George/Lexus & Casey's Contact Pattern

[Woe.be.gone]

I wanted to throw some observations out there :twocents: regarding KC's ATT billing records versus the tower records.

The ATT tower records, from what I can tell, represents a far more complete representation of KC's cell phone activity than the billing records.

• Calls that are not answered by KC do not get recorded in the billing records (as one can expect), but do get recorded in the tower records. :thumb:

• Likewise, calls to voicemail are not recorded in the billing records but are found in the tower records.

• Voicemail alerts are found in the tower records but not the billing records.

• Some texts found in the tower records do not show up in the billing records. This does not happen often, but does occur. For example, a text from KC to Tony at 11:14PM on 6/8 does not appear anywhere in the billing record. :waitasec:

• Some texts that KC sends to herself appear in the billing record but not in the tower record. I have seen this only for texts KC makes to herself. For example, there are three on 6/16 (5:23 PM, 5:35 PM, and 5:40 PM). Those texts probably actually occurred at 4:23 PM, 4:35 PM, and 4:40 PM, as we will see in a moment.

• The billing record sometimes duplicates entries for a single call (not text). In other words, a single call found in a tower record will sometimes show as two identical entries in the billing record (including call duration). I believe this was noted by the FDLE investigator in his report. :doh:

• I sometimes see what appears to be duplicate call entries in the tower record that correspond to single entries in the billing record. Upon closer examination I see that in the tower record this is a sequence where the first call failed and the second call connected. Makes sense.

• There is an oddity regarding the text time stamps in the billing records. On June 1 two morning texts from Tony R. (the only two) are stamped 1 hour later in the billing record than the tower record. All others line up +/- 1 minute.

I looked forward at 6/16 and noticed all texts in the billing record were stamped one hour later than the tower record. There was one exception - a text from Adam L. stamped 4 hours later.

When did the change occur?

As best I can tell, the time stamps for texts started making a 1 hour time-warp shift in the billing record between 11PM June 8 and 5AM June 9, during a flurry of texts with Tony and Ricardo. It started with just the texts from Ricardo, but by morning most texts had made the transition. :waitasec:
​

Right now I take the tower records as having the greater fidelity over the billing records. If I were to use the time stamps on the billing records, there are a number of times in the record where KC would be in two places at the same time. :beamup:

So this would tend to give Lexus a leg up on Gentiva. :banghead:

ETA: For completeness, the Gentiva / Lexus mismatch between the billing and tower records, as far as I have been able to determine, is the only phone number mismatch.

We first stumbled upon this back in early December when we noticed in a LE summary that what we thought were Chris S. texts on June 19th were marked by LE as being Andy F. It turns out that they had incorrectly associated Andy F. with Chris S.'s phone number. The number was right, just the name was wrong. This has since been fixed.

Holy cow! I'm surprised the DT hasn't motioned for cell phone records to be stricken from being used as evidence - or have they? :crazy:

And, how did you and Bond get so smart? I'm blond (or used to be) so I'm not flirting. :razz::tears:

AZ is very smart too. I don't know what to think! :dunno::abduction:hone:

:slapfight:

 

[Woe.be.gone]

bbm
what is it you are saying here? the point? thanks.

Ha! I just saw this comment. See above (I'm blond). Your guess is as good as mine - lol. It does seem out of context/disjointed now. I guess I thought it related to where/what GA was doing in June 2008.

 

[JWG]

Okay, I'm digesting the thorough explanation above.
GA's terminology, ". . ., I understand something happened here at the house." is a strange way of asking if KC took the gas cans out of the shed imo. :waitasec: GA's oddly worded remark jumped out at me for the first time just now.

Actually, it was KC who made the remark to George, not the other way around ...

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I always did enjoy a rousing game of kick-the-can when I was younger, especially when I got to hide in the bushes with that brunette a couple houses down :nluv:.

(snipped for space)

But here is why they may be wrong:

In one of George's interviews where he describes the gas can incident with KC on June 24, it is KC's comment "Oh by the way, I talked to mom, I understand something happened here at the house" that prompts George to want to look in the trunk for the gas cans.

Remember that George discovered the gas cans were missing just that morning.

(snipped)

``````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Oh yes, sorry, I see I stated that GA made the comment when actually KC did. Yet, it's still vague. Why not simply say, 'Dad, I have your gas cans in my trunk." IMO the communication between them almost always seems as if it involves some kind of double talk.

One can't believe a word any of them say.

 

[Harmony 2]

WOW it took several hours to read this whole thread... very interesting... somehow I had missed it before..

sooooo the final determination was that the number was to Gentiva and not Lexus...

Are we 100% sure? Now that the DT is considering accident it is critical because of what has been deemed as THE 'flurry of calls' among all the other flurry of calls...

 

[Woe.be.gone]

WOW it took several hours to read this whole thread... very interesting... somehow I had missed it before..

sooooo the final determination was that the number was to Gentiva and not Lexus...

Are we 100% sure? Now that the DT is considering accident it is critical because of what has been deemed as THE 'flurry of calls' among all the other flurry of calls...

Is your head spinning? :crazy:
I'm still not certain what the truth is; others seem certain that the Lexus contact is a mistake in the phone logs. Time will tell?