Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[Allusonz]

Yes, pay a certain date or it is cut off, not it is restricted to incoming calls for a few hours and then later is is totally restricted. I have ATT and have had my service cut off for non payment. It was completely cut off, no incoming or outgoing calls.

Sometimes it is not even pay by a certain date.

Sometimes it is pay now over phone by credit card.

As well as verified by a previous poster re: Verizon it appears there policy is different regarding late payments et al

 

[oh_gal]

Re: voice mail attempt

In the last paragraph of this article:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/11/3260417/baby-lisas-attorney-explains-parents.html

it states:
The records also show that someone tried to access the voice mail and Internet browser on Bradley’s phone between 3:17 and 3:32 a.m. on Oct. 4, Picerno said. The activity took place one-fifth to one-third of a mile from the family’s home, he said.



Doesn't someone need to know the voicemail password to access it? Are we dealing with people who wouldn't know that, and would just try to access their personal voicemail on the phone (bumbling burglars); or did DB give someone her phone, as well as any pertinent passwords from time to time (so this was a friend, borrowing her phone); or is DB involved in this, together with whoever took her cell phone, and they (the person who took/had the cell phone) thought she was leaving a message for them to pick up?

I guess I don't understand why, if you stole someone's phone, you would even care to listen to their voice mails.

 

[natsound]

Re: voice mail attempt

In the last paragraph of this article:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/11/3260417/baby-lisas-attorney-explains-parents.html

it states:
The records also show that someone tried to access the voice mail and Internet browser on Bradley’s phone between 3:17 and 3:32 a.m. on Oct. 4, Picerno said. The activity took place one-fifth to one-third of a mile from the family’s home, he said.



Doesn't someone need to know the voicemail password to access it? Are we dealing with people who wouldn't know that, and would just try to access their personal voicemail on the phone (bumbling burglars); or did DB give someone her phone, as well as any pertinent passwords from time to time (so this was a friend, borrowing her phone); or is DB involved in this, together with whoever took her cell phone, and they (the person who took/had the cell phone) thought she was leaving a message for them to pick up?

I guess I don't understand why, if you stole someone's phone, you would even care to listen to their voice mails.

Posters have said that some phones are set up so you don't have to put in a vm access code to get in. On mine, you do have to punch an access code.

 

[oh_gal]

Posters have said that some phones are set up so you don't have to put in a vm access code to get in. On mine, you do have to punch an access code.

Thanks for that! But even if that were the case, why would you want to listen to the voicemail of some stranger, whose phone you stole?

If that is what occurred, I mean. Or has that theory (of the phones being stolen) been long dead?

 

[askfornina]

Posters have said that some phones are set up so you don't have to put in a vm access code to get in. On mine, you do have to punch an access code.

some posters have said that verizon requires a VM code. after some quick googling, that seems to be true.

http://support.verizonwireless.com/faqs/Features and Optional Services/visual_voice_mail.html

http://www.mobileburn.com/16114/news/att-to-require-voicemail-passwords-by-default-starting-today

this second link mentions AT&T in the headline but also mentions Verizon in the article.

 

[natsound]

Thanks for that! But even if that were the case, why would you want to listen to the voicemail of some stranger, whose phone you stole?

If that is what occurred, I mean. Or has that theory (of the phones being stolen) been long dead?

IMO, this is another reason to doubt the intruder/SODDI theory. I believe DB checked her own VM. It makes the most sense by a long shot. I also believe she punched in an access code.

:cheer: I am really glad you posed the question in the way that you did, because it does seem pretty bizarre that a SODDI would take the time to check a VM when he's got a stolen baby on his hands!! :escape:

 

[oh_gal]

some posters have said that verizon requires a VM code. after some quick googling, that seems to be true.

http://support.verizonwireless.com/faqs/Features and Optional Services/visual_voice_mail.html

http://www.mobileburn.com/16114/news/att-to-require-voicemail-passwords-by-default-starting-today

this second link mentions AT&T in the headline but also mentions Verizon in the article.

I have Verizon, and you need a code.

 

[deoneta]

I have Verizon, and you need a code.

I wonder if they could tell from the records whether DB's correct code was entered or whether someone hit 86 trying to reset the VM entirely or change the password. I've never tried to change a password so I don't know if you'd first have to enter your existing code in order to change your password as a security measure. I also can't figure why a random abductor would be interested in someone else's voicemail or try to reset the password. For a stolen cell phone to be useful for resale or use by the thief, would the thief have to replace the SIM card or can the phone simply be cleared of existing info and new info entered? It just doesn't make sense to me that anyone other than DB would try to access her VM. It also doesn't make sense to me that someone intending to abduct a baby would bother with the cellphones. It also doesn't make sense that a burglar would take cellphones, ignore any other items which might have resale value and impulsively kidnap a baby. I suppose a burglar might try to quiet a baby so as not to be discovered and cause harm to the child, but why remove the child? DB says the baby monitor was on, and she heard nothing, and besides, I think a burglar hearing the baby wake up would be more likely to simply leave. Makes no sense in any of the scenarios for a burglar to turn on all those lights. All MOO.

 

[cityslick]

IMO, this is another reason to doubt the intruder/SODDI theory. I believe DB checked her own VM. It makes the most sense by a long shot. I also believe she punched in an access code.

:cheer: I am really glad you posed the question in the way that you did, because it does seem pretty bizarre that a SODDI would take the time to check a VM when he's got a stolen baby on his hands!! :escape:

Actually, you could easily say whoever made the 11:57pm call would have expected vm's from the person they called. It doesn't have to be DB that made that 11:57pm call. Also, how do you know that the person that still had the phones by the vm attempts would still have BL by that time? The SODDI could have used the stolen phones (or attempted to) for communication since it's easier to dispose of them later, with no ties to you.

