George/Lexus & Casey's Contact Pattern

[Valhall]

I think the number is actually to Gentiva and not Lexus. Because on June 13th Casey could have dropped Caylee off with Grandma and the calls would match up with that. I do think, Valhall, it is good to dredge this back up.

Well, I have to agree with you on the Lexus versus Gentiva issue. I can't feel comfortable going with those calls being to the Lexus dealer when they are more than one time bracketed by calls to Cindy's cell phone. It seems apparent that KC is trying to contact Cindy. And George didn't work at the Lexus dealer, so...

 

[BondJamesBond]

Not bringing anything new to the topic...just trolling around this morning and didn't see JWG's post on this subject from Mythbusters thread posted here. Bringing it over for reference sake. Thought it belonged here too. Hope you don't mind, JWG.

Even LE was running with that myth for months. In the latest document dump we see on several pages, including page 4300 (July 30, 2008):

Yet later we see on January 22 that page 4208 is updated:

The latter is consistent with the ATT records.

 

[AZlawyer]

BJB and JWG, you know I love you but I must add that the AT&T Excel spreadsheet shown in JWG's post above is only one of the "original" AT&T records disclosed in this case. The Excel spreadsheet shows the Lexus number (the -0000 number). The other two AT&T proprietary documents show the Gentiva number (the -7992 number) for the same calls. Without knowing how the Excel spreadsheet was generated--i.e., does AT&T data directly export to Excel? Is this an error-prone process?--it's tough to figure out which one is the "most original" of the "original" AT&T records.

 

[BondJamesBond]

BJB and JWG, you know I love you :

...und, of gorse, AZ, da' feelingk is mootchahl :blowkiss:

but I must add

How'd I know there was a :behind: coming

that the AT&T Excel spreadsheet shown in JWG's post above is only one of the "original" AT&T records disclosed in this case. The Excel spreadsheet shows the Lexus number (the -0000 number). The other two AT&T proprietary documents show the Gentiva number (the -7992 number) for the same calls. Without knowing how the Excel spreadsheet was generated--i.e., does AT&T data directly export to Excel? Is this an error-prone process?--it's tough to figure out which one is the "most original" of the "original" AT&T records.

Actually, I think I know most of what you mean, AZ, but, I don't wanna assume. Can you clarify somethin' for me. One thing that's throwin' me is referring to the "Excel spreadsheet". What is in JWG's post above is different than the Excel spreadsheet that was released. Which leads me to the following...lemme try an outline...and you guys straighten me out:

Exhibit A:
Casey's original AT&T cell log released in '08. A hardcopy/pdf AT&T-generated report. This was the version that was OCR'd by ElizaAvalon, TexasLil, and again by JWG, and others that contributed to the process...YKWIM. It became CellLogRevX, where X=1,2,3, etc.

Exhibit B:
Item 1 of "The other two AT&T proprietary documents show the Gentiva number (the -7992 number) for the same calls." :waitasec:

Exhibit C:
Item 2 of "The other two AT&T proprietary documents show the Gentiva number (the -7992 number) for the same calls." :waitasec:

Exhibit D:
The Excel version of Exhibit A that was released earlier this year, that has now become CellLogRev14.

Exhibit E:
A hardcopy/pdf AT&T-generated report of 1/22/09 referenced in JWG's post above...e.g. page 4208.

I'm not exactly clear on what you are referring to for Exhibits B & C. Can you help me out? The only thing that is coming to mind for me are some 'toll call' LE-generated reports that were released..but, these weren't "AT&T proprietary" and were also the source of some errors (e.g. Matt C. vs. Sean H. on 6/19, IIRC, which sent JWG down a rabbit hole for a day)...so...I'm thinkin' you are referring to something else. Maybe we can kick this can a little further down the street.

 

[AZlawyer]

...und, of gorse, AZ, da' feelingk is mootchahl :blowkiss:


How'd I know there was a :behind: coming



Actually, I think I know most of what you mean, AZ, but, I don't wanna assume. Can you clarify somethin' for me. One thing that's throwin' me is referring to the "Excel spreadsheet". What is in JWG's post above is different than the Excel spreadsheet that was released. Which leads me to the following...lemme try an outline...and you guys straighten me out:

Exhibit A:
Casey's original AT&T cell log released in '08. A hardcopy/pdf AT&T-generated report. This was the version that was OCR'd by ElizaAvalon, TexasLil, and again by JWG, and others that contributed to the process...YKWIM. It became CellLogRevX, where X=1,2,3, etc.

