Cell Phone Activity Timeline as of 11/11

Status
Not open for further replies.

w1df10wr

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
424
Reaction score
5
Link-
Bradley & Irwin lawyer John Picerno on Megyn Kelly Fox Show. 2 videos on the page. Article highlights:

11:57pm - 50 second call to MW phone number
3:17am - attempt to get into voicemail and use internet
3:22am - attempt to get into voicemail and use internet
Pings were never more than 1/3 of the mile from Irwin residence. It does not give a time when the pings stopped.

The 2:30am phone call was a rumor.

It is also not mentioned whether this was DB's broken cell or the one she received from her grandfather on Oct. 3rd.
 
has anyone else heard anything about the cell phone pings? i read something in an article but i don't know if its been posted on any MSM websites


OMG I never read that post right,i am literally losing my marbles over here!!!
 
What about the 8:30 call? Another rumor or mistake?
 
I should probably make aware that I haven't been able to find LE releasing this timeline of the Irwin phones. It was released via their spokesperson on a new segment of Fox prior, but just a tad before their attorney said in an interview that they were considered suspects.

links:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1270739314001/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/missing-baby-lisa-irwin-police-deny-attorneys-claim/story?id=14931954#.Tr3OjWDZzUU%22%5D


LE, from what I have concluded, hasn't said anything today to any media what-so-ever.

At this point, I am so very weary on what I read, see or listen to in this case -- and I find that such a shame.

I am only left to pray for little Lisa.
 
Link-
Bradley & Irwin lawyer John Picerno on Megyn Kelly Fox Show. 2 videos on the page. Article highlights:

11:57pm - 50 second call to MW phone number
3:17am - attempt to get into voicemail and use internet
3:22am - attempt to get into voicemail and use internet
Pings were never more than 1/3 of the mile from Irwin residence. It does not give a time when the pings stopped.

The 2:30am phone call was a rumor.

It is also not mentioned whether this was DB's broken cell or the one she received from her grandfather on Oct. 3rd.

THANK YOU wildflower! and just in time for us needing a new cell phone thread! Great timeline! :rocker:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparklin
I've seen plenty of tears and grief from these parents. And when I do, it breaks my heart, but to others, it's fake. Like I said elsewhere, it doesn't matter what they do, what they or their lawyers say, it's all a 'spin' or 'fake' or 'contrived'...there are those that can't (or won't) be open to any possibility that these parents had nothing to do with their daughter being missing. Regardless of anything that is said or done, it's either not enough or too much.

I'm not saying they are totally innocent. I hope with all my heart 100% that they are. I will believe it until proven otherwise. I can rake them over the coals and stomp on them at that time. For now, I will support and trust that they did nothing. I'm not willing to add to a families grief by attacking them for things that are, at this point, speculation and innuendo. IMO

ETA: Tara McDonald didn't shed a tear in public - her timeline changed, she hid things, she failed a lie detector test, she was accused by LE and the public at large...yet she was innocent!

Originally Posted by Kamille

BBM

I see a lot of things in this case that seem to point to DB's possible involvement in Lisa's disappearance. And every time I do, I keep thinking of Tara and how guilty she seemed because of the other things she was trying to hide. I wish DB had her strength to get in front of the camera's every day regardless of what people are saying about her and keep Lisa's story front and center. Not doing that is what disturbs me the most about her behaviour.

MOO

I was struck by the similarities on the fb pages right away. I was on the other side last time...not making that mistake again :(
 
MK: And then the next phone record that evening shows that somebody attempted to call DB's voicemail at 3:17 and 3:22am?

JP: That is correct. Along with the fact that the internet browser was activated 5 times although from the records you can't tell exactly the time that the buttons were pushed to search the internet.

MK: so was the internet successfully accessed, do we know?

JP: I believe so. I don't believe that there would be a record of it.


Taken from an excellent transcript of the cell phone part of the interview by askfornina on the previous cell phone thread...

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7341746&postcount=306"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Missing Cell Phones #2[/ame]
 
What about the 8:30 call? Another rumor or mistake?

More like a very smart tactic by the FBI to get MW to admit that while she did not have her phone at 8:30pm, she did get it back in time for the actual 11:57pm call.

MOO
 
Why would anyone with a smart phone dial *86 to access their voice mail?
 
MK: And then the next phone record that evening shows that somebody attempted to call DB's voicemail at 3:17 and 3:22am?

JP: That is correct. Along with the fact that the internet browser was activated 5 times although from the records you can't tell exactly the time that the buttons were pushed to search the internet.

MK: so was the internet successfully accessed, do we know?

JP: I believe so. I don't believe that there would be a record of it.


Taken from an excellent transcript of the cell phone part of the interview by askfornina on the previous cell phone thread...

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Missing Cell Phones #2

Thank you Kamille, I hadn't seen that post.

from askfornina's transcript in the link~thank you~ - "She recieved a uh, her husband, uh not her husband, her fiance Jeremy tried to contact her early in the evening to tell her that he was going to be late coming home, it went direct to the verizon message, stating that the phone is not operable." - new lawyer JP

People Magazine 10/31/11 newsstand edition pg 49 "And because they hadn't paid their cell phone bill and their service had been restricted, Irwin wasn't able to let Bradley know when he'd be home."

It doesn't make sense why there are 2 versions about this?
 
MK: And then the next phone record that evening shows that somebody attempted to call DB's voicemail at 3:17 and 3:22am?

JP: That is correct. Along with the fact that the internet browser was activated 5 times although from the records you can't tell exactly the time that the buttons were pushed to search the internet.

MK: so was the internet successfully accessed, do we know?

JP: I believe so. I don't believe that there would be a record of it.


Taken from an excellent transcript of the cell phone part of the interview by askfornina on the previous cell phone thread...

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Missing Cell Phones #2

First, JP claims the phone could receive incoming calls and then later he claims the voice mail didn't work because the phone service was "off." Pure spin....
 
Why would anyone with a smart phone dial *86 to access their voice mail?

Was it a smart phone?

I didn't know that *86 was the way to dial voicemail (for Verizon). I've only had T-mobile and Sprint and it's always been dial 1. Hmmm. . .but that doesn't mean it's not common knowledge though. . .just new to me.

I have to say, I'm really :fence: I'm not sure what to think about all this new phone info. Does this now mean that the sighting by MT can't be possible? Wouldn't that be outside of the ping area? And the timing would make it seem impossible if someone was on foot. I never put much faith in that sighting anyway, but it's all interesting.

This does seem to support the SODDI theory.
 
Thank you Kamille, I hadn't seen that post.

from askfornina's transcript in the link~thank you~ - "She recieved a uh, her husband, uh not her husband, her fiance Jeremy tried to contact her early in the evening to tell her that he was going to be late coming home, it went direct to the verizon message, stating that the phone is not operable." - new lawyer JP

People Magazine 10/31/11 newsstand edition pg 49 "And because they hadn't paid their cell phone bill and their service had been restricted, Irwin wasn't able to let Bradley know when he'd be home."

It doesn't make sense why there are 2 versions about this?

The lawyer seems totally unaware of what his clients have already said. They started out saying the phones didn't work and implied cops were lying about the pings and burned clothing.

JMO
 
Thank you Kamille, I hadn't seen that post.

from askfornina's transcript in the link~thank you~ - "She recieved a uh, her husband, uh not her husband, her fiance Jeremy tried to contact her early in the evening to tell her that he was going to be late coming home, it went direct to the verizon message, stating that the phone is not operable." - new lawyer JP

People Magazine 10/31/11 newsstand edition pg 49 "And because they hadn't paid their cell phone bill and their service had been restricted, Irwin wasn't able to let Bradley know when he'd be home."

It doesn't make sense why there are 2 versions about this?

I don't read it like that. JI "tried" to call DB and let her know but "wasn't able to let Bradley know when he'd be home" because the call didn't go through." Instead, it was re-routed to the message that the phones were not operable.

MOO
 
Regarding the internet browser. If the phones were restricted for incoming and outgoing calls, I can't imagine that they would be able to access the internet browser via the data plan from the service provider. So why would someone try to access the internet 5 times if they were unsuccessful the first couple of times? Does this mean that they did access the internet and if so how? Would a wireless connection to the internet browser on the phone show up on the phone bill as access to the internet since it does not use mb's from a data plan?

And if so, were the phones in an area where there was an unsecured wireless connection? No wonder LE wants those phones so bad.

Then again I suppose it could be just someone hitting buttons repeatedly on a phone trying to see what features they could access.

MOO
 
Thank you Kamille, I hadn't seen that post.

from askfornina's transcript in the link~thank you~ - "She recieved a uh, her husband, uh not her husband, her fiance Jeremy tried to contact her early in the evening to tell her that he was going to be late coming home, it went direct to the verizon message, stating that the phone is not operable." - new lawyer JP

People Magazine 10/31/11 newsstand edition pg 49 "And because they hadn't paid their cell phone bill and their service had been restricted, Irwin wasn't able to let Bradley know when he'd be home."

It doesn't make sense why there are 2 versions about this?

Well, he wasn't able to let her know he'd be late, because although he tried to call, their phone was restricted and it went to verizon message.
 
First, JP claims the phone could receive incoming calls and then later he claims the voice mail didn't work because the phone service was "off." Pure spin....

He said the phones were turned off 'early' in the afternoon. We don't know that Jeremy didn't try to call on his way home at 2:30, which would be when they realized it.
 
Was it a smart phone?

I didn't know that *86 was the way to dial voicemail (for Verizon). I've only had T-mobile and Sprint and it's always been dial 1. Hmmm. . .but that doesn't mean it's not common knowledge though. . .just new to me.

I have to say, I'm really :fence: I'm not sure what to think about all this new phone info. Does this now mean that the sighting by MT can't be possible? Wouldn't that be outside of the ping area? And the timing would make it seem impossible if someone was on foot. I never put much faith in that sighting anyway, but it's all interesting.

This does seem to support the SODDI theory.

BBM

Can any phone other than a smart phone access the internet? With all of the different kinds of phones out there I really have no idea about this. :waitasec:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
171
Guests online
1,927
Total visitors
2,098

Forum statistics

Threads
589,985
Messages
17,928,700
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top