Phone Calls and Phone Records

Discussion in 'Netflix Series: Making A Murderer' started by eve314, Jan 11, 2016.

  1. eve314

    eve314 New Member

    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. To what extent are the 3 phone calls important in ascertaining Steven Avery's guilt?
    2. What are the implications of using *67?
    3. What are your thoughts/theories on the last 13 sec, non *67 call?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Tawny

    Tawny Bye

    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Quick question, do we know the *67s were calls from SA based on his phone records or hers? I can't recall!
     
  4. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  5. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's a thread discussing the phone calls and has information regarding the meaning of codes like the CFNA on that record.


    <modsnip>


    You'll see that in the trial , Kratz mentions that he believes that his original plan was to say that halbach never showed up. So the last call that they say is by Avery at 4:35, with no *67, and with TH's phone off the network - turned off or destroyed - was intended to allow him to say -- I called to ask where she was, and if she was still coming.

    However, Bobby Dassey and Bus Driver, say they saw her on the property taking a picture of the van near steve's trailer. So at that point for him to say he didn't see her, would have put the cabash on that plan and require him to contradict eye witnesses.

    I will say, that makes sense to me. It's plausible. Not saying I believe it went this way, but the logic is sound imo. It makes sense that someone might plan to do that, and have to change their plan given someone seeing teresa.

    If we were to accept that to be true, that would mean that Steve was unaware that anyone else had seen teresa up till 4:35. Or that anyone that did know, he wasn't concerned about them throwing a wrench in that plan by saying they saw her. (brendan ? Chuck ? Earl ?)

    That's my understanding of what the prosecution is saying.
     
  6. Tawny

    Tawny Bye

    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'm not sure what I'm looking at, how do they tell those are from SA and Auto Trader?

    ETA: Figuring it out slowly... ICELL is incoming tower.
     
  7. Tawny

    Tawny Bye

    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'm extremely interested in the calls, 14-21, coming from the same number.
     
  8. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I am not sure of that either. I have not seen someone explain why that is factual. However, based on there being no explanation or rebuttal saying otherwise, I assume the defense accepts it as factual.

    What I have been told is that ICell is the cell tower that the user of the phone (teresa) was pinging off of.
    The LCell is the cell tower that the person she is talking to was pinging off of.

    How they know it was steve or anyone else. Not sure.

    Whether there was a dropped call or not, I don't see how we'd know from this.

    All the calls with no ICell or LCell mean that she wasn't on the network at the time of the call.

    Why the location changes to Chicago starting with the call at 4:35 and how they know that was avery, not sure. But seems to be accepted by all.

    I am guessing that the chicago location , might be a difference as to what location handles the call - ie maybe calls get handled by the chicago location if the user if off the network ?

    I'm researching that now, to verify or confirm that theory.
     
  9. Tawny

    Tawny Bye

    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I'm so confused!
     
  10. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Join the party! But we know she was working all that time, so we can assume there was 1 call to each client and them calling back to confirm the appointment. Also, not crazy to think that maybe there were multiple calls if the person didn't answer the first time etc. Or called back to give more detail.

    That could be one reason why they didn't say who the calls were from. But seems to be vague enough to say - we know these were auto trader or clients. right ? but I don't see that ever being stated. So of course we wonder :)

    Another question I have, is if this is just incoming calls ? Or incoming and outgoing - doesn't seem to be any distinction if it's both.


    important to note that LCell being the tower, means the tower the other person's phone is pinging off of. Therefore if she is in transit to an area, she might be pinging off multiple towers along the way, but ALL of the clients were pinging off the same tower. Also, maybe all those calls are from auto trader ? so that's why we see the same LCell tower.

    Lastly the CFNA -- does that mean she blocked someone and that's why we see CFNA.

    That image is potentially misleading - the one with the lines and the "who made this call?" text. It implies that it's not steve avery, because of the other grouping saying "Steve Avery".

    However, it pings off the same tower as all the avery calls. But her phone pings off a different tower, which makes sense since she's traveling. Avery is not.