 

[Donjeta]

Actually, you could easily say whoever made the 11:57pm call would have expected vm's from the person they called. It doesn't have to be DB that made that 11:57pm call. Also, how do you know that the person that still had the phones by the vm attempts would still have BL by that time? The SODDI could have used the stolen phones (or attempted to) for communication since it's easier to dispose of them later, with no ties to you.

Why would the caller expect a vm from the person they called if they couldn't reach them because the call went to the service center?

*IF* the person seen by MT was the abductor he had Lisa after the VM attempts. Unless he'd acquired some other baby in the meantime.

IMO using stolen phones from the crime scene of the abduction isn't very sensible if you call a number with a traceable owner and not another stolen phone, because the police is sure to trace those calls and interview the receiver of the phone call who might give you up or otherwise lead them to you. If you called from your own phone, or a random phone stolen from somewhere else, the police might never have any reason to check the phone logs if you're lucky.

 

[cityslick]

Why would the caller expect a vm from the person they called if they couldn't reach them because the call went to the service center?

*IF* the person seen by MT was the abductor he had Lisa after the VM attempts. Unless he'd acquired some other baby in the meantime.

The 11:57pm went to the service center? I thought it actually called MW's phone?

That's correct about MT, assuming that was the same person. I'm not so sure though.

 

[deoneta]

The 11:57pm went to the service center? I thought it actually called MW's phone?

That's correct about MT, assuming that was the same person. I'm not so sure though.

The way I understand it, phone records indicate that a call was placed to MW's number, but that call went to the service center instead. The parents and their attorneys have said their phones were restricted so no outgoing calls could be made.

 

[oh_gal]

Why would the caller expect a vm from the person they called if they couldn't reach them because the call went to the service center?

*IF* the person seen by MT was the abductor he had Lisa after the VM attempts. Unless he'd acquired some other baby in the meantime.

IMO using stolen phones from the crime scene of the abduction isn't very sensible if you call a number with a traceable owner and not another stolen phone, because the police is sure to trace those calls and interview the receiver of the phone call who might give you up or otherwise lead them to you. If you called from your own phone, or a random phone stolen from somewhere else, the police might never have any reason to check the phone logs if you're lucky.

But wouldn't they mystery caller who left the VM have to know what number to call, to leave the VM? If there were no calls placed from the phone, but only attempts to listen to VM's, how would the mystery caller know what number to call? Unless it was their phone, or they had some insider knowledge (as in, so-and-so will have so-and-so's phone, and I know the number of that phone.)

So, again, why would you want to listen to some random person's VM, if you just stole their cell phone?

 

[Nixie]

Why would anyone try to listen to the vm on the phone? Doesn't really make sense no matter who had it. Why would DB be worried about her vm I really can't see someone calling her to say hey I dumped your baby's body if she knew her phones were restricted. Plus who would dump a babies body for someone? What would be on her vm that would be important enough to check it in the middle of all that? Then the intruder theory why would someone even try to use the phone besides the one time when they found it to be restricted? Cell phone thing makes no sense at all to me no matter what way I try to think about it.

 

[oh_gal]

Why would anyone try to listen to the vm on the phone? Doesn't really make sense no matter who had it. Why would DB be worried about her vm I really can't see someone calling her to say hey I dumped your baby's body if she knew her phones were restricted. Plus who would dump a babies body for someone? What would be on her vm that would be important enough to check it in the middle of all that? Then the intruder theory why would someone even try to use the phone besides the one time when they found it to be restricted? Cell phone thing makes no sense at all to me no matter what way I try to think about it.

Right. I think we're saying the same thing. If SODDI, why would he/she try to listen to a VM that wasn't intended for them? Which leads me to believe that SODDidn'tDI.

Has it since been disputed that someone tried to access the VM and Internet?

 

[In da Middle]

Again, according to AT&T when my phone was stolen, it is VERY common for a person who steals the phone to try to access the voice mail. Why? I haven't a clue as I am not a thief. the person who got my phone did just that - accessed my voice mail (no code on mine) and accessed the internet. The voice mail is stated as an ATTEMPT. That could easily mean that they TRIED to access the voice mail, but a code is needed so it only went to the message that the code was wrong.

 

[Donjeta]

Maybe he was checking if he got any "You unusual person, bring back the baby and the phone, now!" messages. It could be handy to know if your crime has been detected. Likewise for the internet search, trying to see if he was featured on any news sites?

What I don't understand is, why did he try to use just the one phone? The second might have been too broken to use but what about the third one?

 

[Minette]

I wonder if that one phone was newer/more expensive than the others.

 

[natsound]

Actually, you could easily say whoever made the 11:57pm call would have expected vm's from the person they called. It doesn't have to be DB that made that 11:57pm call. Also, how do you know that the person that still had the phones by the vm attempts would still have BL by that time? The SODDI could have used the stolen phones (or attempted to) for communication since it's easier to dispose of them later, with no ties to you.

It seems that if you have Verizon you need to put in an access code to reach the vm. Therefore, I think the owner of the phone checked the vm's. I can't buy that SODDI happened to know the access code.

Also, the last vm check came minutes before JI returned home. Wow, that's timing it pretty good for SODDI with the phones.

And, if SODDI had the phones, why would he let any call he was expecting to go vm? I would assume the phones would be on him, easily within reach.

 

[natsound]

Maybe he was checking if he got any "You unusual person, bring back the baby and the phone, now!" messages. It could be handy to know if your crime has been detected. Likewise for the internet search, trying to see if he was featured on any news sites?

What I don't understand is, why did he try to use just the one phone? The second might have been too broken to use but what about the third one?

bbm

Such strong language! I'm shocked!! :floorlaugh: