Just because it wasn't in the news doesn't mean LE didn't know about it. The search warrant clearly states that they did know about them.
The search warrant was executed 2 weeks after on the 18th
Just because it wasn't in the news doesn't mean LE didn't know about it. The search warrant clearly states that they did know about them.
But OTHER information clearly shows that LE was aware of the phones on day one.The search warrant was executed 2 weeks after on the 18th
How was it that LE got MW's phone # by 8:30am to call it then?
But OTHER information clearly shows that LE was aware of the phones on day one.
But OTHER information clearly shows that LE was aware of the phones on day one.
Point taken
just sayin that because the phones were mentioned in the search warrant that was executed 2 weeks after does not mean that LE knew on day one.
I still for the life of me can not understand why a person would take a baby and then grab not 1 not 2 but 3 tracking devices.
That's assuming that the target was the baby. If you think instead that the target was maybe the phones (or other small, sell-able items) and the baby was an afterthought, it makes better sense (relatively).
Then the question becomes "why take the baby"? Not "why take the phones"?
This is what I think/believed happened.
Police knew immediately phones were missing. The media didn't immediately report it because the bigger story was a child was missing and getting that info out there...also generally cases are solved or not solved in first 24 hours....if she had been abducted and they got a confession the phone detail would be something few would have known and thus essential info as part of finding the baby and getting an iron-clad confession.
It may not have been officially reported that we can give you a link but I think it was pretty common knowledge fairly quickly. And DB was certainly crying about it on Oct. 6, 48 hours later.
The cops would have wanted to have pinged and checked the phones immediately. Parents would have had to produced them or not. The FBI and KCPD worked the phone angle hard right away.
and no, MW's telephone number was not on DB's palm as per CS.
Do you have a link for that statement?
On The Examiner and probably lots of other places. Quote from MW. Just goes to show the trickery LE will try to use.
"On Oct. 8 I was interviewed downtown by KCPD for 6 hours. In that time, I was told by the detective that Deborah had shown her palm to another detective with my phone number written on it. He didn't say if she got out a pen and wrote it in front of him, or just showed it to him. What ever the case, this turned out to be false."
This is what I found:
Jim, what about the reports that the pink -- the lady with the pink hair, that her phone number was written on the hand of the mother of the missing child allegedly purportedly? Tell us about that.
SPELLMAN: The pink haired woman, Megan Wright, told me last night that police told her that on Deborah Bradley`s hand was written in pen her phone number. Megan Wright`s phone number. Now Megan says she doesn`t know Deborah or she doesn`t know anybody involved in the family.
We know that police don`t have to tell truth in these interviews but that`s what Megan told me that police told her. Cindy Short, the attorney until the other day of Deborah Bradley told me that she ran this by Deborah Bradley and Deborah Bradley said it`s not true.
Cyndi Short got her info from DB. CS could not know whether DB had the number on her hand or not.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/31/ng.01.html
Any attorney worth their salt would have also asked KCPD about this just to be sure. Wonder if CS received an FBI power point presentation like Picerno did?
The search warrant was executed 2 weeks after on the 18th
What other information CLEARLY shows this?
As Sparklin posted earlier. The fact that LE called MW's phone at 8:30 am on the 5th CLEARLY shows LE knew about the phones.
But did they know about the phones right away? do you mean the 4th or the 5th? Again as I posted earlier, the number was stated to be on DB's hand.
If MW's # was written on deborah's hand why would you need a phone to get the #
My point again about the warrant is it was executed on the 18th two weeks after the morning this happened of course that would be in the warrant.
Back up to the morning this happened- jeremy goes across the street to the "stoop" neighbor looking for lisa, he then calls 911, after LE gets there to see about a missing baby I wonder at what "time" did LE hear about the missing phones since the call was made from jeremy's "work" phone.
iirc LE called MW looking to buy something (ebay) if that is true then maybe deborah said that is why she had the # on her hand, if the story is even true.
If MW's # was written on deborah's hand why would you need a phone to get the #
My point again about the warrant is it was executed on the 18th two weeks after the morning this happened of course that would be in the warrant.
Back up to the morning this happened- jeremy goes across the street to the "stoop" neighbor looking for lisa, he then calls 911, after LE gets there to see about a missing baby I wonder at what "time" did LE hear about the missing phones since the call was made from jeremy's "work" phone.
iirc LE called MW looking to buy something (ebay) if that is true then maybe deborah said that is why she had the # on her hand, if the story is even true.