Missing Cell Phones #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have Verizon phone service. There have been a couple of times when my phone service was suspended because I didn't pay my bill on time. When that happened, my phone service was restricted. I could not make outgoing calls, I couldn't receive calls and I could not access my vmail. Not matter what I tried to do, I would be connected to customer service. I should also add that when I did pay my bill, I did it through my phone in an automated system and used the payment info on file...meaning I didn't have to give a credit card number or bank account number. My phone service was working again within 15 minutes even though I never spoke to a human at customer service. So it is very possible that those phones were back in service if there was payment info on file even if there was no money to pay for the bill. With Verizon, you can also set a post dated payment for up to two weeks and when you do that, the service will be reconnected within 15 minutes even though the payment won't actually be made for 2 weeks.

My current phone is wifi enabled. I can access the internet via public hot spot without having any phone service on my phone. For example, with restricted service, I could still go to the public library and access the internet the same way I would with my laptop. I could access the internet from any place that has public wifi including unsecured networks that people have in their homes.

When people steal cell phones, it's not generally to make money from the phone itself. Hot phones are too easy to trace. They take the phones to access personal information. Attempting to access vmail could be an attempt to hack into the system and gain access to billing information. With Verizon, I can access my billing information either online or through the automated system on my phone.

Also, some people store credit card information on the internet at certain sites they may have book marked....example, paypal. There are other programs that phones have that have easy pay options. Someone who steals a phone is going to attempt to access all these options in order to steal credit card information, banking information, etc. The phone itself is basically useless to the thief.

As far as a phone call going through to MW, there are 3 phones involved. One of them being loaned to DB. We don't know if that loaner phone was active or not. So the phone call to MW and possibly JI leaving a voice mail for DB could very well have been on the loaner phone.

moo

I am not sure how it works, but there is a way to spoof someone's phone number by hacking into their voicemail so that when you make a call from another phone, the charges go to to the number that was hacked and not the number that was actually making the call. Don't ask me how it's done, I've just heard of it being done and heard that it was done by hacking into voicemail as the first step in the process.
 
Told the family, though. I haven't heard first hand from any LE that DB's phone was restricted. Apparently, someone thought it wasn't... three times in one night.

ITA. The FBI has not confirmed publicly the phones were restricted. In fact, it sounds as though the FBI wouldn't even confirm to the attorneys whether the calls were completed or not. Technically, all calls are "attempted" calls.

It is pure spin from the attorneys because they know DB and JI told the media that the phones couldn't make calls. I think the phones and the missing baby are tied to drug debts.
 
Thats a good point but arent we led to believe she was unconcious in bed and the cell phones were all on the work top downstairs? :banghead:
Cell phones were left on kitchen counter upstairs.
 
Why would the FBI have a powerpoint presentation for the attorneys for the family anyway? IMO, this doesn't make sense on so many levels. I didn't actually hear either attorney say this, but I've seen it on many posts here.
 
Why would the FBI have a powerpoint presentation for the attorneys for the family anyway? IMO, this doesn't make sense on so many levels. I didn't actually hear either attorney say this, but I've seen it on many posts here.
They said that they had a 3 hour meeting where this was presented.
 
Well, DB had to know the phones were off before Oct 3rd because her father gave her his phone to use the prior weekend. DB had a working phone but it conveniently got stolen. JI also had a working phone. Whey wasn't he calling DB's father's phone, that one worked. Did the invisible intruder use that one or did he not like it because it wasn't web enabled? It was said to be a "plain jane" phone.

According to DN, DB's father, her phone was "malfunctioning" ie: the speaker and microphone were working intermittently. So her phone was technically working, it was just a problem hearing people and people hearing her when using it. I'm assuming it was a smart phone based on the picture of Lisa and the boy's taken in the window of the door where you can clearly see DB holding a smart phone.

So DB was at her grandfather's house for the party the day before and her grandfather (not DN, her father)gave him one of his old "plain jane" phones to use. She would have had to have it connected to her plan which she would have been unable to do if the bill was not paid. So IMO, the borrowed phone, while it was a working phone, was not connected to any plan and could not make or receive calls. Both her phone and JI's phone would still have been connected to the plan but were on some kind of restricted service.

So the phone that was accessed by someone that night is said to be DB's phone. I have no doubt it is her original "broken" phone that they are talking about. An intruder would not know about the speaker/microphone issues either. It's quite possible that they tried to make a call to MW's number, the call was redirected to the call centre, but they couldn't really hear properly...hence why they may have stayed on the line for 50 seconds wondering what was wrong. Her grandfather's "plain jane" phone also would unlikely have been able to access the internet and would not have had DB's voicemail feature so again, I believe that it is DB's "broken" phone that was being used that night.

I still do not have an opinion if DB is involved in Lisa's disappearance but I have to say that this phone information makes me believe that someone other than her was in possession of the phones that night.

Now what would really floor me is to find out that someone who lived within that 1/3 mile radius did take the phones at some point during the evening but had nothing to do with Lisa's disappearance. Jersey is a petty theif. All of this phone information points directly to him IMO. But I just don't see him taking a baby although he did have access to an empty house on N Chelsea.

MOO
 
Why would the FBI have a powerpoint presentation for the attorneys for the family anyway? IMO, this doesn't make sense on so many levels. I didn't actually hear either attorney say this, but I've seen it on many posts here.

Maybe for 1 of 2 reasons.
For a more professional discussion

to make the parents feel important. IMO
 
They said that they had a 3 hour meeting where this was presented.

The phone records could end up being evidence if this case ever reaches trial stage. I find it odd that the FBI would want to share this information right now.
 
Maybe for 1 of 2 reasons.
For a more professional discussion

to make the parents feel important. IMO
:floorlaugh:

That just hit me the wrong way. What about adding "to show DB how close they were to arresting her"?
 
Cant compare them.............

Mark Lunsford pled.........make that BEGGED for his daughter's kidnapper to bring her home. He was a man on a mission to find his child and acted like one.


The Smarts did the same thing. Begged (in a more restricted fashion) but the Smarts kept their daughter's story alive.


DB and JI do NOT IN any fashion act like parents whose child is missing. IMOO

THEY DO act like THE RAMSEYS.... CONNECT the dots.
IMO
So in your world, we should throw parents of missing kids in jail right away based on statistics unless they make a public show of support that pleases everyone? I bet Casey Anthony wishes she knew that.
 
We also cannot forget the alleged 2:30 a.m. call that came into DB's phone.

So we have possibly at 8:30 from DB's phone to MW's phone,
Possibly an 11:57 call from DB's phone to MW's phone,
Possibly a 2:30 incoming call to DB's phone from an unknown caller,
Then possibly two attempts to check DB's voice mail at 3:17 and 3:32.

Again, lots of activity for a restricted phone. And lots of activity for a household where mom and kids are asleep at 10:30.
 
Cell phones were left on kitchen counter upstairs.


But if she was asleep through copious amounts of wine she wouldnt have been trying to use these phones and I cant see that an abductor would be daft enough to try so therefore someone is lying or the supposed abductor wasnt very intelligent JMO:banghead:
 
Why would the FBI have a powerpoint presentation for the attorneys for the family anyway? IMO, this doesn't make sense on so many levels. I didn't actually hear either attorney say this, but I've seen it on many posts here.

I think it was a smart move by LE. It was a way to show the attorneys they do have evidence that calls were attempted without revealing the actual evidentiary record to the attorneys. Remember, the parents were insistent no calls were made and DB went so far as to imply that the "ping" information LE provided to her was all bogus.

It is DB, not LE, who is telling lies and now their attorneys know it and are desperately trying to spin it.

JMO
 
I bolded the 'sources'

We also cannot forget the alleged 2:30 a.m. call that came into DB's phone.

So we have possibly at 8:30 from DB's phone to MW's phone, mw
Possibly an 11:57 call from DB's phone to MW's phone, dt, mk
Possibly a 2:30 incoming call to DB's phone from an unknown caller, ?
Then possibly two attempts to check DB's voice mail at 3:17 and 3:32.dt

Again, lots of activity for a restricted phone. And lots of activity for a household where mom and kids are asleep at 10:30.
 
:floorlaugh:

That just hit me the wrong way. What about adding "to show DB how close they were to arresting her"?

It was stated by Short that DB and JI trust the FBI more than LE due to the accusations LE made against them. It's possible the FBI was sharing info in an effort to further that trust and get possible answers to questions that the parents may not have thought relevant.
 
The rude posts back and forth end now or some of you will be on a Time Out for the weekend.


This post lands at random and is not addressing the post above it.
 
From the parents interview at the time Lisa went missing they stated the cell phones were taken and were NOT working/restricted. If one of these phones has evidence of attempted calls vm and internet access it doesnt make sense. Either DB made these calls so therefore not all the phones were restricted (lying) OR an abductor attempted to use the restricted phone.

My question on the latter is why would an abductor be so stupid as to attempt to use a stolen phone after abducting a baby.

None of the facts or speculation in this case make any sense and I am still as baffled as I was three weeks ago
:banghead:
Maybe it was an accomplice to the abductor who grabbed the phones and then immediately fenced the phones? Somebody who knew MW sold electronics or knew that someone at that number was looking for a phone? There is also the well-established principle that low-life druggies don't think clearly. If this was an abduction, somebody knew this family and their patterns and maybe tried to set up a Patsy with the phone angle. Jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
209
Guests online
4,362
Total visitors
4,571

Forum statistics

Threads
592,438
Messages
17,968,949
Members
228,769
Latest member
Grammy 4
Back
Top