Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[askfornina]

ron rugen on FB:

Rugen Team Investigations, LLC Missouri Private Investigator
A source, speaking with me on condition of anonymity, gives me unequivocal confirmation that 50 second phone call from Deborah Bradley's phone attempted to Megan Wright's phone did NOT go through. This could make Dane irrelevant. There will be some scrutinizing my source, but I have one that and am satisfied.

soooo, there's that.

 

[natsound]

ron rugen on FB:



soooo, there's that.

Yep, I believe it. I really think DB was trying to reach Jersey. I think Jersey gave her the phone number several weeks earlier, when he was still dating MW.

The call, and whether it went through, is a game changer for me. Since the call did not go through (if we are to believe Rugen), I believe that DB acted alone in taking care of business that night.

 

[Innovative PI]

Regarding MW's Facebook update on 10/4/2011 at 1:36 am using someone else's cell phone. Does anyone know what that update said or even better have a screenshot of it?

 

[natsound]

Regarding MW's Facebook update on 10/4/2011 at 1:36 am using someone else's cell phone. Does anyone know what that update said or even better have a screenshot of it?

Innovative, I do believe the content of that post is in the Jersey/MW thread somewhere. You may have to do a search.

 

[Innovative PI]

Please disregard. I found it elsewhere. Thank you.

 

[Elley Mae]

Strange part is the post at 1:27pm Oct 4, she never mentions the busy morning she had with LE about the call from the night before from deborah's phone.

 

[Elley Mae]

Please disregard. I found it elsewhere. Thank you.

Welcome to Websleuths!:seeya:

 

[Tuffy]

Strange part is the post at 1:27pm Oct 4, she never mentions the busy morning she had with LE about the call from the night before from deborah's phone.

I don't know that I would consider it strange that she didn't put her encounter with LE on her Facebook page. Initially, she did not want to go public with her involvement with the investigation.

 

[LisaB]

Not possible. We wouldn't know about the 11:57 call if it didn't show up on the phone records.

I believe the premise here is that the phone "bill" (or statement if it was pre-paid) would not show the 11:57 call, but that Verizon's internal records would. The FBI would have accessed those, the phone owner probably could not. Furthermore, the phone company MAY have insisted they pay the back debt prior to releasing this information to them.

 

[LisaB]

This was a call that was placed, or attempted. This was not a ping. If it was a call that was placed or attempted, it's going to be on the records.

Several weeks ago, another poster told us about a phone they had stolen, and someone attempted calls after the phone was turned off. Those calls showed up on the records.

Could this have been because the phone had been reported stolen? I know I have dialed calls before and hung up becasue nobody had answered and I had an incoming call. None of the incompleted calls show up. If I dial and hang up before anyone (or voice mail) answers, it is not on my bill. But I bet Verizon would have a record of that somewhere as long as it connected to their network, however briefly. If I just dialed (212)456-789... and then hung up without dialing the last digit, I don't think even Verizon could know that.

 

[In da Middle]

This was a call that was placed, or attempted. This was not a ping. If it was a call that was placed or attempted, it's going to be on the records.

Several weeks ago, another poster told us about a phone they had stolen, and someone attempted calls after the phone was turned off. Those calls showed up on the records.

If you are talking about when my phone was stolen, the calls that were made after I had my service suspended did NOT show up on my bill. AT&T told me about them and they were attempted calls. My bill only showed calls that I was responsible for. They backed out any calls that were made between the time I last made a call and when I suspended my service. When I had my service suspended, but not cancelled yet because I was hoping for my phone to surface someplace, the person that had my phone was ATTEMPTING to use it. They also did access my voicemail before I knew my phone was missing and again after I had my service suspended. They also ATTEMPTED to surf the web, but couldn't as I dont have wifi and my service was suspended. AT&T says they could see what sites they tried to access also. I didn't catch the actual voicemail access until I was sure I didn't have it at that time. When I had my service suspended in this time period my phone could not receive nor accept calls I just had the service held until I was sure that I didn't just misplace my phone so re-activating it would be easier.

 

[Blessed2Bme]

If you are talking about when my phone was stolen, the calls that were made after I had my service suspended did NOT show up on my bill. AT&T told me about them and they were attempted calls. My bill only showed calls that I was responsible for. They backed out any calls that were made between the time I last made a call and when I suspended my service. When I had my service suspended, but not cancelled yet because I was hoping for my phone to surface someplace, the person that had my phone was ATTEMPTING to use it. They also did access my voicemail before I knew my phone was missing and again after I had my service suspended. They also ATTEMPTED to surf the web, but couldn't as I dont have wifi and my service was suspended. AT&T says they could see what sites they tried to access also. I didn't catch the actual voicemail access until I was sure I didn't have it at that time. When I had my service suspended in this time period my phone could not receive nor accept calls I just had the service held until I was sure that I didn't just misplace my phone so re-activating it would be easier.

Hi In Da Middle!! I have been a longtime lurker/ reader here @ WS. I enjoy reading your insight on the case with it being so close to home.. Just a quick question to the above post. Sorry to put you on the spot but if you don't mind sharing with us on where your cell phone was stolen from? Sorry if you answered this already.

 

[Detective Klimpt]

Well, the obvious would be that if the phones are still in the home, they can't claim that it was some intruder using them during the time that DB says she was in bed asleep. If she wasn't asleep and was in fact using the phone(s) herself, the only way to try to cover that is to claim someone took the phones when they took the baby, and the kidnapper/phone thief was the one using (or attempting to use) the phones. Hypothetically, if someone wants to claim a baby was taken while they were asleep, what to do about the phone usage that shows they weren't?

