There are definitely more questions than answers regarding the phones. I think they are a very important part of the investigation. Police surely know everything they need to know about the phone records, the pings, etc. etc. I would imagine that information narrows down the suspect list significantly.
It doesn't make sense to me why anyone would attempt to use the phones after finding out they didn't work. Deborah was apparently aware that the phones were cut off before the 11:57 call. If an intruder was using the phones, they would have known the phones were turned off after the call, or the first attempt to dial voicemail, or the first attempt to access the internet. As I understand it, pretty much anything you do on a restricted phone is going to result in a message prompting you to pay your bill.
Also, didn't' Jeremy try to call Debra? I thought incoming calls were allowed. So if it was, would it go to her voicemail?
Incoming calls were allowed. There are conflicting/unclear reports on whether or not Jeremy attempted to called home. If Jeremy called Deborah from his work phone, it should have gone through. If the phones were sitting on the counter, Deborah might not have answered it. I don't know if Jeremy would be able to leave a voice mail at that point, or if it would go to a message stating the phone could not receive voice mails due to nonpayment.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20538450,00.html
Then came Oct. 3, a day on which several odd things happened. Irwin, who works at a friend's electrical company during the day, had a side job remodeling the lighting in a nearby Starbucks that evening. He spent time with his family between shifts, then drove to work around 5:30 p.m. "I told Deborah I should be home by 10 or so," he says. But the job was trickier than expected, and he didn't leave the Starbucks until after 3:00 a.m. And because they hadn't paid their cell phone bill and their service had been restricted, Irwin wasn't able to let Bradley know when he'd be home. Bradley says she was never worried because "I knew he was at work." Still, it was the first time Irwin had ever worked that late at night.
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/article1076929.html
About 5 p.m., Netz and Bradley returned from the store. Netz soon left. About 30 minutes later, Irwin headed to work at a Starbucks, but he did not expect the work to keep him away from home as long as it did.
~~~
Irwin finished his work at Starbucks at 3:45 a.m. and drove to his Northland home. Though he had worked through much of the night, he had not called home from Starbucks.
http://www.kctv5.com/story/15940122/source-says-4-hour-window-for-abduction
The Starbucks job kept Irwin longer than he expected, but he did not use his work cell to call home. Bradley has said she was not alarmed by the delay.
Police have been able to verify that Irwin was at the Starbucks until about 3:30 a.m. and nothing unusual occurred.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIjHoi9eYoA
John Picerno: This phone problem that they had was when the phones were cut off and could only receive incoming phone calls and incoming texts from early in the afternoon. She received a -uh, her husband, uh not her husband, her fiance Jeremy tried to contact her early in the evening to tell her that he was going to be late coming home, it went direct to the Verizon message, stating that the phone is not operable. And then the next thing that we have is FBI confirmation that at 11:57pm according to the phone records that they showed both to Joe and myself, that there was an outgoing phone call to MW that lasted approximately 50 seconds. There is absolutely no other phone calls that were ever made between the two, the FBI has all of the records. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that these two people knew each other, or that in any way were connected.
And if so, could she have retrieved it? Would it show on the front of the phone?
According to a phone expert at the end of this video, the voicemail wouldn't be able to be retrieved. It would go to the same message prompting the user to pay the bill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZn1mRfo8wQ
This is what Picerno had to say about the voicemails..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIjHoi9eYoA
John Picerno: Why would anybody be trying to access the voicemail, especially someone who knew that you couldn't access the voicemail because the phones had been turned off? So the owner of the phone had known from Verizon that the phones were no longer operable. and so, it doesn't make any sense for someone to try and collect that voicemail.
Megyn Kelly: I know you believe that this information could support the theory that this homeless guy, Jersey, who is in custody now on other charges, could be the man who possibly took this baby. Perhaps breaking into the house, trying to make a call at 11:57, and then trying to access the voicemail at 3:17 and 3:32. If the phones never got no more than a 1/3 mile radius away from the Irwin home, does that suggest to you, and if it was Jersey calling the voicemail, that would suggest that he sat within 1/3 of a mile of the Irwin home from the time he got in there around midnight to 3:30, why would he do that?
JP: Okay, first of all there is a big point we need to mention in terms of the voicemail access. What was hit was actually the code to get to the voicemail, which is *86, and that was hit twice. And, that doesn't get you into the voicemail, that gets you to the access of the voicemail and at that point you'd have to punch in your personal code unless it was preset. Once again, that supports the fact that the owner of that phone, knowing that the phone had been turned off, would have no reason to dial the voicemail to find out anything because they know that it doesn't work. So that makes absolutely no sense.
Here is another interesting video about the phones...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xdE2r_JPlc
I'm not sure if LE has Jeremey on any surveillance video, but I'm sure that his work cellphone pings and testimony from his boss should corroborate his alibi. JMO.
As far as I know, LE hasn't publicly confirmed surveillance video. I just went back and it does say he was on camera in my timeline. That's a mistake, but I can't go edit the post now. The Starbucks is on a busy street in Kansas City. There were likely many surveillance cameras in the area. I'm sure those were looked into.
Jeremy and his boss planned to work at the Starbucks that evening. It did take longer than expected. Jeremy's boss said he figured they'd be done around 11.
I can't link that information because I found it on another site and the article is not available from it's original source online. Jeremy's bosses, who are husband and wife, spoke with the Kansas City Labor Beacon in November 2011. The archives on their site only go back to 2012. The article can be found by googling "labor beacon lisa irwin".
They both speak highly of Jeremy. The husband says he is a "family guy, probably moreso than just about everyone I know." He said he would never speak out on Jeremy's behalf if he thought he could do something like this to his child.
http://www.kclaborbeacon.com/?zone=/unionactive/view_page.cfm&page=Archived20Publications