Exhibit B:
Item 1 of "The other two AT&T proprietary documents show the Gentiva number (the -7992 number) for the same calls." :waitasec:

Exhibit C:
Item 2 of "The other two AT&T proprietary documents show the Gentiva number (the -7992 number) for the same calls." :waitasec:

Exhibit D:
The Excel version of Exhibit A that was released earlier this year, that has now become CellLogRev14.

Exhibit E:
A hardcopy/pdf AT&T-generated report of 1/22/09 referenced in JWG's post above...e.g. page 4208.

I'm not exactly clear on what you are referring to for Exhibits B & C. Can you help me out? The only thing that is coming to mind for me are some 'toll call' LE-generated reports that were released..but, these weren't "AT&T proprietary" and were also the source of some errors (e.g. Matt C. vs. Sean H. on 6/19, IIRC, which sent JWG down a rabbit hole for a day)...so...I'm thinkin' you are referring to something else. Maybe we can kick this can a little further down the street.

Hmmm...let me see...

I would say Exhibits A, D and E all seem to stem from the same AT&T-generated, proprietary Excel spreadsheet, although I believe the version posted by JWG includes a column added by LE describing the calls ("To Tony Lazzaro", etc.) that wasn't in the original AT&T document. IIRC, all of these have the Lexus number and not the Gentiva number.

Exhibits B and C are in .pdf form and are also AT&T proprietary documents--probably one in "raw" form and one in more of a "ready to bill" form--with the Gentiva number in place of the Lexus number--see snippets of both documents here (6/16/08 call at 4:10 pm):

Exhibit B: http://members.cox.net/mondragora/gentiva%20sample%201.pdf

Exhibit C: http://members.cox.net/mondragora/gentiva%20sample%202.pdf

"Exhibit B" seems to have been created by AT&T on 9/2/08 and "Exhibit C" on 7/17/08.

 

[JWG]

Actually, I think I know most of what you mean, AZ, but, I don't wanna assume. Can you clarify somethin' for me. One thing that's throwin' me is referring to the "Excel spreadsheet". What is in JWG's post above is different than the Excel spreadsheet that was released. Which leads me to the following...lemme try an outline...and you guys straighten me out:

** S N I P **

Maybe we can kick this can a little further down the street.

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:.

Anyway, you did not ask me to talk about 6th grade. You wanted help with the reams of phone records and analysis dumped out there over the past 9 months. So let me take a crack at it :gavel:.

Following is an inventory of records I have...it may not be complete, but I tried :bang::

• KC ATT Cell Data Records, dated 8/21/2008, discovery pages 432-582. This is an "ATT CDR LIVE w/Cell Sites" report, and is the source of Bond's Exhibit A. It shows a Lexus phone number in the calls that are in question.

• KC Calls June 15-20, pages 2570-2582. This is a LE-generated report (probably from a spreadsheet) that shows Gentiva and the Gentiva number in the calls that are in question. The source of the document is not known.

• KC ATT Cell Data Records, dated 8/11/2008, discovery pages 4334-4496. This is an "ATT CDR LIVE w/Cell Sites" report that was released in the March 5 document dump. It shows a Lexus phone number in the calls that are in question, and all of them have been highlighted.

• KC ATT Cell Data Records, date not shown, discovery pages 4144-4290. This is an "ATT CDR LIVE w/Cell Sites" report that was released in the March 5 document dump. However, this one has additional LE annotations showing names of who was called or had placed a call. It shows a Lexus phone number in the calls that are in question, and it explicitly states that the call was to Lexus of Orlando.

• KC ATT Cell Data Records, dated 7/28/2008, discovery pages 4515-4570. This is an "ATT CDR LIVE w/Cell Sites" report that was released in the March 5 document dump. It shows a Lexus phone number in the calls that are in question.

• An FDLE report entry, dated July 29 (page 4300) lists all of the calls as being to Gentiva and shows the Gentiva phone number. The complete report closes out on December 11, 2008.

