Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[vlpate]

Interesting quote I hadn't seen before from LE re: phones from Nov.15th



http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/1...brother.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

Great find. I hadn't seen this before either. It's doubtful then, that Picerno knows quite what he professes to know about the phone records. Maybe he knows some, but has left much out. I've never understood why the FBI would sit down and go over them with the DT. Maybe they went over a list of numbers the FBI had questions about - but not the actual bills, IMO.

 

[iamnotagolem]

Maybe there was a picture on the phone that was imperative to hide.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I'm wondering, if DB or JI wanted their phones to disappear along with the baby, why would they have needed a 3rd phone to disappear. Makes no sense to me if you are going to commit a crime to involve another cell phone. I don't get the logic that borrowing the phone was hinky, in fact, I would say it points toward them not involved in any way with the phones. It would mean that many more chances of LE finding them.

 

[mrsu]

Bringing it over from another thread, where I said I think LE believes at least one of the phones was tampered with.

I don't believe there is a SODDI (JB is still a small thought, but unless there is some other evidence or a stronger motive, I don't think so.)

DB says she had been having problems with her phones.

JI made some cryptic comment about "somebody who was cheating on her husb. . ."

It is just a theory of mine, that JI might have been monitoring DB's phone. A night when he was going to be at work for the first time, DB was going to be partying with a neighbor who is apparently a cheater and who's husband was also going to be gone. . .JI might have wanted to know what was really going on. And I'm not totally convinced that his suspicions were wrong. LE has said, in a case where they have said so very little, that they need to speak to DB and JI separately and that they have questions about who was there that night.

ETA. . .phone tampering is a federal crime. It would explain the FBI involvement, because I am not convinced the FBI was still involved in an alleged "kidnapping" on Oct 19th, when LE had been searching the landfill early on. . .also the woods and the river. In the Ayla Reynold's case the FBI left almost as soon as they arrived. The same in the Sky Metalwala case. . .they left as soon as they were convinced Sky wasn't shipped overseas. MOO

Forgive me for the dense question, but how do you think he was tampering with the phone? Like that night?

 

[marlame]

Great find. I hadn't seen this before either. It's doubtful then, that Picerno knows quite what he professes to know about the phone records. Maybe he knows some, but has left much out. I've never understood why the FBI would sit down and go over them with the DT. Maybe they went over a list of numbers the FBI had questions about - but not the actual bills, IMO.

Here is an interview with Joe Tacopina (and they also spoke to Megan Wright) regarding the 11:56pm phone call from DB cell phone:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/11/1...lead-to-big-break-in-baby-lisa-investigation/

"On this morning’s Fox and Friends, Tacopina spoke with Gretchen Carlson to give her the latest update on the case, why the 50-second call to a woman named Megan Wright is so significant..."

 

[vlpate]

Here is an interview with Joe Tacopina (and they also spoke to Megan Wright) regarding the 11:56pm phone call from DB cell phone:
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/11/1...lead-to-big-break-in-baby-lisa-investigation/

"On this morning’s Fox and Friends, Tacopina spoke with Gretchen Carlson to give her the latest update on the case, why the 50-second call to a woman named Megan Wright is so significant..."

Thank you for the links, but you've lost me :waitasec:

 

[vlpate]

I'm wondering, if DB or JI wanted their phones to disappear along with the baby, why would they have needed a 3rd phone to disappear. Makes no sense to me if you are going to commit a crime to involve another cell phone. I don't get the logic that borrowing the phone was hinky, in fact, I would say it points toward them not involved in any way with the phones. It would mean that many more chances of LE finding them.

I think, as far as why they all needed to disappear, was to say they couldn't call 911. For purposes of the story, only one or two missing would open them up to more questions.

Not sure borrowing the phone is hinky as far as Lisa's disappearance goes, but maybe in the relationship between JI and DB.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

I think, as far as why they all needed to disappear, was to say they couldn't call 911. For purposes of the story, only one or two missing would open them up to more questions.

Not sure borrowing the phone is hinky as far as Lisa's disappearance goes, but maybe in the relationship between JI and DB.

But why borrow a phone to make it disappear the next day? If the two they had disappeared, and they had not borrowed a phone, they could still say they couldn't use them to call 9-1-1 could they not? And as we know they did call 9-1-1 anyway, so again why borrow the phone to lose it?
And another point, if something happened at the home earlier in the day that they wanted to cover up, why not have JI's phone recharging on the counter as well, and wait til morning to call 9-1-1 from a neighbour's phone?

sorry if I'm slow responding tonite, PC is acting up and I'm trying to get furkids bathed

 

[vlpate]

Maybe there was a picture on the phone that was imperative to hide.

Could be. The phones could have been in the house while police were there. If they were hidden in the master bedroom, LE wouldn't have seen them, they didn't have a warrant or consent to an intensive search there in the first day. It would explain why they never pinged elsewhere.

 

[GoodGurl]

If PDI, phone had to disappear because they are evidence that someone was awake in the house and using the phones. Doesn't matter what else is on them, if the phones were found in the house and used, they would indicate that DB wasn't alseep.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

If PDI, phone had to disappear because they are evidence that someone was awake in the house and using the phones. Doesn't matter what else is on them, if the phones were found in the house and used, they would indicate that DB wasn't alseep.

What do you mean by PDI?

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

What do you mean by PDI?

I think they mean Parents Did It = PDI

 

[hambirg]

Forgive me for the dense question, but how do you think he was tampering with the phone? Like that night?

There are ways to listen in on phones and monitor activity on them as well. Just Google it. It wouldn't take any special phone knowledge. . .just access to the phone you want to monitor.

If JI was monitoring DB's phone. I have no idea how long that could have been happening. My theory is based on that he found out something he didn't like that night though.

I would think her speaker problems might be a sign that it was being monitored. Maybe it was just a lag because of illegal software loaded on the phone, or maybe there was an actual device on the phone.

As far as all three phones going missing. If only the phone that was tampered with was missing, it would raise suspicion more I think. But for all I know there might be evidence of tampering on all 3 phones. . .DB's phone originally, later the phone she borrowed, and if JI's phone was intercepting them there might be evidence of that one his phone as well. Idk. . .but the "so we couldn't call 911" explanation is just illogical IMHO. . .proven by the fact that they were still able to call 911 without a problem.

 

[SyraKelly]

Deb has changed things about the phones so many times-If they worked or were broken-but she said on Phil-at least one phone could receive texts and calls--please tell me why-neither of these parents called the phone that worked to see if the kidnapper would answer??This speaks volumes to me...That would have been the first thing I did-was call the phone!!
They did not call that phone b/c they knew where they were and no one was going to answer it!!JMO

I would also like to add-that Deb told the world they never called the phones!!

 

[hambirg]

But why borrow a phone to make it disappear the next day? If the two they had disappeared, and they had not borrowed a phone, they could still say they couldn't use them to call 9-1-1 could they not? And as we know they did call 9-1-1 anyway, so again why borrow the phone to lose it?
And another point, if something happened at the home earlier in the day that they wanted to cover up, why not have JI's phone recharging on the counter as well, and wait til morning to call 9-1-1 from a neighbour's phone?

sorry if I'm slow responding tonite, PC is acting up and I'm trying to get furkids bathed

DB borrowed the phone. I don't think she borrowed it to make it disappear the next day (that would make her psychic). I think it is evidence that DB couldn't live without a phone though. So what was going on on those phones and why didn't she want to be without one for any length of time?

Why was the FBI so involved with those phones? I think we all know LE desperately wanted to find them. Why?

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

DB borrowed the phone. I don't think she borrowed it to make it disappear the next day (that would make her psychic). I think it is evidence that DB couldn't live without a phone though. So what was going on on those phones and why didn't she want to be without one for any length of time?

Why was the FBI so involved with those phones? I think we all know LE desperately wanted to find them. Why?

BBM: To me the most obvious reason would be that if the phones were dumped and if Lisa is deceased, they may be together. Since phone pings would possibly lead to a body. MOO

 

[hambirg]

BBM: To me the most obvious reason would be that if the phones were dumped and if Lisa is deceased, they may be together. Since phone pings would possibly lead to a body. MOO

But they don't need the phones to find location. They can do that without the actual phones. Why do they want the actual phones so badly?

ETA-just to clarify. . .they can look for the phones using pings, etc to find the area that the phones might be. So then go to those locations and search for Lisa. But we know they were actually looking for the physical phones. If they found the actual phones within the ping area, it wouldn't help them locate Lisa. They wanted the actual phones, not just their location. Why?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

But they don't need the phones to find location. They can do that without the actual phones. Why do they want the actual phones so badly?

ETA-just to clarify. . .they can look for the phones using pings, etc to find the area that the phones might be. So then go to those locations and search for Lisa. But we know they were actually looking for the physical phones. If they found the actual phones within the ping area, it wouldn't help them locate Lisa. They wanted the actual phones, not just their location. Why?

They could check the phones for fingerprints and DNA.

 

[hambirg]

They could check the phones for fingerprints and DNA.

Possibly. There are quite a few things they could check the actual phones for. Even if they lifted prints or DNA off the phones, if there isn't a matching print or DNA in the house, they couldn't link it to BL's disappearance. It could just mean that somebody picked up the phones after the intruder dumped them. That's why I think it's got to be something more. JMHO

 

[norest4thewicked]

Possibly. There are quite a few things they could check the actual phones for. Even if they lifted prints or DNA off the phones, if there isn't a matching print or DNA in the house, they couldn't link it to BL's disappearance. It could just mean that somebody picked up the phones after the intruder dumped them. That's why I think it's got to be something more. JMHO

Interesting isn't it, how there are no stranger fingerprints or DNA in the house?

The 20th century forensic scientist, Edmund Locard, was a criminal profiler far ahead of his time. He is the one who came up with the theory that "every contact leaves a trace". It is known as Locard's Theory. Essentially, Locard's theory is applied to crime scenes in which the perpetrator of a crime comes into contact with the scene, so the perpetrator will both bring something into the scene and leave with something from the scene.

I don't think that it sounds too likely that SODDI....:moo: