Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2

[DeAnn]

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

Yes, it's quite possible.

Megan Wright is why we know about the 11:57 (or 8:30 as she first said) phone call. And then the FBI told Picerno and Tacopina. Why wouldn't they tell the attorneys since MW had told the world?

The FBI would have the information but as Picerno said yesterday he can't get all the info.

Phone records have NOTHING to do with how we know about it. It was strictly Megan Wright. And she was told by the FBI. Now why she initially said 8:30 and then later said 11:57 is one of the biggest mysteries imo about this case.

 

[natsound]

Yes, it's quite possible.

Megan Wright is why we know about the 11:57 (or 8:30 as she first said) phone call. And then the FBI told Picerno and Tacopina. Why wouldn't they tell the attorneys since MW had told the world?

The FBI would have the information but as Picerno said yesterday he can't get all the info.

Phone records have NOTHING to do with how we know about it. It was strictly Megan Wright. And she was told by the FBI. Now why she initially said 8:30 and then later said 11:57 is one of the biggest mysteries imo about this case.

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.

 

[DeAnn]

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.

And a poster here has within the past hour said they have their child's cell phone from being used during certain hours, such as during school hours. And any attempts that do not go through when the cell phone is restricted DO NOT show up on the records.

 

[highflyer]

MW doesn't seem to have a darn thing to hide. She answers EVERYTHING, maybe too much. It's hard to tell from an article, but she does seem to fire off the answers. Not much anticipation on her part, makes me believe her. Not everything, but mostly.

It's easy to fire off answers when they are written down for you but that doesn't make me believe MW. MOO

 

[al66pine]

And a poster here has within the past hour said they have their child's cell phone from being used during certain hours, such as during school hours. And any attempts that do not go through when the cell phone is restricted DO NOT show up on the records.

==================================================

Is it possible that ----
---a carrier-imposed restriction (for non-payment)
would Show on carrier records?
---a user-imposed restriction (like no-connects dusring school hours)
would Not Show on carrier records?

Or is it possible ---
--- Verizon paymt-restricted Shows attempted call on its record, but
---Carrier X (ref'ed above re user-imposed school hr. restriction)
does Not Show attempted call on carrier records.

IDK, just trying to reconcile what appears to be conflicting info.

 

[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 taking abut when I said my phone was stolen, I could not see the calls on the phone records, AT&T told me calls were showing up. My actual bill showed nothing after the time I reported it lost/stolen.

 

[natsound]

If you are taking abut when I said my phone was stolen, I could not see the calls on the phone records, AT&T told me calls were showing up. My actual bill showed nothing after the time I reported it lost/stolen.

Gotcha. DB should be able to do the same, especially since her baby is missing.

 

[SmoothOperator]

You are correct In da middle as Is the member who stated her sons phone was restricted use.. We, as the owner of the phone do not have access to see these calls that are attempted during a time that the phone is either under restricted use or has been reported as stolen. The records we receive(the one's the DT has) do not show us this type of information. Nor does it tell us any information about pings.. These details are available to the cell phone provider and many times require a subpoena served for a person to be able to get copies of these specific details that we as the cell phone owner ARE NOT PRIVY TO..

I do question however that I know that these are able to be accessed for divorce proceedings(where no one has been charged with any criminal offense whatsoever).. So I wonder how that differs and why that is allowed?? Or is this a new law that is forcing there to have to be an actual criminal charge in order for the records to be subpoenaed??

 

[In da Middle]

Gotcha. DB should be able to do the same, especially since her baby is missing.

Your phone company is not going to do any favor for you if you have not paid them IMO. Mine was also happening in real time, as in the phone was being used as I spoke to them about it being lost/stolen which we then concluded that mine was in fact stolen and not just lost.

 

[natsound]

If my baby was missing and my phones were missing, as in this case, and there was indication that someone attempted a call on my stolen cell phone, I'd think my cell phone provider would want to help me in any way possible.

If I asked, that is.

 

[natsound]

Your phone company is not going to do any favor for you if you have not paid them IMO. Mine was also happening in real time, as in the phone was being used as I spoke to them about it being lost/stolen which we then concluded that mine was in fact stolen and not just lost.

Not even in the case of a missing baby? I have to disagree.

 

[In da Middle]

You are correct In da middle as Is the member who stated her sons phone was restricted use.. We, as the owner of the phone do not have access to see these calls that are attempted during a time that the phone is either under restricted use or has been reported as stolen. The records we receive(the one's the DT has) do not show us this type of information. Nor does it tell us any information about pings.. These details are available to the cell phone provider and many times require a subpoena served for a person to be able to get copies of these specific details that we as the cell phone owner ARE NOT PRIVY TO..

I do question however that I know that these are able to be accessed for divorce proceedings(where no one has been charged with any criminal offense whatsoever).. So I wonder how that differs and why that is allowed?? Or is this a new law that is forcing there to have to be an actual criminal charge in order for the records to be subpoenaed??

If the post anybody is referring to is about a son's phone, then it was not me. My experience was with my own phone. Otherwise, I totally agree with you!

 

[In da Middle]

If my baby was missing and my phones were missing, as in this case, and there was indication that someone attempted a call on my stolen cell phone, I'd think my cell phone provider would want to help me in any way possible.

If I asked, that is.

That completely depends on the provider. Some will ONLY do it with a court order. Kelsey Smith in this very area is one example of the problems with getting cell providers to share info even with LE.

 

[natsound]

That completely depends on the provider. Some will ONLY do it with a court order. Kelsey Smith in this very area is one example of the problems with getting cell providers to share info even with LE.

This is all so convenient. Phones missing on the night a baby goes missing, two voicemail checks and a mysterious call that didn't connect which lasted 50 seconds, unknown people on both ends of the phone, and even though mom is devastated that her baby is missing, she just can't get those phone records for herself or for the defense attorneys. A court order might be needed? I find that hard to believe in the case of two parents searching for their stolen baby. But in the chance that a court order is needed, is that just too much trouble for these parents? Do they need another day of rest? Where is that crucial court order to find out more about that key 50 second call attempt?

 

[RANCH]

You are correct In da middle as Is the member who stated her sons phone was restricted use.. We, as the owner of the phone do not have access to see these calls that are attempted during a time that the phone is either under restricted use or has been reported as stolen. The records we receive(the one's the DT has) do not show us this type of information. Nor does it tell us any information about pings.. These details are available to the cell phone provider and many times require a subpoena served for a person to be able to get copies of these specific details that we as the cell phone owner ARE NOT PRIVY TO..

I do question however that I know that these are able to be accessed for divorce proceedings(where no one has been charged with any criminal offense whatsoever).. So I wonder how that differs and why that is allowed?? Or is this a new law that is forcing there to have to be an actual criminal charge in order for the records to be subpoenaed??

Was the state that you have this information about Missouri? Different states may have different laws in regards to these records.

 

[In da Middle]

This is all so convenient. Phones missing on the night a baby goes missing, two voicemail checks and a mysterious call that didn't connect which lasted 50 seconds, unknown people on both ends of the phone, and even though mom is devastated that her baby is missing, she just can't get those phone records for herself or for the defense attorneys. A court order might be needed? I find that hard to believe in the case of two parents searching for their stolen baby. But in the chance that a court order is needed, is that just too much trouble for these parents? Do they need another day of rest? Where is that crucial court order to find out more about that key 50 second call attempt?

Read up on Kelsey Smith. Her phone provider would NOT even give the info to LE. LE had to get the court order for the very vital information. The phone company would not give it to the parents who were the listed owners of the phones. This wasted many vital days in retrieving her body. She was found by her phone pings several days later. There is now what is being called 'Kelsey's Law' being fought for as we speak.

 

[realmomof5]

You are correct In da middle as Is the member who stated her sons phone was restricted use.. We, as the owner of the phone do not have access to see these calls that are attempted during a time that the phone is either under restricted use or has been reported as stolen. The records we receive(the one's the DT has) do not show us this type of information. Nor does it tell us any information about pings.. These details are available to the cell phone provider and many times require a subpoena served for a person to be able to get copies of these specific details that we as the cell phone owner ARE NOT PRIVY TO..

I do question however that I know that these are able to be accessed for divorce proceedings(where no one has been charged with any criminal offense whatsoever).. So I wonder how that differs and why that is allowed?? Or is this a new law that is forcing there to have to be an actual criminal charge in order for the records to be subpoenaed??

Actually, I have a friend who tried to get text messages from her provider, however her husband had to ok that. She was trying to recover suspect messages and the provider said that for her to subpoena those records she would have to file for divorce first.

 

[realmomof5]

Read up on Kelsey Smith. Her phone provider would NOT even give the info to LE. LE had to get the court order for the very vital information. The phone company would not give it to the parents who were the listed owners of the phones. This wasted many vital days in retrieving her body. She was found by her phone pings several days later. There is now what is being called 'Kelsey's Law' being fought for as we speak.

That's awesome! There should be special cases aloud. An Internationally known missing baby cas would definitely fit that "special" category!

 

[SmoothOperator]

If the post anybody is referring to is about a son's phone, then it was not me. My experience was with my own phone. Otherwise, I totally agree with you!

I'm sorry if my post was a jumbled mess..I meant it as "both" your Personal experience with stolen phone.. And... The member who posted about their son's restricted during school hours phone.. And that both Accts were correct in that on your itemized/detailed record/bill for that months usage would not contain record of the calls made after it was stolen(indamiddle's case) and would not show the calls during the restricted school hours(the other members personal experience)..

Hope that was clear enough.. .. Sorry if I caused confusion, not my intention..

ETA: in response to RANCH's question im in Tennessee and I agree it may vary state to state and even company to company as well.. While it is true that one may indeed get lucky in dealing with an employee that may be sympathetic the your cause and chooses to bend a little allowing you access to particular records normally not known to the cell phone owner.. In fact the member shefner had this exact experience with ATT(I believe) in that her adult son was missing and they werent allowing her access to these important details but she lucked out in that the employee that she eventually spoke with was sympathetic to this mom's situation thus allowed her complete access where normally it would not be allowed.. So that is strictly luck of the draw as to which employee you are working with in attempting to get specific cell phone records/pings..

 

[In da Middle]

I'm sorry if my post was a jumbled mess..I meant it as "both" your Personal experience with stolen phone.. And... The member who posted about their son's restricted during school hours phone.. And that both Accts were correct in that on your itemized/detailed record/bill for that months usage would not contain record of the calls made after it was stolen(indamiddle's case) and would not show the calls during the restricted school hours(the other members personal experience)..

Hope that was clear enough.. .. Sorry if I caused confusion, not my intention..

Absolutely no problem here! Confusion happens! Just trying to clarify before it became fact that I had an unknown son!