• Spreadsheets were included in the April 6 document dump containing KC's cell phone records from ATT. All are copies or subcopies of one another. The file "TRUE FULL COPY of Casey Anthony CELL PHONE records from AT&T.xls" was used as the source input data for our CellLogRev14.xls, replacing the previously hand-edited scanned version that had undergone so many corrections in the past. This file is dated November 3, 2008, and shows a Lexus phone number in the calls that are in question.

The date the report was generated is not known, but it was clearly before November 27, the date of the dump.
​

• Also in the document dump are KC's cell phone billing records, dated July 17, 2008. These records show a Gentiva phone number in the calls that are in question.

(The final two items described above do not have discovery pages associated with them. They are part of a zipped data file that was included in the April document dump.)

So, what conclusion can I draw? :waitasec: Well, if I boil it down, the ATT billing records say Gentiva, and the ATT cell tower records say Lexus. It is that simple. (Full disclosure: I do not own ATT stock ... thankfully :yow:.)

Where is LE is parked on this? :cop:

Well, the latest date of an annotated report - January 22, 2009 - shows Lexus. Also, they gave a file dated November 3, 2008 the name "TRUE FULL COPY of Casey Anthony CELL PHONE records from AT&T.xls" - and this file says Lexus. And the kicker...in November's interview of Ricardo, LE asked him if he knew of anyone that worked at the Lexus dealership. Clearly they were serious about the possible Lexus connection.

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.

Anthony home phone records released in the April dump show George called Gentiva at 9:49 AM, and then he called Cindy's cell at 10:21 AM and 10:22 AM. KC showed up at the house at roughly 2:30 PM.

The cell tower records do not show any calls between Cindy and KC on June 24 until 2:45 PM, where based on the pings it appears Casey is leaving the home - gas can incident done. However, the "CDR Live" records do show a six minute call to Lexus at 11:20 AM. In the "billing records" the 11:20 AM call shows as a call to Gentiva.

It appears that the only way KC could have spoken to Cindy between 9:45 AM and 2:30 PM is if the call was in fact to Gentiva and not Lexus.

 

[AZlawyer]

[SNIPPED]

So, what conclusion can I draw? :waitasec: Well, if I boil it down, the ATT billing records say Gentiva, and the ATT cell tower records say Lexus. It is that simple. (Full disclosure: I do not own ATT stock ... thankfully :yow:.)

[SNIPPED]

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.

Anthony home phone records released in the April dump show George called Gentiva at 9:49 AM, and then he called Cindy's cell at 10:21 AM and 10:22 AM. KC showed up at the house at roughly 2:30 PM.

The cell tower records do not show any calls between Cindy and KC on June 24 until 2:45 PM, where based on the pings it appears Casey is leaving the home - gas can incident done. However, the "CDR Live" records do show a six minute call to Lexus at 11:20 AM. In the "billing records" the 11:20 AM call shows as a call to Gentiva.

It appears that the only way KC could have spoken to Cindy between 9:45 AM and 2:30 PM is if the call was in fact to Gentiva and not Lexus.

Thanks, JWG!! Now we just have to figure out why the billing records would differ from the tower records. :waitasec:

I would place little to no probative value on (1) LE reports or (2) where LE seems to be "parked" on an issue at any given time. This is a work in progress and they probably hate that we're getting to watch them make the sausage in this case. They will do fine in the end, but they are not infallible and have a zillion balls in the air, to mix my sausage and juggling metaphors.

IF the calls are to Gentiva, of course, we should be looking more closely at the timing and duration of the calls, as they represent communications with Cindy. IMHO this is a much more interesting sleuthing path than the Lexus path, which seems to have petered out. For example, the "flurry" of calls after 4 pm on June 16th ends with a call 1.63 minutes long to Gentiva. Was the "flurry" unsuccessful, then, as we have all assumed, or did she actually reach Cindy and tell her something? What did she say? "Oh, mom, I know I asked you to watch Caylee this evening but ummmmm actually I'm right by Zanny's apartment so I'm just going to drop her off there instead of at your office cuz ummmmmm I'm going to be working really late anyway so I don't want to keep you up cuz ummmmm I know how you hate that so probably I'll just go spend the night at Zanny's with Caylee so ummmmmm she doesn't have to be woken up cuz ummmmmm I'm like really trying to get her on a schedule"? plusIjustkilledCayleeactuallysoIcan'treallybringherovertoyouroffice

 

[sadyjade]

okay ... as encouraged earlier to *just put it out there and risk embarassment*

CA was in a posistion of authority at Gentiva, admisistratve if memory serves ... Could she (or someone else) had a phonecall placed to one local, forwarded to another? I've often wondered if perhaps one of the A's didn't have an outside love intrest ... I mean, it's not like these two have been lovey dovet leading up to this ... in fact, many reports suggest otherwise.

