- Oct 24, 2012
- Reaction score
I think that TE had said that the last call was 3:41 before the info of the 6:00 calls were made public. I don't think LE wanted him stating that info in the beginning. That is the only thing that makes sense to me.lol
The record is the record regardless of if or when it's made public. TE read the phone record and reported it to LE, who surely then saw it for themselves.
While I'm of the opinion that HE was deceased in a relatively short period of time after her date, I would think any contrived phone 'activity' better match up with ping locations that are reasonable, or someone's alibi has failed. Now, maybe whoever did this and played with the phone was smart enough to have his or her phone pinging from a specific address somewhere, while He's pinged from her condo and then finally PTL.
Nonetheless, two presumably credible sources (TE and LE), that saw the same record, are reading it differently.
This matters to me as I sift through the case because if 3:41 was in fact the last time the phone was used at all, as TE said, then this was decidedly well-planned, because a lot of steps and bases were covered before the perp/s wrapped up the crime by 3:41, including staging the last bogus phone activity.
If the phone was last used at 6:00, I would love to see how the pings rolled, and from where, because if she was deceased before 3:41, that's a case of someone placing even more distance between them and the time of the crime, and spending some serious time creating the illusion that all was well for another 4 or so hours after the date.
I think the more people lie sometimes, the more they tell the truth. I think this is the case with the perp(s) here, and the phone log is somehow going to be a large wrench in the alibi, not a help to it.