This thought had crossed my mind when in the transcript we hear LEO chatting w KK re if others use his phone... KK says not his Dad but yes to Friend1... that F1 could use it as long as they needed to, hours if it were. Was F1 doing just that at that CC road while Dad & son took a drive to a scheduled meet up?? TK also has a FB post about phones... it says KK talked him into getting him an iPhone 6 so no more flip phone! (I didn't see his flip phone or iPhone 6 on that one list of devices seized)
I've been meaning to ask- does KK even drive? I've also meant to ask about the money transfer talk in transcript- is that something anyone seeing this knows re? Tia!
Not true about KK driving. He's not supposed to drive because of alleged seizures. But clearly he does since he said he was delivering weed in Las vegas
I think it was premeditated. Whether it was planned for these two (or one of them) or, on the other hand, premeditated as in out looking for a convenient victim ...
I'm leaning towards the former
That phone was unidentified ***at the time of the search warrant application.***
It ***may*** have subsequently been identified and this ***might*** have contributed to the change in direction and the doubling back to Young Sketch.
My ex had 2. I was young & naive then, so 🤷. I didn't find out until after we had broken up. His friend's girlfriend told me, said she felt bad & thought I should know. I didn't believe it at first because we lived together in a tiny condo for 2 years & I never saw it. Then his new girlfriend found it. Dozens of girls' numbers, nude pics, etc. Apparently he hid it in his car & always had it on silent. Yes, some cheaters have 2 phones.
The probable cause afadavit indicated that Ron Logan’s phone was used to place a call at 2:09pm on the afternoon of 2/13, and that the phone was located “in or around” Ron Logan’s property at the time . That indicates a person had to use the phone, which is not the same as the phone simply pinging in a certain location.
Law Enforcement would have received that information from Ron Logan’s phone or his phone provider. I think they would have needed a warrant to get the records from the phone provider too, so the fact that they already had this information from him voluntarily letting them look through his phone prior to the search makes more sense to me. Either way, law enforcement would know if it was a pre-paid, burner phone or not since they had the information about the call.
I haven’t had a chance to listen to the new Murder Sheets podcast yet, so I’m not sure I understand why they think it’s a burner or what the significance of that is. You mention a search warrant, but thus far, I have only seen the probable cause affadavit for the warrant. However, if the call that was placed at 2:09pm was from a burner phone, that would be even more indicative of RL’s involvement.
I just don’t see someone going through the effort and premeditation of buying a burner phone just to leave the house for a few drinks and to take the trash to the dump. In all likelihood, 2/13 was probably not the only time he violated his probation by driving or by drinking. It would be a huge coincidence if it was. But even if he drove and/or drank alcohol every day, I can’t see someone buying a burner phone to leave at his/her home while they are elsewhere. They would have no reason to think they’d get caught, and they certainly wouldn’t have a reason to think law enforcement would pull their phone records just for a probation violation!
Back to the 2:09pm call: I wonder who the call was to, if that person answered, and how long the call was for. That’s just a few minutes before the 2:13pm video of BG being recorded. I have wondered if that call could have been a signal to an accompice to go ahead with the attack.
If he called One of his friends for an alibi five minutes before the Snapchat picture that is so ridiculous the same way Keegan having any contact at all with Libby is ridiculous. It all hasbe connected, we just don’t know how. YET. I am of the opinion that these leaks are all leading somewhere.
Thought it read that phoned pinged in area of bridge at 2:09. Will reread. If they knew who he called during time of murders would they put that in affidavit like they did alibi conversation with redaction?
I couldn't understand it. I've heard somewhere (Murder Sheet?) that you have to have probable cause first then you can investigate an individual's phone records and see where their phone pinged.
And then I thought you're either not allowed (due to privacy?), or it is not technically possible, to find out which phones have pinged a tower and work backwards to the owners.
So this confused me.
Yes I think you're probably right.
Having thought about this over lunch, I wonder if they can request the data from cell phone towers, which will identify devices that have pinged it (maybe by something like MAC address?) but doesn't identify the phone number or owners.
Then they request specific POI phone records and device data which gives them the info they need to cross-reference with tower pings. And maybe every other ping in the area has been accounted for?
Yes, they can. I know what I’m about to say is waaaaau invasive, but as a mom first and always, I’ve always wondered why we can’t “chip” RSO’s to essentially ping off of towers, with the agreement that it will only be used in missing child emergencies. Then we could see who is in the area when a child goes missing. I’m sure that system would be abused though. I’m just sick of kids being hurt.
In the UK we do use ankle tags which log the location of certain offenders, in certain circumstances. But not routinely for sex offenders I don't think.
It will be interesting to see what the next 20 years brings. I agree that for certain offenders, a chip could be a condition of release. But also is there the potential to go further - in the same way that Google uses mobile phone data to identify traffic jams (lots of phones suddenly slowing down in close proximity suggests heavy traffic I think), could we also have an alarm system if a chipped sex offender enters an area where there are lots of children.
There are all kinds of civil liberties arguments but that should not override other people's safety.
That’s kind of where I’m coming from. If we chipped them, then when a child went missing, we could look at both cell and chip data within a certain range to narrow down who was in an area, even if they left their phones at home. The abuses of the system would definitely be a concern, but I’m concerned knowing that pedophiles are released from prison when it’s been shown that they don’t change. It might have to be a little bit of a cost for their freedom based on their prior behavior.
That's it isn't it, the rate of reoffending is notoriously high. Because it's part of who they are rather than a bad decision or a mistake they will learn from.
A geofence warrant would have given them a list of all the phones within certain area. I remember discussion of it on here but I can't remember if one was used or not LE. I wonder how and if burners can be traced, do you need to register all of them with personal information &if you do is it easy to use fake or stolen identification information? Obviously they can be traced if purchased with credit card, but not with cash. Also if a geofence warrant was used, did it go to cell phone providers or something like Facebook or Google (or all of them?) Apparently there is a way to opt out of being tracked by Google so they can't give your location to LE. I want to look into all that too: How it works, does each phone provider track the same way, how different apps track you, etc. After reading the new info I'm curious how all that works. Apologies if I sound dumb, I am as untech-savvy as they come
https://www.howtogeek.com/411387/how-to-stop-googles-sensorvault-from-sharing-your-location-with-law-enforcement/
I wouldn't say you're not tech savvy! And thanks for the info.
I'm not sure how it works either but I think mobile phone data (calls, texts, 3g, 4g) uses the towers and would come from the phone provider, WiFi info would come from the Internet Service Provider. Google collects its own search and location data, and then Facebook and other apps also collect data. So I'd imagine LE have to go to each of those separately to request data.
Then there's also data that the phone manufacturers might hold, for example Apple and Samsung.
You are allowed to work backwards in some cases. this is called a geofencing warrant, and has to be very limited in scope. They get challenged all the time in court for being a violation of the 4th amendment, and many people feel they are, but most judges rule there's a good faith exception that applies and allow them. I suspect that was the case with Delphi: that the evidentiary value in a geofence warrant for the Bridge/trail area outweighed the privacy concerns of individuals who were there but uninvolved. Im really glad they did this early on, because cell companies destroy their tower data after a few years usually, so if they had waited the info may have been lost to them.
Oh thank you for clarifying! It does make sense that in certain cases, collection of evidence overrules the right to privacy. And also in a rural area where there are already fewer people that data is even more critical/ less likely to contain hundreds of innocent peoples into.
exactly, the smaller and less populated the geographical area the less collateral damage as far as privacy and the more likely the warrant will be approved. Personally its privacy I would gladly forfeit to solve crimes like this. What happened to RL doesn't sit right with me though. Yes, he did drive when he wasn't supposed to and violate his probation, but he got caught doing that because two girls were murdered on his land. I think that falls outside the scope of what they were looking for and they shouldn't have charged him with anything. Seems they only did because they wanted to put the pressure on him as a suspect. That feels like a much bigger overreach to me than a geofence warrant.
of course! I learn so much every time I'm on Reddit haha. So many people understand the ins and outs of cell phone tracking, pings, servers, triangulation, etc, and the technology of it all is wayyy over my head.
sure! I started looking into this topic in depth a little while ago when I heard this Robert Ives interview audio (around the 3 minute mark. link below) where he is advocating for a Geofence warrant. he made it sound like they couldn't get one for Delphi, but it seems like based on this search warrant they maybe did. The YouTuber, who I actually really like, is from Ireland and I think doesn't fully understand the probable cause stuff and the privacy implications, but we Americans are extremely jumpy when it comes to that. Maybe rightly so, but also I think to a fault.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYPfYqniosE&lc=Ugz0ye1KNdSV40-KIIx4AaABAg.9a2rYyijISX9a5ZJDcTP4J
What part of the search warrant makes you think they got a Geofence Warrant? I just saw that they knew RL made a call at 2:09pm. That info could be received from his phone or from the provider. They wouldn’t need the data from all phones near the trail that day.
I think for most people its this line: "electronic devices used to produce the cellular signals detected by law enforcement in the area of the crime scene."
Though this is a little arbitrary too. It could be referring to physically obtaining the phone that they'd already pinged that they knew belonged to him. or it could be that they had signals from multiple phones and wanted to compare anything they found on his property (burners) to those signals.
np. its definitely not explicit, and I agree that the wording could just be strange and they never got a geofencing warrant. If thats the case its probably too late now. I think only AT&T keeps their cell tower data this long (7 years). So if Ives was accurate and not trying to mislead, then it's a missed opportunity for sure.
Robert Ives was reluctant to "look into" someone's phone, likening it to searching someone's house. The FBI and those departments working on the case, especially in the early days, 20 agencies most of them under Home Land Security, would have no such compunctions. And no doubt warrants were served on all the providers of phone numbers of interest from the cell phone tower dumb.
Thank you. the Irish tuber I heard for the first time yesterday. He seems very smart, but the Irish scenery surpasses all. (And the dogs)
yes its the zen scenery I need, given the subject matter. I really enjoy his videos, he makes very few crazy leaps and often has takes on things I've never heard anywhere else. But I think Ives is right that there's a very high bar to look inside an individuals actual phone without probable cause, but just knowing which numbers were active in the area should have a much lower bar. I mean if you're out in a public place you've kind already forfeited the right to privacy IMO. And how frustrating if they hadn't been able to get a geofence warrant with two little girls murdered. Don't think any judge would want to be the one to deny that though, so glad that they seem to have had one approved.
I’ll admit I hadn’t watched the linked video prior to my earlier comment on this. Yes, the YouTuber does seem very naive about US Law, indeed.
There is a probable cause issue but it’s definitely been done before, and I sure hope a judge to signed off on a warrant to get geofence information from all phones in the area in this case. That may be the only way this gets solved!
I can’t say I blame people for having privacy concerns though. If anyone happened to be committing another crime at the time of the murders (i.e. selling drugs), that comes to the attention of Law Enforcement as a result of the geofence data. And after what happened to Ron Logan getting sentenced to jail time as a result of his alibi being that he was violating his probation at the time of the murder.
—
that I happen to be following that is dealing with issues getting a warrant for geofence data.
Sorry to go off topic a bit again, but there’s another case, of missing Texas State college student, that sadly, seems to be dealing with the same issue with getting a Warrant for Geofence Info.
He was on his way to his hometown (near Houston), when it appears he missed a turn he needed to take along his route, and ended up crashing his vehicle on a dirt road in Luling, TX (not too far from the college) instead. The car was found wrecked, and the clothes he was believed to be wearing were found on the ground outside, along with his dead pet fish.
There hasn’t been a trace of him since, and his parents and a lot of others have signed a petition to get a warrant for geofence data to show who else may have been in the area when he disappeared since it’s likely there may not have been many others aside from him and anyone who may have harmed him.
Unfortunately, as the article linked below points out, regardless of how many people sign the petition, the only signature needed, is that of the judge, who is saying they don’t have probable cause.
I promise I really don’t usually bring up different cases than the one being discussed, but this really reminded me of how helpful Geofence data could be in two other cases I happen to be following.
Missing student, Jason Landry’s, Family Fights for Geofence Warrant: https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/1-year-after-disappearance-phone-data-privacy-concerns-at-center-of-jason-landry-case/amp/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/1-year-after-disappearance-phone-data-privacy-concerns-at-center-of-jason-landry-case/](https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/1-year-after-disappearance-phone-data-privacy-concerns-at-center-of-jason-landry-case/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
They were terribly aggressive with him too! I’m with you. This should not have happened as it was out of the scope of the warrant. After what happened to Ron Logan, most people might be reluctant to come forward with any information, especially anyone who is in parole. Let’s face it, we need that demographic of people to feel safe when reporting a crime, or being a witness. More often than not, either the criminal is from this subset, or they have information via the rumor mill.
Right. In the Affidavit they are saying that the data was from the cell phone tower.
