1136 users online (224 members and 912 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 53 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 793
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    St Louis, MO/Singapore
    Posts
    66

    Phone Calls and Phone Records

    1. To what extent are the 3 phone calls important in ascertaining Steven Avery's guilt?
    2. What are the implications of using *67?
    3. What are your thoughts/theories on the last 13 sec, non *67 call?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,500
    Quick question, do we know the *67s were calls from SA based on his phone records or hers? I can't recall!
    I speak fluently in reaction gifs.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    907
    Here is an blog post with some images of the phone records, and a theory. I am posting more for the images than the theory, but feel free to evaluate that as well.

    http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.co.u...uspicious.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    907
    Here's a thread discussing the phone calls and has information regarding the meaning of codes like the CFNA on that record.


    <modsnip>


    You'll see that in the trial , Kratz mentions that he believes that his original plan was to say that halbach never showed up. So the last call that they say is by Avery at 4:35, with no *67, and with TH's phone off the network - turned off or destroyed - was intended to allow him to say -- I called to ask where she was, and if she was still coming.

    However, Bobby Dassey and Bus Driver, say they saw her on the property taking a picture of the van near steve's trailer. So at that point for him to say he didn't see her, would have put the cabash on that plan and require him to contradict eye witnesses.

    I will say, that makes sense to me. It's plausible. Not saying I believe it went this way, but the logic is sound imo. It makes sense that someone might plan to do that, and have to change their plan given someone seeing teresa.

    If we were to accept that to be true, that would mean that Steve was unaware that anyone else had seen teresa up till 4:35. Or that anyone that did know, he wasn't concerned about them throwing a wrench in that plan by saying they saw her. (brendan ? Chuck ? Earl ?)

    That's my understanding of what the prosecution is saying.
    Last edited by Coldpizza; 01-11-2016 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Not allowed, thanks.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,500
    I'm not sure what I'm looking at, how do they tell those are from SA and Auto Trader?

    ETA: Figuring it out slowly... ICELL is incoming tower.
    I speak fluently in reaction gifs.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,500
    I'm extremely interested in the calls, 14-21, coming from the same number.
    I speak fluently in reaction gifs.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawny View Post
    I'm not sure what I'm looking at, how do they tell those are from SA and Auto Trader?

    The 3 calls from SA are at 2:12, 2:13, and 2:24. 2:12 and 2:13 back to back... dropped call?

    I am not sure of that either. I have not seen someone explain why that is factual. However, based on there being no explanation or rebuttal saying otherwise, I assume the defense accepts it as factual.

    What I have been told is that ICell is the cell tower that the user of the phone (teresa) was pinging off of.
    The LCell is the cell tower that the person she is talking to was pinging off of.

    How they know it was steve or anyone else. Not sure.

    Whether there was a dropped call or not, I don't see how we'd know from this.

    All the calls with no ICell or LCell mean that she wasn't on the network at the time of the call.

    Why the location changes to Chicago starting with the call at 4:35 and how they know that was avery, not sure. But seems to be accepted by all.

    I am guessing that the chicago location , might be a difference as to what location handles the call - ie maybe calls get handled by the chicago location if the user if off the network ?

    I'm researching that now, to verify or confirm that theory.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3,500
    I'm so confused!
    I speak fluently in reaction gifs.


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawny View Post
    I'm extremely interested in the calls, 14-21, coming from the same number.
    Join the party! But we know she was working all that time, so we can assume there was 1 call to each client and them calling back to confirm the appointment. Also, not crazy to think that maybe there were multiple calls if the person didn't answer the first time etc. Or called back to give more detail.

    That could be one reason why they didn't say who the calls were from. But seems to be vague enough to say - we know these were auto trader or clients. right ? but I don't see that ever being stated. So of course we wonder

    Another question I have, is if this is just incoming calls ? Or incoming and outgoing - doesn't seem to be any distinction if it's both.


    important to note that LCell being the tower, means the tower the other person's phone is pinging off of. Therefore if she is in transit to an area, she might be pinging off multiple towers along the way, but ALL of the clients were pinging off the same tower. Also, maybe all those calls are from auto trader ? so that's why we see the same LCell tower.

    Lastly the CFNA -- does that mean she blocked someone and that's why we see CFNA.

    That image is potentially misleading - the one with the lines and the "who made this call?" text. It implies that it's not steve avery, because of the other grouping saying "Steve Avery".

    However, it pings off the same tower as all the avery calls. But her phone pings off a different tower, which makes sense since she's traveling. Avery is not.

    So, verifying if that call at 2:41 was from avery or not, would be worthwhile. If it is, then clearly this photo is misrepresenting the facts by seemingly asserting it's not Avery.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawny View Post
    I'm so confused!
    Haha, I hear ya. I get that feeling often researching this case.

    But I think I am starting to better understand this document, so at least I can know what it means and what questions to ask.

    Avery trial might be more specific about all this. (I hope)

    Would be nice if the case images detailed who's phone each call came from, instead of making it confusing


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    907
    I also want to know how they know *67 was used. Where is that doc ? Because what I have read elsewhere is that the 4:35 call had no *67 and was Steve Avery.

    So who was the 2:41 call. that's the mystery I guess. Not clear on why it should be :/

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas USA
    Posts
    12,414
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxManning View Post
    Here is an blog post with some images of the phone records, and a theory. I am posting more for the images than the theory, but feel free to evaluate that as well.

    http://jonsjailjournal.blogspot.co.u...uspicious.html
    Thanks for the link. I have been asking if we know for sure that SA's phone made the *67 calls.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    57
    I find it suspicious. I see no valid reason for using *67 the first 2 calls, and the not using it on the 4:35 call.

    I kind of think he was setting up his alibi to say she never arrived or he was trying to locate her phone--to get rid of it.

    Anyhow, I feel this is one of those sad cases, where the Police did corrupt (possibly planted) the evidence and rushed to judgment, even if he is the right guy, there should have been enough reasonable doubt. IMO

    He might be guilty, but as much as it pains me to see a killer go free, he should not be in jail.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,261
    I would imagine that they were able to determine that he called Teresa those times and how he called her by obtaining HIS phone records, not necessarily hers.
    Everything I post without a supporting link is always JMO.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2,261
    SAs attorney explained that SA often used the *67 feature due to his notoriety and it was just a habit. Not sure what happened with the last one, so I am not sure.

    I dont find it suspicious to use the feature as it is readily available to everyone and millions of people use it every day.
    Everything I post without a supporting link is always JMO.

Page 1 of 53 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. phone records
    By Charlie in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 04-06-2014, 08:55 PM
  2. GBC's phone records
    By Makara in forum Allison Baden-Clay of Australia
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-04-2013, 12:54 PM
  3. The Phone Records
    By Just K in forum George Zimmerman Trial/Trayvon Martin
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-17-2012, 09:31 PM
  4. has anyone ever seen these phone records?
    By belle3 in forum Resource Links, Case Calendar & Time Lines
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-15-2010, 01:30 PM
  5. Phone records
    By Omega in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-31-2004, 04:53 PM

Tags for this Thread