 

[BondJamesBond]

And that, ladies & gentlemen, is what ya hafta love 'bout WS.

Tune in next time when the brunette :genie: in the bushes asks JWG why he's juggling the sausages :Banane27:...and Cindy asks, AZ, "Whyareurunninurwordstogetherwithouttakin'abreathImeanummmmmitsnotlikeurguiltyorsomethin'isit?"

I thoroughly, thoroughly appreciate the time you two have invested in clarifying things in the last two posts. Add to it the high degree of professionalism...nary a sign of anything less than the highest regard/respect for the other position. IMHO, this approach really advances the ball down the field. It doesn't mean we agree...but it does put the sausage squarely in the cross-hairs...to mix a metaphor of my own :bang: Why could/would the billing records not be in synch w/ the tower records?

A supreme negotiator once told me that the reason most arguments fail to resolve anything is because the two parties place themselves on opposite sides of the artyguy: problem artyguy: and, as a consequence, work against each other - cancelling out their efforts - getting nowhere. The key he said...is to get both parties on the same side of the artyguy:artyguy: problem and focus on IT and not EACH OTHER.

That being said...its pretty obvious now, isn't it? Expressed mathmatically it would look something like this:

:deal: Billing records = bean counters :read:
:book: Tower records = engineers ropeller:
:read: bean counters <> engineers ropeller:, therefore
:deal: Billing records <> tower records :book:
...substituting that...
ropeller: Engineers>>>bean counters :read:
...we have...
:book: Tower records>>> Billing records :deal:
...therefore...

Lexus = Lexus​

See ya! :takeoff:

 

[sadyjade]

First and foremost ... Bond, best use of smiliey icons EVER! LOL

All three of you inspire me ... JWG I am a brunette who is blushing, thinkin back to when I played *kick the can* lol

Thanks guys, for the genuine laughs and excellent info!

 

[JWG]

Expressed mathmatically it would look something like this:

Billing records = bean counters
Tower records = engineers
bean counters <> engineers , therefore
Billing records <> tower records
...substituting that...
Engineers>>>bean counters
...we have...
Tower records>>> Billing records
...therefore...

Lexus = Lexus​

See ya!

We could try negative logic:

:deal: Billing records = bean counters :read:
:book: Tower records = engineers ropeller:
:read: bean counters <> engineers ropeller:, therefore
:deal: Billing records <> tower records :book:
Incorrect billing record :doh: == Massively PO'd customer :furious:
Incorrect tower record :doh: == None the wiser :balloon:
Incorrect billing record :furious: >>> Incorrect tower record :balloon:
Therefore we must have (to avoid serious problems)::argue:
Billing record >>> Tower record
...therefore...

Gentiva > Lexus​

 

[AZlawyer]

OK, who has an inside contact at AT&T who can clear up the confusion???? I'm reserving final judgment until then but have one finger pressed down on the "Gentiva" side of the scale.

Seriously, though, if those calls are to Gentiva we've been missing an interesting angle re: Casey/Cindy contacts.

 

[BondJamesBond]

OK, who has an inside contact at AT&T who can clear up the confusion???? I'm reserving final judgment until then but have one finger pressed down on the "Gentiva" side of the scale.

Seriously, though, if those calls are to Gentiva we've been missing an interesting angle re: Casey/Cindy contacts.

...and I have spoon in hand ready to eat my words, AZ.

No harm in considering both avenues. IMHO, both you and JWG have pointed out examples where =Gentiva makes sense in context w/ other info (e.g. stand down from a pre-arranged Caylee xfer 6/16 & gas-can-drama-precursor).