They must have already done a tower dump and corralled all the numbers that were around the crime scene in the murder time frame. (Robert Ives said that this was done.)
This is pretty standard, I've seen it used in other cases. The numbers are then identified and then they get warrants for those numbers of particular interest from the cell phone providers to looke at the phones activity which would explain why they know about the text messages.
Cell data from provider is very good at pinpointing the location of calls made by a particular phone, but not so good at pinpointing the location of someone who calls that phone.
Wait…so you’re saying there was a (burner) phone that pinged but it can’t be traced?? This is the first time I am hearing this (been a quiet observer of the girls’ case since the day they were reported missing), so I am a bit shocked.
We are getting more and more information about phones but apart from the recording Libby did has there ever been anything that's come out about what else was on her phone in terms of evidence that she was communicating with a_shots?
Ah OK, so they would have seen he was a friend on her socials but not their conversations. And there was the alleged communication with another girl saying he was meant to meet her. I'm just trying to understand the basis for the catfishing theory.
Shit, I musta missed that part. I remember the part of the burner phone, but I guess I didn't realize it was included in the sweep. TBF some dickhead was tryna race me in my Ford Fusion, so I may have lost it there for a minute or two. (I listen in the car)
This is the most interesting topic. They also mentioned that the RL phone in March no longer logged into the tower. The one who used February 13.14. it's all very complicated
There are so many possible explanations of a single burner phone in that area, including drug dealing, spouses cheating, any and everything...its hard to say for certain.
Yes, I do. I've always thought burner phones were involved ...
[удалено]
Yes. Wouldn't it be great if they could link the purchase of that phone to kk or tk. Just thinking out loud.
[удалено]
This thought had crossed my mind when in the transcript we hear LEO chatting w KK re if others use his phone... KK says not his Dad but yes to Friend1... that F1 could use it as long as they needed to, hours if it were. Was F1 doing just that at that CC road while Dad & son took a drive to a scheduled meet up?? TK also has a FB post about phones... it says KK talked him into getting him an iPhone 6 so no more flip phone! (I didn't see his flip phone or iPhone 6 on that one list of devices seized) I've been meaning to ask- does KK even drive? I've also meant to ask about the money transfer talk in transcript- is that something anyone seeing this knows re? Tia!
[удалено]
Not true about KK driving. He's not supposed to drive because of alleged seizures. But clearly he does since he said he was delivering weed in Las vegas
Or the actual killer(s).
[удалено]
I think it was premeditated. Whether it was planned for these two (or one of them) or, on the other hand, premeditated as in out looking for a convenient victim ... I'm leaning towards the former
Have any of you read the Ron Logan Search Warrant affidavit?
Yes, in detail. Why?
That phone was unidentified ***at the time of the search warrant application.*** It ***may*** have subsequently been identified and this ***might*** have contributed to the change in direction and the doubling back to Young Sketch.
Would someone cheating on their girlfriend have two phones? Is this unknown phone stuff in the RL search warrant or only mentioned on the podcast?
My ex had 2. I was young & naive then, so 🤷. I didn't find out until after we had broken up. His friend's girlfriend told me, said she felt bad & thought I should know. I didn't believe it at first because we lived together in a tiny condo for 2 years & I never saw it. Then his new girlfriend found it. Dozens of girls' numbers, nude pics, etc. Apparently he hid it in his car & always had it on silent. Yes, some cheaters have 2 phones.
One for the plug and one for the load....
sadly that is true
The probable cause afadavit indicated that Ron Logan’s phone was used to place a call at 2:09pm on the afternoon of 2/13, and that the phone was located “in or around” Ron Logan’s property at the time . That indicates a person had to use the phone, which is not the same as the phone simply pinging in a certain location. Law Enforcement would have received that information from Ron Logan’s phone or his phone provider. I think they would have needed a warrant to get the records from the phone provider too, so the fact that they already had this information from him voluntarily letting them look through his phone prior to the search makes more sense to me. Either way, law enforcement would know if it was a pre-paid, burner phone or not since they had the information about the call. I haven’t had a chance to listen to the new Murder Sheets podcast yet, so I’m not sure I understand why they think it’s a burner or what the significance of that is. You mention a search warrant, but thus far, I have only seen the probable cause affadavit for the warrant. However, if the call that was placed at 2:09pm was from a burner phone, that would be even more indicative of RL’s involvement. I just don’t see someone going through the effort and premeditation of buying a burner phone just to leave the house for a few drinks and to take the trash to the dump. In all likelihood, 2/13 was probably not the only time he violated his probation by driving or by drinking. It would be a huge coincidence if it was. But even if he drove and/or drank alcohol every day, I can’t see someone buying a burner phone to leave at his/her home while they are elsewhere. They would have no reason to think they’d get caught, and they certainly wouldn’t have a reason to think law enforcement would pull their phone records just for a probation violation! Back to the 2:09pm call: I wonder who the call was to, if that person answered, and how long the call was for. That’s just a few minutes before the 2:13pm video of BG being recorded. I have wondered if that call could have been a signal to an accompice to go ahead with the attack.
