Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[Jacie Estes]

Exactly. And I bet the service could not be transferred yet. Not until the account was made current.

It may have been the type of phone that you have to purchase a card with minutes/units to use, similar to TracPhone. The phone would then work, once the card was purchased.

 

[Little Ol Me]

Call Verizon. They will transfer the service from phone to phone regardless if you are late on your bill.

It's kind of like having a landline phone and being late on your bill. The phone company doesn't care what phone you have plugged into the wall. .. service will be restricted at whatever time regardless. It's the same with the cell phone. It makes no difference what handset you are using to access your service.

DN says that she transferred her service from her Smart phone to the plain jane one Sunday night. According to Jackie at Verizon, there are three ways to do that, on the web, over the phone, or in the store. I'm not sure why DN would say that if it wasn't true.

So the real question is, if whoever was attempting the calls, web, that night was using the Smart phone, would it ping to the tower without service? Idk, but it wouldn't register as DB's IMSI, as that would have been already reassigned to the plain jane phone and it would have most likely just said "No Service" on the screen of the phone.

HTH

bbm
Would a plain jane type phone have the ability or feature needed to attemp an internet access? I'm not sure it could.
For that reason I don't think she transferred service yet.

 

[hambirg]

bbm
Would a plain jane type phone have the ability or feature needed to attemp an internet access? I'm not sure it could.
For that reason I don't think she transferred service yet.

Yes.

I have a plain jane flip phone. I can access the web. It is not pretty though! :lol:

I"m not sure why somebody would want to, but I know it can be done. I used to IM on my plain jane when I had t-mobile. That wasn't bad, but browsing is slow and a pain. . not very practical.

MOO

 

[Whisperer]

My total take on ALL phones:

Deb's phone had speaker/mic problems therefore was NOT WORKING/broken.
Jeremys personal phone was fine.
BOTH of the above were on (partial?) restricted access as of Monday afternoon. (Possibly before that and was placed on full restriction at that time)

Jeremys work phone was fine all around.

Sunday when Deb was at the birthday party, her father gave her a plain jane, but UNBROKEN phone from her grandfather that he no longer used...and did NOT have service.

Sunday evening, possibly Monday morning, Deb was transferring #'s from her phone to her grandfathers that still had NO service.

When my daughter was late on her phone payment (different provider and in Canada mind you) when she phone to have some of her features removed...they wouldn't do it until her account was up to date, so I find it hard to believe that Deb could transfer service to her grandfathers phone when they were delinquent with their payments.

Mostly my opinion only

He said no such thing as monday morning. He distinctly specified Sunday Night. There was no Monday mentioned from the father. Where did he say it had no service?

Link please

 

[Whisperer]

Are we still discussing this transfer business?...good grief! You cannot use somebody else's phone on your service. You have to use the service assigned to that particular phone.

Of course you could order on line for a verizon phone and have it delivered and not go into the store but you can't take someone else's phone from a company, call them up and say, "hook me up".

My daughter and I are on the same plan. I want to use one of her old phones. They tell me I have to come in to the store to register it since it has been out of use for awhile.

 

[Whisperer]

we don't know if grandpa's phone was planned to be activated on the irwin's cell phone account or if it was active on another provider - or if it was unactive and the irwin's planned to activate it as part of their current cell service - or a completely different cell phone provider. we just don't know.

omg...nothing personal to you, Jade. This subject has been beaten to death. :deadhorse: on this thread.

We can pretty much figure gramps gave her an active phone. Why would he give her a dead one? It was already stated she was putting in numbers. I don't know how you do that on a dead phone.

Sometimes this stuff is way over thought. Her Grandpa gave her a phone to use...period. It was working, what good would it do her if it wasn't? Why even mention about reprogramming, etc...if she was given a dead phone and hers (allegedly) weren't working.

 

[jadejazzkayla]

omg.

We can pretty much figure gramps gave her an active phone. Why would he give her a dead one? It was already stated she was putting in numbers. I don't know how you do that on a dead phone.

Sometimes this stuff is way over thought. Her Grandpa gave her a phone to use...period. It was working, what good would it do her if it wasn't? Why even mention about reprogramming, etc...sheesh! This cell business has fired my last nerve..

we don't know if grandpa's phone was active or inactive when he gave it to the irwins. if it was inactive - i'm assuming the plan was to have it activated so they could use it.

 

[Whisperer]

DB has a fancy phone that wasn't working right (according to her). She told Gramps and he gave her his phone to use. All she really had to do was tell Verizon and they would have fixed her fancy phone. She was certainly not going to downgrade with Gramps' phone. It makes sense it was a loner to get her through the night. It was not fancy and most likely not something she would keep...when she can get her fixed or replaced.

My suspicions are she knew her service was to be disconnected and she wanted to make sure she had a phone to use. Dollars to donuts, Gramps phone was on a family plan, just a basic, which he didn't use often anyway.

I take nothing DB says as fact. I think her friend was correct when she stated she was a con artist.

 

[Whisperer]

What we don't know is who had access to all three phones. Was her brother living there? His addy was there at one time. Did he party with them that night? Did he have any friends with him? If so, what time did he arrive or stay?

I recall seeing a SUV at the end of the driveway. Was that JI's? Phils? or DB's? How did she lose her license? I digressed. I know this is a cell thread. How many cells were around the house that night?

I know the reasoning is that MW got a call and she knows Jersey so that puts him possible in the PIC. On the other side, we have a cadaver hit inside the house and the mother failing a poly. Which hold stronger ties to the case? Did Jersey kill the child inside the house and then hide her somewhere? Is that what people think? What is the reason for DB failing the poly then?

 

[Whisperer]

we don't know if grandpa's phone was active or inactive when he gave it to the irwins. if it was inactive - i'm assuming the plan was to have it activated so they could use it.

Why? When they have much better equipped phones would they want this one?

 

[Nixie]

Why? When they have much better equipped phones would they want this one?

Because DB's phone was broken....she might not have been able to afford a new phone.

 

[DeAnn]

What we don't know is who had access to all three phones. Was her brother living there? His addy was there at one time. Did he party with them that night? Did he have any friends with him? If so, what time did he arrive or stay?

Phil Netz did not live there. He had his own home that the Irwin-Bradley family stayed in for some weeks after Oct. 4. The initial official version is that he left his sister at her home around 5 p.m. Oct. 3. I've heard no mention of friends and I think by now we would have. I think all this information is covered in the appropriate thread.

 

[hambirg]

OMG. . .:banghead:


This is my take. . .

There were 3 phones. . .DB's smart phone, which had a broken speaker, JI's personal phone, and the loaner plain jane phone from Grandpa.

DN says that DB transferred her service from her broken phone to the loaner on Sunday night. He says she was manually transferring her contacts from her broken phone into the loaner phone.

All of the above checks out, as in, it's possible and makes sense.

Per the attorneys, the phones were put on restriction sometime Monday afternoon. They could receive calls, but couldn't dial out. Again. . .that checks out and makes sense.

Sometime during Monday night a call and internet access was attempted on DB's phone. I think that has to imply the loaner phone. The broken phone would not have any service. . .it's just a dead phone, like many of us have laying around in drawers, without service.

My question is would the Smart broken phone ping if it didn't have service? Would they be able to tell if somebody attempted a call on it? Idk. It would not be associated with DB's IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity). Her IMSI would be assigned to the loaner phone if she transferred service on Sunday, as DN says she did. But it would still have it's own unique MEID (mobile equipment identifier). If the attempts were made on the smart phone would there be any activity that they could link that MEID to DB's IMSI? Idk.

All MOO. . .but I think from all of the above that it is most likely that whatever this attempted usage was, it was on the loaner phone.

Why didn't JI's call from his work phone go through? Most likely I think DB had the phone off or the phone was somehow out of service. I sure would like to know what time it was that he tried to call her. :waitasec:

 

[Elley Mae]

we don't know if grandpa's phone was active or inactive when he gave it to the irwins. if it was inactive - i'm assuming the plan was to have it activated so they could use it.

What? why in the world would someone give a phone that has to be activated to someone who didn't pay a bill on the phone they own, forget about the broken mic or what ever and think about it.

 

[Elley Mae]

Because DB's phone was broken....she might not have been able to afford a new phone.

She couldn't keep the one she owned active.

