Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[redheadedgal]

It is known as Locard's Theory.

if i learned about this in my four year criminology program, i don't recall it at all lol ... thanks for sharing... interesting !!!

:seeya:

 

[vlpate]

Interesting isn't it, how there is 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:

Especially given everything he would have had to touch:
window
window sill
light switches (of course this could be the reason they backed off on all the lights being on, no fingerprints)
Lisa's door
Front door
kitchen counter

Although, Elizabeth Smart's abductor left not a single trace of having been in their house. This has always amazed me.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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

What if the phones were recovered and fingerprints were found that matched a convicted child molester? And that individual had no alibi and was know to be in the area on Oct 3rd? Would that warrant further investigation?

 

[norest4thewicked]

Especially given everything he would have had to touch:
window
window sill
light switches (of course this could be the reason they backed off on all the lights being on, no fingerprints)
Lisa's door
Front door
kitchen counter

Although, Elizabeth Smart's abductor left not a single trace of having been in their house. This has always amazed me.

Yes...would have touched a lot.

And, since I believe in Locard's Theory, I would say that LE just didn't find what Brian David Mitchell left.

I do find your statement about them backing off of the lights interesting. This could have been part of the phone thing too.

 

[redheadedgal]

window
window sill
light switches
Lisa's door
Front door
kitchen counter

um, SODDI wore gloves of course - duh!! :floorlaugh:

 

[norest4thewicked]

um, SODDI wore gloves of course - duh!! :floorlaugh:

:what: But, of COURSE he did! How silly of me! :banghead:

 

[Little Ol Me]

Do we know for a fact that no stranger fingerprints or DNA was found on or in the house?
I don't recall LE ever stating this.
I do remembering reading that a DNA sample was taken from a teen neighbor, who knows the garage code.
I do know that LE has said that they need to know from the parents who was at the home that night. Might that be to exclude or include their DNA from evidence collected?

 

[hambirg]

What if the phones were recovered and fingerprints were found that matched a convicted child molester? And that individual had no alibi and was know to be in the area on Oct 3rd? Would that warrant further investigation?

Of course it would. But I don't think that is why LE wanted the phones so badly.

If they find DNA or fingerprints on the phones, it is not a very strong case without any other evidence. The defense is simply that the person found the phones picked them up and ditched them once they realized they didn't work. They have to be able to tie the phones to the crime of taking BL. They have to be tied to something found inside of that house.

If they already have fingerprints or DNA from inside of the house that doesn't belong, then they really don't need the phones.

It's like if somebody stole your car and you noticed they took a granola bar too. Finding the granola bar wrapper may not prove a thing. It really doesn't make a strong case. Whoever's fingerprints are on the granola bar wrapper just says that they found it on the side of the road and picked it up. If they already have fingerprints from inside of the car, then they don't really need the granola bar wrapper to prove that person was the thief. KWIM

MOO

ETA- I'm not even convinced that they haven't found the phones. . .the outside casings of the phones. I believe that they are looking for something more, something smaller, evidenced by LE going into the woods with those screens. What do they really want? Some kind of chip, a SIM, a memory card?

 

[hambirg]

Do we know for a fact that no stranger fingerprints or DNA was found on or in the house?
I don't recall LE ever stating this.
I do remembering reading that a DNA sample was taken from a teen neighbor, who knows the garage code.
I do know that LE has said that they need to know from the parents who was at the home that night. Might that be to exclude or include their DNA from evidence collected?

And the parents are not willing to come forward with that. If LE did find some kind of fingerprints or DNA evidence that doesn't belong in the house, as far as they know, why wouldn't the parents be down at the station talking to LE about that?

 

[hambirg]

um, SODDI wore gloves of course - duh!! :floorlaugh:

And if that's the case then they would have worn the gloves to handle the phones. Wouldn't LE be able to figure that out? Wouldn't they know that fingerprints and DNA would likely not be found on the phones?

 

[Sparklin]

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

sbm - Do we know that for a fact? I hadn't heard that.

 

[highflyer]

sbm - Do we know that for a fact? I hadn't heard that.

No, it is another made up thing with no fact behind it. Nobody seems to care if there are any facts here anymore. Kind of like a creative writing contest.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Of course it would. But I don't think that is why LE wanted the phones so badly.

If they find DNA or fingerprints on the phones, it is not a very strong case without any other evidence. The defense is simply that the person found the phones picked them up and ditched them once they realized they didn't work. They have to be able to tie the phones to the crime of taking BL. They have to be tied to something found inside of that house.

If they already have fingerprints or DNA from inside of the house that doesn't belong, then they really don't need the phones.

It's like if somebody stole your car and you noticed they took a granola bar too. Finding the granola bar wrapper may not prove a thing. It really doesn't make a strong case. Whoever's fingerprints are on the granola bar wrapper just says that they found it on the side of the road and picked it up. If they already have fingerprints from inside of the car, then they don't really need the granola bar wrapper to prove that person was the thief. KWIM

MOO

ETA- I'm not even convinced that they haven't found the phones. . .the outside casings of the phones. I believe that they are looking for something more, something smaller, evidenced by LE going into the woods with those screens. What do they really want? Some kind of chip, a SIM, a memory card?