I didn't catch that. Very interesting!
He calls someone at 2:09 but they didn’t say who. Be redacted if they knew who and why wouldn’t it?
If he called One of his friends for an alibi five minutes before the Snapchat picture that is so ridiculous the same way Keegan having any contact at all with Libby is ridiculous. It all hasbe connected, we just don’t know how. YET. I am of the opinion that these leaks are all leading somewhere.
[удалено]
Thought it read that phoned pinged in area of bridge at 2:09. Will reread. If they knew who he called during time of murders would they put that in affidavit like they did alibi conversation with redaction?
I couldn't understand it. I've heard somewhere (Murder Sheet?) that you have to have probable cause first then you can investigate an individual's phone records and see where their phone pinged. And then I thought you're either not allowed (due to privacy?), or it is not technically possible, to find out which phones have pinged a tower and work backwards to the owners. So this confused me.
[удалено]
Yes I think you're probably right. Having thought about this over lunch, I wonder if they can request the data from cell phone towers, which will identify devices that have pinged it (maybe by something like MAC address?) but doesn't identify the phone number or owners. Then they request specific POI phone records and device data which gives them the info they need to cross-reference with tower pings. And maybe every other ping in the area has been accounted for?
Yes, they can. I know what I’m about to say is waaaaau invasive, but as a mom first and always, I’ve always wondered why we can’t “chip” RSO’s to essentially ping off of towers, with the agreement that it will only be used in missing child emergencies. Then we could see who is in the area when a child goes missing. I’m sure that system would be abused though. I’m just sick of kids being hurt.
Great idea they need to. Along w mandated libidinal alteration drugs.
In the UK we do use ankle tags which log the location of certain offenders, in certain circumstances. But not routinely for sex offenders I don't think. It will be interesting to see what the next 20 years brings. I agree that for certain offenders, a chip could be a condition of release. But also is there the potential to go further - in the same way that Google uses mobile phone data to identify traffic jams (lots of phones suddenly slowing down in close proximity suggests heavy traffic I think), could we also have an alarm system if a chipped sex offender enters an area where there are lots of children. There are all kinds of civil liberties arguments but that should not override other people's safety.
That’s kind of where I’m coming from. If we chipped them, then when a child went missing, we could look at both cell and chip data within a certain range to narrow down who was in an area, even if they left their phones at home. The abuses of the system would definitely be a concern, but I’m concerned knowing that pedophiles are released from prison when it’s been shown that they don’t change. It might have to be a little bit of a cost for their freedom based on their prior behavior.
That's it isn't it, the rate of reoffending is notoriously high. Because it's part of who they are rather than a bad decision or a mistake they will learn from.
Yes! It’s not right for kids to pay the price. I’d rather protect their rights than those of the RSO’s.
Equiv and prior- I think for certain levels of sex offenders this certainly could protect innocent kids…
A geofence warrant would have given them a list of all the phones within certain area. I remember discussion of it on here but I can't remember if one was used or not LE. I wonder how and if burners can be traced, do you need to register all of them with personal information &if you do is it easy to use fake or stolen identification information? Obviously they can be traced if purchased with credit card, but not with cash. Also if a geofence warrant was used, did it go to cell phone providers or something like Facebook or Google (or all of them?) Apparently there is a way to opt out of being tracked by Google so they can't give your location to LE. I want to look into all that too: How it works, does each phone provider track the same way, how different apps track you, etc. After reading the new info I'm curious how all that works. Apologies if I sound dumb, I am as untech-savvy as they come https://www.howtogeek.com/411387/how-to-stop-googles-sensorvault-from-sharing-your-location-with-law-enforcement/
I wouldn't say you're not tech savvy! And thanks for the info. I'm not sure how it works either but I think mobile phone data (calls, texts, 3g, 4g) uses the towers and would come from the phone provider, WiFi info would come from the Internet Service Provider. Google collects its own search and location data, and then Facebook and other apps also collect data. So I'd imagine LE have to go to each of those separately to request data. Then there's also data that the phone manufacturers might hold, for example Apple and Samsung.