 

[askfornina]

What? why in the world would someone give a phone that has to be activated to someone who didn't pay a bill on the phone they own, forget about the broken mic or what ever and think about it.

according to the information we have right now, DB got the loaner phone on Oct.2nd, because her phone was physically broken. the phones were not put on restricted access until the early afternoon of Oct.3rd. i'm not trying to argue, i'm just saying, that is the information we have been given.

i had a dream about cell phones last night. :crazy:

 

[Elley Mae]

according to the information we have right now, DB got the loaner phone on Oct.2nd, because her phone was physically broken. the phones were not put on restricted access until the early afternoon of Oct.3rd. i'm not trying to argue, i'm just saying, that is the information we have been given.

i had a dream about cell phones last night. :crazy:

I have not seen that, do you have a link to this info? the early afternoon of Oct 3 part.

tia

 

[askfornina]

I have not seen that, do you have a link to this info? the early afternoon of Oct 3 part.

tia

yes, certainly. two links, actually. here is an earlier post of mine in this thread:

both mentioned it.

Bill Stanton at about the one minute mark:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1270739314001/exclusive-cell-phone-records-released-of-irwin-family

"i'm not going to give the specific time, but sometime in the early afternoon"

JohnPicerno: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/11/1...h-bradley’s-phone-the-night-lisa-disappeared/

This phone problem that they had was when the phones were cut off and could only recieve incoming phone calls and incoming texts from early in the afternoon.

 

[cityslick]

OMG. . .:banghead:


This is my take. . .

There were 3 phones. . .DB's smart phone, which had a broken speaker, JI's personal phone, and the loaner plain jane phone from Grandpa.

DN says that DB transferred her service from her broken phone to the loaner on Sunday night. He says she was manually transferring her contacts from her broken phone into the loaner phone.

All of the above checks out, as in, it's possible and makes sense.

Per the attorneys, the phones were put on restriction sometime Monday afternoon. They could receive calls, but couldn't dial out. Again. . .that checks out and makes sense.

Sometime during Monday night a call and internet access was attempted on DB's phone. I think that has to imply the loaner phone. The broken phone would not have any service. . .it's just a dead phone, like many of us have laying around in drawers, without service.

My question is would the Smart broken phone ping if it didn't have service? Would they be able to tell if somebody attempted a call on it? Idk. It would not be associated with DB's IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity). Her IMSI would be assigned to the loaner phone if she transferred service on Sunday, as DN says she did. But it would still have it's own unique MEID (mobile equipment identifier). If the attempts were made on the smart phone would there be any activity that they could link that MEID to DB's IMSI? Idk.

All MOO. . .but I think from all of the above that it is most likely that whatever this attempted usage was, it was on the loaner phone.

Why didn't JI's call from his work phone go through? Most likely I think DB had the phone off or the phone was somehow out of service. I sure would like to know what time it was that he tried to call her. :waitasec:

BBM

LOL this is like the merry go round that never stops.

Why is it implied that the call came from the loaner phone? Two reasons why I don't think this is the case:

a) JP said the call came from DB's phone. I took that to mean DB's actual phone. Let's remember, assuming we are taking everything at face value, that we were told that LE told DB this (that the call came from DB's phone) and DB said that wasn't possible because they were restricted/broken.

b) There is no reason to think the loaner phone didn't have service. And we were told that the call didn't go through due to it's restricted status. The loaner phone wasn't on any restricted status, it was a seperate account (grandpa).

So the question remains, why would DB attempt to make an outgoing call to MW on her phone when her phone didn't work (restricted)? The loaner phone should of had service, or else why was she transferring contacts to it? Is there any evidence that we know that tells us the plan was to transfer cell service to that phone?

 

[Elley Mae]

BBM

LOL this is like the merry go round that never stops.

Why is it implied that the call came from the loaner phone? Two reasons why I don't think this is the case:

a) JP said the call came from DB's phone. I took that to mean DB's actual phone. Let's remember, assuming we are taking everything at face value, that we were told that LE told DB this (that the call came from DB's phone) and DB said that wasn't possible because they were restricted/broken.

b) There is no reason to think the loaner phone didn't have service. And we were told that the call didn't go through due to it's restricted status. The loaner phone wasn't on any restricted status, it was a seperate account (grandpa).

So the question remains, why would DB attempt to make an outgoing call to MW on her phone when her phone didn't work (restricted)? The loaner phone should of had service, or else why was she transferring contacts to it? Is there any evidence that we know that tells us the plan was to transfer cell service to that phone?

Because she was drunk and forgot.