BBM.
In my hypothetical situation with the phones being found with forensic evidence showing some kind of connection to a convicted child molester, would that be enough to get a search warrant of that persons home? And if that search produced evidence of Lisa being in that home at some time wouldn't that be very telling? It's possibility's like this that explains why LE were looking for the missing phones. JMO.

 

[hambirg]

BBM.
In my hypothetical situation with the phones being found with forensic evidence showing some kind of connection to a convicted child molester, would that be enough to get a search warrant of that persons home? And if that search produced evidence of Lisa being in that home at some time wouldn't that be very telling? It's possibility's like this that explains why LE were looking for the missing phones. JMO.

I'm just not convinced. I think LE and the FBI know a LOT more about those phones than we do. Scary but true, the feds can get just about anything relating to cell phones. If they don't have any forensic evidence from inside the house, what would make them think that there would be evidence on the phones? If somebody is able to enter a house and not leave anything behind forensically, then they sure as heck aren't going to leave anything on those phones. They've already thought about that obviously. LE were going after those phones for another reason. And like I said, I'm not convinced that they didn't find them. They are looking for something else, something smaller, related to those phones.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I'm just not convinced. I think LE and the FBI know a LOT more about those phones than we do. Scary but true, the feds can get just about anything relating to cell phones. If they don't have any forensic evidence from inside the house, what would make them think that there would be evidence on the phones? If somebody is able to enter a house and not leave anything behind forensically, then they sure as heck aren't going to leave anything on those phones. They've already thought about that obviously. LE were going after those phones for another reason. And like I said, I'm not convinced that they didn't find them. They are looking for something else, something smaller, related to those phones.

I'm not convinced that LE didn't find any forensic evidence in the house showing a intruder took Lisa. And if they didn't I would hope that they would still check the phones for fingerprints and DNA if they were recovered. JMO.

 

[hambirg]

I'm not convinced that LE didn't find any forensic evidence in the house showing a intruder took Lisa. And if they didn't I would hope that they would still check the phones for fingerprints and DNA if they were recovered. JMO.

But if they did, then they don't need the phones. If there is evidence found in the home. . .fingerprints or DNA, then they certainly don't need the phones. They could investigate whoever based on that alone.

And yes, I would hope that they would still look at any evidence on the phones and I think they would. BUT I don't think they would have made them such a focus just for that. Because then they would have been focusing just as hard on her outfit, or whatever else. Those phones were focused on intensely. Why?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

But if they did, then they don't need the phones. If there is evidence found in the home. . .fingerprints or DNA, then they certainly don't need the phones. They could investigate whoever based on that alone.

And yes, I would hope that they would still look at any evidence on the phones and I think they would. BUT I don't think they would have made them such a focus just for that. Because then they would have been focusing just as hard on her outfit, or whatever else. Those phones were focused on intensely. Why?

I'm guessing that LE were intensely looking for the phones because they went missing at the same time as Lisa. And because of that, they could possibly lead to her whereabouts.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Respectfully, none of us here know very many facts at all in this case. All of us are speculating. But, one thing is for sure, we all want to find Lisa.

 

[Little Ol Me]

]

And the parents are not willing to come forward with that. If LE did find some kind of fingerprints or DNA evidence that doesn't belong in the house, as far as they know, why wouldn't the parents be down at the station talking to LE about that?

I can't answer why the parents wouldn't provide that information, if they had not at that time. However, perhaps they have since. (that comment was made). There are very few facts released by LE. I wish we knew more, but feel LE is handling this case the right way.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Okay. I know how there are many that hate to hear comparisons from the Caylee Anthony case on this thread. But I was pretty well saturated with it for the last three years. I'm certainly no expert on all the cell phone threads, but IIRC, the only things that could be determined from the cell phone providers were the times and the pings (which indicated a general area of the cell phone.) This is very useful, of course, if you know who is in possession of the cell phone, to determine who was contacting whom.

It played out that LE was very pleased that Amy H (one of Casey's friends) had a plethora of texts that she had not deleted from her phone (all documented and available in the Caylee forum). Casey's mother seemed to have deleted hers and they were not available for the investigation. This leads me to believe that carriers do not have access to content of text messages. There were also a couple of pictures found on a couple of ancillary players' phones. These were accessed through the cell phones, themselves. The text messages did register as activity on the carriier"s records but LE needed the phones to actually see what they were.

From the history of that, it makes me wonder if the last recorded activity picked up by the carrier (Verizon?) could have been a text message rather than a voice call. (IIRC, there was an indication on the carrier's documentation that distinguished between text and voice ~ Hope I'm remembering this part right ~ but would have to be checked out if we ever get to see the records.)

It also explains why LE (and everyone else) is eager to get the phones physically in their possession. There could be texts or photos that would be helpful and IMO that's enough reason for them to consider the cell phones important.