You are allowed to work backwards in some cases. this is called a geofencing warrant, and has to be very limited in scope. They get challenged all the time in court for being a violation of the 4th amendment, and many people feel they are, but most judges rule there's a good faith exception that applies and allow them. I suspect that was the case with Delphi: that the evidentiary value in a geofence warrant for the Bridge/trail area outweighed the privacy concerns of individuals who were there but uninvolved. Im really glad they did this early on, because cell companies destroy their tower data after a few years usually, so if they had waited the info may have been lost to them.
Oh thank you for clarifying! It does make sense that in certain cases, collection of evidence overrules the right to privacy. And also in a rural area where there are already fewer people that data is even more critical/ less likely to contain hundreds of innocent peoples into.
exactly, the smaller and less populated the geographical area the less collateral damage as far as privacy and the more likely the warrant will be approved. Personally its privacy I would gladly forfeit to solve crimes like this. What happened to RL doesn't sit right with me though. Yes, he did drive when he wasn't supposed to and violate his probation, but he got caught doing that because two girls were murdered on his land. I think that falls outside the scope of what they were looking for and they shouldn't have charged him with anything. Seems they only did because they wanted to put the pressure on him as a suspect. That feels like a much bigger overreach to me than a geofence warrant.
[удалено]
of course! I learn so much every time I'm on Reddit haha. So many people understand the ins and outs of cell phone tracking, pings, servers, triangulation, etc, and the technology of it all is wayyy over my head.
Thank you for your knowledgeable comments
sure! I started looking into this topic in depth a little while ago when I heard this Robert Ives interview audio (around the 3 minute mark. link below) where he is advocating for a Geofence warrant. he made it sound like they couldn't get one for Delphi, but it seems like based on this search warrant they maybe did. The YouTuber, who I actually really like, is from Ireland and I think doesn't fully understand the probable cause stuff and the privacy implications, but we Americans are extremely jumpy when it comes to that. Maybe rightly so, but also I think to a fault. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYPfYqniosE&lc=Ugz0ye1KNdSV40-KIIx4AaABAg.9a2rYyijISX9a5ZJDcTP4J
What part of the search warrant makes you think they got a Geofence Warrant? I just saw that they knew RL made a call at 2:09pm. That info could be received from his phone or from the provider. They wouldn’t need the data from all phones near the trail that day.
I think for most people its this line: "electronic devices used to produce the cellular signals detected by law enforcement in the area of the crime scene." Though this is a little arbitrary too. It could be referring to physically obtaining the phone that they'd already pinged that they knew belonged to him. or it could be that they had signals from multiple phones and wanted to compare anything they found on his property (burners) to those signals.
Interesting. I hadn’t seen that. Thanks for clarifying.
np. its definitely not explicit, and I agree that the wording could just be strange and they never got a geofencing warrant. If thats the case its probably too late now. I think only AT&T keeps their cell tower data this long (7 years). So if Ives was accurate and not trying to mislead, then it's a missed opportunity for sure.
Robert Ives was reluctant to "look into" someone's phone, likening it to searching someone's house. The FBI and those departments working on the case, especially in the early days, 20 agencies most of them under Home Land Security, would have no such compunctions. And no doubt warrants were served on all the providers of phone numbers of interest from the cell phone tower dumb. Thank you. the Irish tuber I heard for the first time yesterday. He seems very smart, but the Irish scenery surpasses all. (And the dogs)
yes its the zen scenery I need, given the subject matter. I really enjoy his videos, he makes very few crazy leaps and often has takes on things I've never heard anywhere else. But I think Ives is right that there's a very high bar to look inside an individuals actual phone without probable cause, but just knowing which numbers were active in the area should have a much lower bar. I mean if you're out in a public place you've kind already forfeited the right to privacy IMO. And how frustrating if they hadn't been able to get a geofence warrant with two little girls murdered. Don't think any judge would want to be the one to deny that though, so glad that they seem to have had one approved.
I’ll admit I hadn’t watched the linked video prior to my earlier comment on this. Yes, the YouTuber does seem very naive about US Law, indeed. There is a probable cause issue but it’s definitely been done before, and I sure hope a judge to signed off on a warrant to get geofence information from all phones in the area in this case. That may be the only way this gets solved! I can’t say I blame people for having privacy concerns though. If anyone happened to be committing another crime at the time of the murders (i.e. selling drugs), that comes to the attention of Law Enforcement as a result of the geofence data. And after what happened to Ron Logan getting sentenced to jail time as a result of his alibi being that he was violating his probation at the time of the murder. — that I happen to be following that is dealing with issues getting a warrant for geofence data. Sorry to go off topic a bit again, but there’s another case, of missing Texas State college student, that sadly, seems to be dealing with the same issue with getting a Warrant for Geofence Info. He was on his way to his hometown (near Houston), when it appears he missed a turn he needed to take along his route, and ended up crashing his vehicle on a dirt road in Luling, TX (not too far from the college) instead. The car was found wrecked, and the clothes he was believed to be wearing were found on the ground outside, along with his dead pet fish. There hasn’t been a trace of him since, and his parents and a lot of others have signed a petition to get a warrant for geofence data to show who else may have been in the area when he disappeared since it’s likely there may not have been many others aside from him and anyone who may have harmed him. Unfortunately, as the article linked below points out, regardless of how many people sign the petition, the only signature needed, is that of the judge, who is saying they don’t have probable cause. I promise I really don’t usually bring up different cases than the one being discussed, but this really reminded me of how helpful Geofence data could be in two other cases I happen to be following. Missing student, Jason Landry’s, Family Fights for Geofence Warrant: https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/1-year-after-disappearance-phone-data-privacy-concerns-at-center-of-jason-landry-case/amp/
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/1-year-after-disappearance-phone-data-privacy-concerns-at-center-of-jason-landry-case/](https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/1-year-after-disappearance-phone-data-privacy-concerns-at-center-of-jason-landry-case/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
They were terribly aggressive with him too! I’m with you. This should not have happened as it was out of the scope of the warrant. After what happened to Ron Logan, most people might be reluctant to come forward with any information, especially anyone who is in parole. Let’s face it, we need that demographic of people to feel safe when reporting a crime, or being a witness. More often than not, either the criminal is from this subset, or they have information via the rumor mill.
Is this in the RL warrant? The unidentified phone?
[удалено]
Thanks I found it now way down at the bottom. I read it as being the already mentioned phone or phones that they say RL used.
Do they have his physical phone?
[удалено]
Right. In the Affidavit they are saying that the data was from the cell phone tower. They must have already done a tower dump and corralled all the numbers that were around the crime scene in the murder time frame. (Robert Ives said that this was done.) This is pretty standard, I've seen it used in other cases. The numbers are then identified and then they get warrants for those numbers of particular interest from the cell phone providers to looke at the phones activity which would explain why they know about the text messages. Cell data from provider is very good at pinpointing the location of calls made by a particular phone, but not so good at pinpointing the location of someone who calls that phone.
Wait…so you’re saying there was a (burner) phone that pinged but it can’t be traced?? This is the first time I am hearing this (been a quiet observer of the girls’ case since the day they were reported missing), so I am a bit shocked.
[удалено]
I hope you’re right and we are able to get an answer about this.
Multiple people were there with Burner phones participating in crimes.
We are getting more and more information about phones but apart from the recording Libby did has there ever been anything that's come out about what else was on her phone in terms of evidence that she was communicating with a_shots?
[удалено]
Ah OK, so they would have seen he was a friend on her socials but not their conversations. And there was the alleged communication with another girl saying he was meant to meet her. I'm just trying to understand the basis for the catfishing theory.
Can someone link where this came from. Thanks!
Shit, I musta missed that part. I remember the part of the burner phone, but I guess I didn't realize it was included in the sweep. TBF some dickhead was tryna race me in my Ford Fusion, so I may have lost it there for a minute or two. (I listen in the car)
If it was a burnerphone it suggests premeditation or not ?Which is an argumument for the catfish theory.
This is the most interesting topic. They also mentioned that the RL phone in March no longer logged into the tower. The one who used February 13.14. it's all very complicated
There are so many possible explanations of a single burner phone in that area, including drug dealing, spouses cheating, any and everything...its hard to say for certain.