 

[BondJamesBond]

Incorrect billing record :doh: == Massively PO'd customer :furious:
Incorrect tower record :doh: == None the wiser :balloon:
Incorrect billing record :furious: >>> Incorrect tower record :balloon:
Therefore we must have (to avoid serious problems)::argue:
Billing record >>> Tower record
...therefore...

Gentiva > Lexus​

*snipped before the smiley police are deployed :cop:*

Scary thing is ... ...I actually think IKWYM.

 

[JWG]

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.

 

[AZlawyer]

:doh: Now I'm going to have to check both sets of records every time.... Maybe if we look at each of these examples more closely, we can figure out the difference in how the two records were generated by AT&T, though. For example, KC's texts to herself perhaps would not require the involvement of any tower?

But back to Gentiva v. Lexus. What are the chances that KC was really calling Lexus and the billing records somehow screwed up and mis-assigned all those calls to a number that just HAPPENED to be her mother's work number and often when it appears she just HAPPENED to be trying to reach her mother on her cell phone around the same time? Pretty low, I think. Conversely, if the tower records are the ones that are screwed up for these calls, what are the chances that the wrong number in the tower records would be one for which we can't find ANY real connection with KC or anyone else involved in the case? Well....pretty high, really.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Even LE was running with that myth for months. In the latest document dump we see on several pages, including page 4300 (July 30, 2008):

Yet later we see on January 22 that page 4208 is updated:

The latter is consistent with the ATT records.

:doh: Now I'm going to have to check both sets of records every time.... Maybe if we look at each of these examples more closely, we can figure out the difference in how the two records were generated by AT&T, though. For example, KC's texts to herself perhaps would not require the involvement of any tower?

*snipped*

OK...half-baked, but, lemme offer this up :woohoo:

I just noticed :doh: maybe you guys saw this all along...

In the following example (forget what Exhibit letter I gave it :bang but, in LE-version of the records I see something that might clue us into something to look for in the 'Gentiva' version.

Ever notice (1) The ORIGINATING and DESTINATION #'s are both ~Gentiva's x7992 number (one exception) EXCEPT THE EXCHANGE NUMBER IS DIFFERENT IN THE DIFFERENT COLUMNS!! 619 VS. 629!! And (2) Note also that 619 is Casey's cell exchange (i.e. (407) 619-9286)

These are Casey Calls TO "Gentiva" so, in the process of filtering the report LE somehow corrupted the last 4-digs of data in the ORIGINATING column. :bang:

Tell you that to tell you this...

Depending on how you filter data (assuming they are working from a spreadsheet, but, never know...they could be working from a database) the filtering process may have problems with '0000', the last 4-digs of Lexus. It can be screwed up by data being defined as text vs. number, etc.

I dealt w/ this on our cell log look-up early on since we were using the last 4-digits to match-up the # with the entity in a look-up table.

Perhaps...just perhaps...the records you're referring to AZ were subject to the same sort of corruption...or data exception problem with the '0000' results that resulted in a post-generation *correction* against an LE-corrupted product already in-progress based on their date & timestamps (should find a better term than LE-corrupted). Let's take a look and see. Can you point me to 'em?

 

[sadyjade]

I'd buy that for a dollar, Bond

 

[AZlawyer]

*snipped*

OK...half-baked, but, lemme offer this up and an idea on where we can go with it. :woohoo:

I just noticed :doh: maybe you guys saw this all along...

In the following example (forget what Exhibit letter I gave it :bang but, in LE-version of the records I see something that might clue us into something to look for in the 'Gentiva' version.

Ever notice (1) The ORIGINATING and DESTINATION #'s are both ~Gentiva's x7992 number (one exception) EXCEPT THE EXCHANGE NUMBER IS DIFFERENT IN THE DIFFERENT COLUMNS!! 619 VS. 629!! And (2) Note also that 619 is Casey's cell exchange (i.e. (407) 619-9286)

These are Casey Calls TO "Gentiva" so, in the process of filtering the report LE somehow corrupted the last 4-digs of data in the ORIGINATING column. :bang:

Tell you that to tell you this...

Depending on how you filter data (assuming they are working from a spreadsheet, but, never know...they could be working from a database) the filtering process may have problems with '0000', the last 4-digs of Lexus. It can be screwed up by data being defined as text vs. number, etc.