    So, verifying if that call at 2:41 was from avery or not, would be worthwhile. If it is, then clearly this photo is misrepresenting the facts by seemingly asserting it's not Avery.
     
  11. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Haha, I hear ya. I get that feeling often researching this case.

    But I think I am starting to better understand this document, so at least I can know what it means and what questions to ask.

    Avery trial might be more specific about all this. (I hope)

    Would be nice if the case images detailed who's phone each call came from, instead of making it confusing :)
     
  12. MaxManning

    MaxManning New Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I also want to know how they know *67 was used. Where is that doc ? Because what I have read elsewhere is that the 4:35 call had no *67 and was Steve Avery.

    So who was the 2:41 call. that's the mystery I guess. Not clear on why it should be :/
     
  13. SCHMAE

    SCHMAE New Member

    Messages:
    12,937
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  14. mrssunshine

    mrssunshine New Member

    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I find it suspicious. I see no valid reason for using *67 the first 2 calls, and the not using it on the 4:35 call.

    I kind of think he was setting up his alibi to say she never arrived or he was trying to locate her phone--to get rid of it.

    Anyhow, I feel this is one of those sad cases, where the Police did corrupt (possibly planted) the evidence and rushed to judgment, even if he is the right guy, there should have been enough reasonable doubt. IMO

    He might be guilty, but as much as it pains me to see a killer go free, he should not be in jail.
     
  15. TheDuchess

    TheDuchess New Member

    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would imagine that they were able to determine that he called Teresa those times and how he called her by obtaining HIS phone records, not necessarily hers.
     
  16. TheDuchess

    TheDuchess New Member

    Messages:
    2,263
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    SAs attorney explained that SA often used the *67 feature due to his notoriety and it was just a habit. Not sure what happened with the last one, so I am not sure.

    I dont find it suspicious to use the feature as it is readily available to everyone and millions of people use it every day.
     
  17. Tawny

    Tawny Bye

    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    The reason I don't find *67 suspicious is the surrounding circumstances. What would be the point when Teresa, Auto Trader, your family, and who knows who else knows she's headed to your house that day?

    To me, it supports the suggestion that it was habit, that he wanted to protect his actual phone number from being leaked to the public or whatever (he had just been exonerated, what, a year prior? That's still fairly hot news). And if it's true that *67 isn't included when you redial, it supports the idea that the last call was a misdial. JMO.

    What we should be asking in order to discredit that suggestion is: Did he use *67 for any other calls, not JUST to Teresa? Or is she the ONLY person he used *67 on who wasn't a regular contact (family/friend).
     
  18. Sleuther87

    Sleuther87 New Member

    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Question about Strang's explanation being in interviews that Avery values his privacy:

    If that's the case, during the trial did the defense show any other examples on Avery's phone records of using *67?

    I guess we'll find out soon when we can read the transcripts.
     
  19. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?

    Messages:
    10,283
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Why would Avery need to hide his phone number when calling TH? The logical inference is he didn't want her to know it was him calling so that she would pick up the call.

    Phone companies can absolutely tell what digits were dialed and by whom. Everything is computerized and dialing patterns are part of the data that is captured. Phone companies know if a call went to VM or if it was answered... they can find out all of those variables.

    In setting up the visit with AutoTrader (i.e. TH), SA gave his sister's name and his sister's phone number. There was a call to the sister's phone that day from either Auto Trader or TH (can't remember which). Yet it was SA who was on hand to meet with TH and it was SA who was with her and, as far as we know, no one else besides Brendan was there (Brendan said he was there after taking some mail over to SA's trailer).
     
  20. Tawny

    Tawny Bye

    Messages:
    5,574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    If this were anyone else, someone who hadn't just been exonerated less than 2 years earlier which was a high-profile exoneration meaning lots of press, I would wonder more about *67.

    As stated numerous times before, he gave the name and number of the person who was selling the vehicle. It was Barb's vehicle.

    Were it any other day and any other situation, none of that would even register as strange. It only does now because TH disappeared. JMO!
     
  21. PrimeSuspect

    PrimeSuspect New Member

    Messages:
    8,675
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice