word, for now), then LE knows her friends, family and associates. They've done their homework, imo.

This call is either huge and being kept very close to the vest, or it's nothing at all (no middle ground on its significance, imo). I don't for one second believe KCPD and FBI let a potential lead like this go. Stepping back a little, I can now see how this call might be less important than I originally thought. For example, could be Debbi's dad cancelled his old phone number before giving Debbi his phone and it had just been reassinged to somebody in that area code who knows MW. LE could have said the call came from the Irwin phone because Debbi claimed that she had dad's phone at the house and gave LE that number. So, LE told MW about the call coming from the house based on Debbi's story, rather than using ping data to determine the locaction of the caller (and LE may or may not have known the phone number ownership had just been tranferred to someone MW knows). MW could have really just missed a call in the wee hours, but LE led her to believe it was answered and questioned her multiple times before ruling her out. Had to be certain. Just one example of how this call and MW could be rather meaningless in finding Baby Lisa.

Doesn't appear MW retained a lawyer (if so, would her lawyer permit her to do an interview if she were incriminated?). Doesn't appear Stanton was even aware of this call to MW, per his admission that he never spoke to MW, on Judge Jeanine last night. As the PI, wouldn't he have the phone records for Debbi and Jeremy's phone numbers and scoured them?

On the fence regarding the significance of an alleged call to MW from the Irwin home. Waiting for more info...

I agree. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Most likely someone close to MW was on her phone plan. That person was a work contact for JI so the number was programmed in his phone. It could have easily been a accidental dial. The recipient of the call is not important IMHO but begs the question who accidentally dialed it and when.

 

[Peepers]

WHAT IFFFF..... The person who lent the phone to Deb (Dad/Grandfather? I forget) knows pink hair lady. While Deb was programming the phones, that number was in there already and she hadn't gotten around to deleting it? Meaning, maybe that phone did call phl (if that was indeed the phone that called her) but Deb or anybody else in the house really doesn't know her. It may have been a mere misdial while programming the phones... maybe?? :dunno:

That could be but that means DB was lying when she said the phones were not able to dial out, and if the call happened at 230 am DB would know if Lisa was still in her crib. It would also mean she lied about being drunk/passed out/blacked out whatever you want to call it.
Any way you slice it, the phones and call is the missing piece of the puzzle here. I hope LE knows the full story.

 

[huckleberryhound]

Because it would look even more suspicious if the kidnapper took only one of the phones - like, say, the one with incriminating evidence - so he had to steal all three of them.

Actually, the only way I can see this as true is if JI is the one who got rid
of them, DB could simply say, the other phones were in the bedroom with her,
or in a drawer, no one would question that. JI couldnt say that without
DB's knowledge, because she is the last one to see them.
And if a unknown kidnapper took them, how could the phones be any more
incriminating than a missing baby. Unless the kidnapper made a call to
someone that is unconnected to the family? But,still, why not just take the
phone that was used?

 

[jadejazzkayla]

That could be but that means DB was lying when she said the phones were not able to dial out, and if the call happened at 230 am DB would know if Lisa was still in her crib. It would also mean she lied about being drunk/passed out/blacked out whatever you want to call it.
Any way you slice it, the phones and call is the missing piece of the puzzle here. I hope LE knows the full story.

perhaps the phone lent to the parents by a family member was able to call out. simple with no lying involved.

 

[Whisperer]

The call wasn't made from Jeremy's work phone, the one they called 911 from. As to who owns it, I would assume the company he worked for. I've not seen him listed under any particular company, thought he might just contract his work out. I've not found an electrician's license for him either, but Missouri may not post licensing information.

I wonder if he is licensed. What phone did he use to call 911? I thought he used the one in his pocket..*cough*..the work phone. I think it would be of interest to find out who he works for...

....and who pays the bill on the phone in his pocket..

 

[katshep]

That only effectively blocks the callers ID. The call will still show up on a bill from the "spoofing" number. Exercise in futility.