I dealt w/ this on our cell log look-up early on since we were using the last 4-digits to match-up the # with the entity in a look-up table.

Perhaps...just perhaps...the records you're referring to AZ were subject to the same sort of corruption...or data exception problem with the '0000' results that resulted in a post-generation *correction* against an LE-corrupted product already in-progress based on their date & timestamps (should find a better term than LE-corrupted). Let's take a look and see. Can you point me to 'em?

I don't think at least the first AT&T document was in any way changed post-LE review, because it is dated 7/17/08 (i.e., immediately after LE started its investigation). Plus I don't think AT&T would ever change their records based upon LE telling them they were wrong anyway , and if they did it would ruin the value of the records as evidence, so LE would never ask them to do it.

Here are the links again to the AT&T billing records showing Gentiva numbers on 6/16/08 (I have not included the full documents because the files would be too large):

http://members.cox.net/mondragora/ge...sample%201.pdf

http://members.cox.net/mondragora/ge...sample%202.pdf

I really think we should disregard the LE charts and reports entirely for purposes of figuring out Lexus v. Gentiva, and just focus on AT&T records. I assume the LE charts showing calls to Gentiva came about because the very first records they got from AT&T--on 7/17/08--showed that the calls were to Gentiva. Then LE asked AT&T for ping data, and all of a sudden the calls seemed to be to Lexus rather than Gentiva. LE "fixed" their spreadsheet accordingly. So did we. But LE's spreadsheet is of no greater evidentiary value than ours, because both are derived from the same AT&T records.

 

[JWG]

I don't think at least the first AT&T document was in any way changed post-LE review, because it is dated 7/17/08 (i.e., immediately after LE started its investigation). Plus I don't think AT&T would ever change their records based upon LE telling them they were wrong anyway , and if they did it would ruin the value of the records as evidence, so LE would never ask them to do it.

Here are the links again to the AT&T billing records showing Gentiva numbers on 6/16/08 (I have not included the full documents because the files would be too large):

http://members.cox.net/mondragora/ge...sample 1.pdf

http://members.cox.net/mondragora/ge...sample 2.pdf

I really think we should disregard the LE charts and reports entirely for purposes of figuring out Lexus v. Gentiva, and just focus on AT&T records. I assume the LE charts showing calls to Gentiva came about because the very first records they got from AT&T--on 7/17/08--showed that the calls were to Gentiva. Then LE asked AT&T for ping data, and all of a sudden the calls seemed to be to Lexus rather than Gentiva. LE "fixed" their spreadsheet accordingly. So did we. But LE's spreadsheet is of no greater evidentiary value than ours, because both are derived from the same AT&T records.

I agree we should be careful placing too much in the LE reports on the phone records. If the investigator is at all like me, he built a table in his Word document from scratch and then copy / pasted from a spreadsheet into the document. Somewhere along the way he thought he did a CTL-C to pick up KC's number...but it did not register and the old Gentiva number still on the clip-board went right where he did not want it. :doh:

Let's be clear what we are looking at. The 7/17 data is in the form of billing records. Some of the pages say the following: "This data provided may be in pre-bill format. Due to possible data losses it is not necessarily a complete record of all calls, and is not the same as an invoice received by a subscriber." As best I can tell, all other versions of the billing record are based off of this one particular record.

Contrast that to the cell tower record, of which LE received three different versions throughout August - all of which appear to be consistent. :thumb:
Bond reminded me recently ther_beatingA_Dead that billing records get generated downstream from the technical (e.g. tower) records and have post-processing applied that is dependent on things like the customer's billing plan (e.g. elapsed free minutes, peak vs. non-peak, etc.) and non-billed activities such as calls <1min, voicemail, etc.

One would think that the go-to record is the tower record. :waitasec:

All that being said...I think AZ had the best argument thus far :clap: when she applied a little combinatorial logic:

What are the chances that KC was really calling Lexus and the billing records somehow screwed up and mis-assigned all those calls to a number that just HAPPENED to be her mother's work number and often when it appears she just HAPPENED to be trying to reach her mother on her cell phone around the same time? Pretty low, I think. Conversely, if the tower records are the ones that are screwed up for these calls, what are the chances that the wrong number in the tower records would be one for which we can't find ANY real connection with KC or anyone else involved in the case? Well....pretty high, really.