Interesting, thanks. If this is true then it is a shame that the system didn't catch DM soon enough to stop him from killing TB. If everything has been put into this system since 1999, there will be a record of all the evidence supplied when LB went missing, and we will know for sure whether or not the phone records were given to LE and what steps LE took to find her, exactly. Did they notice her electronic radio silence at the time, did they look into the ipad? The answers should all be in that system if it as described.
And speaking of which, the system can confirm my death everytime I go to the cottage, if my data trail is that important.
Well the thing is that things have to be put into the system data must be imported or keyed in. It seems that LBs case did not go into the system right away as LE did not seem to identify it as a missing persons case with a strong probability of foul play. Eventually LB would be in the system, and data would be entered for her.
They might take her health records, and import all of her appointments and prescription pickups. They might import all of her calls and SMS messages. All of her banking data
you get the picture. They would not be looking just at data around the time of her disappearance, but they might import a year or two of data in order to be able to see what her normal behavior and digital trail looked like, which could be compared with her trail after July 3. LE would be able to see when LB and DM first started calling and messaging each other a lot (when the relationship picked up steam) and follow that pattern through until her eventual disappearance, when DM was the most important person LB needed to get in contact with that day.
As for death by cottage, your trips would leave predictable patterns. Gas stops along the 400, debit transactions for ice and firewood, ferry tickets on the credit card, reappearance at work on Mondays
sure, your phone might not work were you are going but if you look at the big picture through big data, LE would be able to tell that you were going to a cottage by analyzing your purchases and patterns, for sure. The thing for LB is that all of her accounts went dead silent, permanently.
<rsbm>
So back to the point about 96% of our actions leaving a data trail behind us; say you're the kind of person who has everything in life, more than one person needs, and you know it, but you have a bunch of friends who don't. Do you begrudge your friends the things that you have, and ditch them for friends who can keep up with you financially, or do you not mind sharing what you have plenty of with them? If you have plenty of work, you can get them jobs, if you have plenty of vehicles you don't mind loaning them out, if you have a few properties you might not mind sharing them, and if you have more than one phone, you probably don't mind lending that out either, if you're not a materialistic person and you know that there is only so much you can actually use at one time. That could give someone a very easy opening to take advantage of your kindness in ways you could never imagine, in my opinion.
How about this as the long awaited and often requested frame up scenario, "Can I borrow your truck for a while? Oh, it's got your keys to everything else in that keychain, no problem, you can trust me. Can I borrow your spare smart phone, too? I dropped mine again. Hey, do you have a sharpie you're not using? I might want to graffiti a bathroom stall later." I added that bathroom stall in for dramatic flair.
I'm not saying that this is what I believe happened, but this is nothing if not a good example of why if the tattoo doesn't fit, maybe they should acquit.
All my opinion (and/or imagination) only.
Personally I think lending a person a phone is in the same league as lending them your underwear just too personal. And I think it would show an incredibly close and trusting relationship, which could be evidence in of itself.
People dont normally have a spare, activated phone with a current account that they have on hand to lend to people so they can pick up the entirely unpredictable bill. What if the lendee goes and buys $4,000 in bonuses in some online game? Thats the sort of irresponsibility you might expect from your twenty something friends as trustworthy as toddlers with parental protections off.
If you had the means, why would you not get your friend their own phone and agree to pick up the bill? Even a parent will not say, I cant get you a phone but you can use mine in emergencies. Its just not practical to do this for so many reasons.
I guess where it comes to borrowing a set of keys, you would be relying on eyewitness accounts and DNA to differentiate who was in that truck or building.
I think that DM and MSs big error is that they considered the only challenge to be not being identified, being anonymous, when they did this. Avoiding detection. In no way did they prepare for being investigated the incinerator was out in the open and clues were all over DMs (and familys) properties. LE only had to crack DM and MSs anonymity for the case to crack wide open.