There was a ping from one of the phones, so the phone had to be there - again, nothing to do with spoofing.

BEM:

MW didn't say anything about JI and DB's phones being deactivated. Spoofing works on deactivated phones?



So they used the phone number from one of their phones to show up on MW's phone to frame her? Frame her how? The true phone number, from the spoofer's phone would still show up on the bill. Did said intruder know the phones were deactivated and so bought the spoofing feature with cash before going to the Bradwin's? ]I think LE will ask for MW's phone bills, maybe even subpoena them during the GJ process. They already know where the number that called her originated from - one of the "stolen" phones - or they wouldn't have contacted her.

Responding to your arguments sequentially:

1. No, the spoofer's true phone number would not show up on the spoofer's bill. The spoofer does not have a phone bill. The spoofer purchases a prepaid phone and prepaid minutes for cash-- potentially untraceable. You can do it at WalMart. No bills. No questions asked. The call shows up on the spoofed phone's bill and counts against the spoofed phone owner's minutes and the spoofed number is reflected on the account of the person who received the call. There is no record for the spoofer unless LE can assiduously figure out the spoofing and trace to a specific spoofing company and subpoena records. BTW,one of the major targets of spoofers is 911. It doesn't matter whether or not the spoofer knows the phones are suspended, the spoofer just uses a phone number to make a call to MW or whoever has her phone for whatever reason--maybe so that when the call is traced, the spoofer's number is not id'd. I don't know what the framing aspect is, but I do know that spoofing conceals who made the call on caller id and on the bill and buys time.

2. We have no evidence that the phone pinged from inside the house, outside the house or down the street. DB says she was told by LE that one of the phones pinged. If it was a spoof call using one of the Irwin numbers, it may have caused the ping. As long as the battery is in the phone, it pings. One has to turn off the phone and pull out the battery to deactivate the GPS.

3. That was my fast typing. Apologies. MW did not say that the phones were deactivated, DB did. Probably the wrong terminology by DB. Phone companies do not "deactivate" the phone for nonpayment without an initial window of suspension of phone service which is why DB was apparently reprogramming her phones. "Deactivation" occurs when the entire phone account is closed and terminated with loss of phone number. In contrast, during account suspension the number and the account still exist. Spoofing does work on suspended accounts because the suspended account still has a phone number. So long as the spoofed party has the same number, they continue to be spoofed. Suspension of the account does not affect spoofing. If a person who is spoofed, terminates his account and gives up his phone number, the spoofing usually stops unless the spoofer gets wind of the new number..

4. No, it will not show as the spoofer's actual number on the bill. It shows as the spoofed number. If it did show up on the bill as from the spoofer's actual phone number, this would not be the enormous identity theft problem that it is. You should learn more about it. It really is nefarious and hard to investigate and prosecute.

5, As to the framing, I don't know... that was not my theory. What I do know is that if spoofing is involved, that person is obstructing and delaying the disclosure of their identity from whomever might trace the call to MW.

6. I also think they will subpoena MW's phone bill or have her produce them voluntarily, if she hasn't already produced them.

 

[RANCH]

I agree. The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Most likely someone close to MW was on her phone plan. That person was a work contact for JI so the number was programmed in his phone. It could have easily been a accidental dial. The recipient of the call is not important IMHO but begs the question who accidentally dialed it and when.

I'm confused here. Your saying that someone on MW's phone plan, but with their own phone and phone number is the recipient of the phone call in question? And this is why MW knows nothing about the call? Then why are the cops talking to MW when they should be talking to the person who the phone belonged to?

 

[mrye4709]

Hhmmmm, my son is on our plan and he doesn't live here. I also had an AT&T plan in my name (but daughter had the phone, they wanted a huge deposit for her to do it) and I had added a couple more phones that were for other people who paid their part of the bill, this actually lowered my daughters part of the bill. That could be a possibility. Now my daughter and SIL are on that plan and the others are out of contract and disconnected.