I see your point and respect your view. I just don't agree with it. If the phones were in DB's possession at 3:15am, then they were in her possession at midnight when the call was made to MW's phone. Because I do not believe DB made that call to MW's phone, I can't believe she had the phones at 3:15am either. I just cannot believe that after disposing of BL, DB would be screwing around trying to access VM and reach the internet.

My apology for belaboring this issue. I am very stumped by the call to MW's phone. Until someone can tie DB/JI to that number, nothing makes sense to me.

 

[yllek]

I see your point and respect your view. I just don't agree with it. If the phones were in DB's possession at 3:15am, then they were in her possession at midnight when the call was made to MW's phone. Because I do not believe DB made that call to MW's phone, I can't believe she had the phones at 3:15am either. I just cannot believe that after disposing of BL, DB would be screwing around trying to access VM and reach the internet.

My apology for belaboring this issue. I am very stumped by the call to MW's phone. Until someone can tie DB/JI to that number, nothing makes sense to me.

BBM

That's the puzzler for me as well. One thing I've considered is that there were more people at the house that night that we have not yet heard about. I've always considered this a possibiity and moreso when Young made it clear that one of the questions he wants answered separately by the parents is who was coming and going from the house that night; that question has not been answered to LE's satisfaction.

Witnesses do not need to speak to the media and may have good reason not to do so. LE isn't giving anything up and the parents aren't talking. Samantha Brando isn't saying anything publicly and neither she nor Debbi (in any public account) have confirmed or denied whether others were present. Shane confirmed he was there for a while. He also did not mention whether he was the only one there with the two ladies or not. I believe it's possible that there was more social activity that has not been revealed publicly. Debbi says she was drunk; she doesn't remember some things. She says she often drinks at house gatherings and just goes to bed without saying goodnight to guests.

Could be someone was there hanging out drinking and just picked up a phone off the counter and tried to call Megan around midnight, only to find the phone was restricted. End of story. Maybe Jersey, maybe someone else. I'm not convinced that it has to be Debbi or Jersey who made the attempted midnight call because I don't know whether they have acquaintances in common, but it could be. I also don't think the midnight attempted call and the later attempts to check VM and internet had to have been done by the same person (or even the same phone; there were three allegedly on that counter).

I, like LE, want to know who was coming and going that night. That call might make much more sense if we knew. It might really help to find Lisa too, that is what I want most, along with everyone else here at WS.

 

[Sherbie]

I see your point and respect your view. I just don't agree with it. If the phones were in DB's possession at 3:15am, then they were in her possession at midnight when the call was made to MW's phone. Because I do not believe DB made that call to MW's phone, I can't believe she had the phones at 3:15am either. I just cannot believe that after disposing of BL, DB would be screwing around trying to access VM and reach the internet.

My apology for belaboring this issue. I am very stumped by the call to MW's phone. Until someone can tie DB/JI to that number, nothing makes sense to me.

You're not belaboring the issue at all! It's a very interesting and vital aspect of this case. I was just giving a hypothetical for why DB might want to get rid of the phones, even though records would still be available. It's perplexing. I wish we could know more.

 

[deoneta]

I see your point and respect your view. I just don't agree with it. If the phones were in DB's possession at 3:15am, then they were in her possession at midnight when the call was made to MW's phone. Because I do not believe DB made that call to MW's phone, I can't believe she had the phones at 3:15am either. I just cannot believe that after disposing of BL, DB would be screwing around trying to access VM and reach the internet.

My apology for belaboring this issue. I am very stumped by the call to MW's phone. Until someone can tie DB/JI to that number, nothing makes sense to me.

The fact that the phone from which the call was placed belongs to DB is enough for me to view the call as most likely coming from DB. I don't rule out other possibilities, but DB seems the most probable caller, imo. I wonder if the attempts to get online (maybe sucessful) were attempts to send to or get a message from someone's phone with AIM (or another message program) or e-mail. All MOO.

 

[katydid23]

The fact that the phone from which the call was placed belongs to DB is enough for me to view the call as most likely coming from DB. I don't rule out other possibilities, but DB seems the most probable caller, imo. I wonder if the attempts to get online (maybe sucessful) were attempts to send to or get a message from someone's phone with AIM (or another message program) or e-mail. All MOO.

I agree. And I agree with yllek,above, that the call might not have been for MW, but for someone at her boarding house. I remember that someone had been using the phone all night. Maybe she was given that number to reach him for some reason. IDK

 

[MyBelle]

True, but what would be the point to doing that since LE is obviously able to find out the activity on the phones anyway? And now that LE knows the activity, nothing has come of that knowledge. I can see of no good reason for DB or JI to get rid of phones, especially since now the activity found on those phones are not incriminating either DB or JI. Sorry, belongs on the cell phone thread, but the subjects on this case are so intertwined it's difficult to stay on track.

Sticking to my theory that the cells phones were truly stolen but not necessarily associated with BL.

I think the cell phones are tied to drug activities and debts. LE would not be able to access any web browzer information without the phone. Such as whether someone googled a map. Using the phone's web to find a map to a location would certainly be reason to dump the phone.

JMO

 

[DeAnn]

I was surprised the cell phone was found in the Michelle Parker case. Wonder how? I so wish the cell phones would turn up here. What a treasure trove and so much help so we'd stop going round and round.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Hi In Da Middle!! I have been a longtime lurker/ reader here @ WS. I enjoy reading your insight on the case with it being so close to home.. Just a quick question to the above post. Sorry to put you on the spot but if you don't mind sharing with us on where your cell phone was stolen from? Sorry if you answered this already.

Welcome to the forums Blessed2BMe :great: