I totally agree Rumpole and gullible they sure are.. It makes me crazy sometimes LOL

Thanks for the Avatar! That totally works for me.

MJW was working off of the phone record given to NBC by Crump on those. The TMO->TMO is what he had assigned to W8 due to the last call that started at 7:12 and as described by Crump as being from W8.

So you tell me. I am thinking that if she was using a prepaid on 2/26/12, the North Dade calls should be hers.

We have never seen the actual records for calls made due to the legal restrictions.

That is the perfect avatar for you. Am I remembering right when you said you used to tell that to your kids when they were giving you some lame excuse for misdeeds?

I would question TMO->TMO as being Witness 8, since Simple Mobile phones do not appear on T-Mobile bills as "T-Mobile", even though Simple Mobile uses T-Mobile's network. Calls to Simple Mobile phones are not considered carrier-to-carrier, and according to Ejarra (IIRC?), are confirmed not to appear as "T-Mobile" on bills.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

The only reference we have that the TMobile calls came from her is Crump. And if his mouth is moving.... 8-)

The Simple Mobile calls are in question. When I referenced her using the number they forgot to redact a couple of months ago, it shows her in North Dade. I am wondering if she kept her same number. Or if she isn't still with Simple Mobile. She did say "I think" after the BDLR question of whether or not she was using TMobile.

I didn't feel like paying to find out the location/information of that phone.

Deb you say
"So if the call actually happened, who was on the other end of the TMO->TMO? And can we assume that the North Dade number might by W8?"

There lies in the problem, those calls are listed as TMO to TMO, that would eliminate them as calls from DD. She did not have a TMO phone, so the calls could not have been to DD.

Wrongred, Howie from CTH also verified that calls from Simple Mobile are not carrier-to-carrier calls. BDLR asked her, because he would know that, you can hear her confused answer. I can understand her not paying the bill, as her reason for not being sure, except that every time you look at your phone or turn on your phone it would say T-Mobile or Simple Mobile. Is hard for me to believe that she did not know. Not to mention carriers have deals so the carrier is important not just to her, but to anyone she might be talking too.

Prepaids don't care who you are talking to or on what plan. They just subtract the minutes. The carrier wouldn't have been important to her. I have a Trac Phone that is pre-paid. No advertisement of whose network I am on when I turn it on. When I was under plan on Sprint and TMobile, you could see who the carrier was, IIRC.

Regardless, I find it hard to believe that she never added minutes to the phone herself using a debit card or a credit card. That is the information I would look for...whose card was she using, what name and that address.

From GZ Legal Site

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/index.php/di ... -discovery


State's 12th Discovery
on 12 March 2013.

The following documents were provided as the STATE'S 12th SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY:

State's 11th Supplemental Discovery

on 12 March 2013.
The following recordings were provided to us as part of the State’s 11th Supplemental Discovery. The recordings were provided to us in .wma files. For the purpose of providing them publicly, they were converted to .wav files, the name of the witness was redacted when necessary, and they were converted to .mp3 files to be posted on this website.

Also...............

Reciprocal Discovery

on 12 March 2013.
This information will be posted soon.


viewtopic.php?f=48&t=195&p=25288#p25288

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Remember the bill we were looking at was Tracy's who uses T-Mobile and they do, have differences on minutes, peak/off-peak, cell to cell, etc. That was what I was pointing at. BTW Simple Mobile is like Cricket or MetroPCS, they charge a flat monthly fee.

^^True Dat! LOL. But I would still check out who is paying the bill. ((blushes))

There is renewed discussion on "the phone"

Frankly I am a little "lost"... so I hope discussion resolves this mater(s) somewhat.

For instance.. is the phone now shown in evidence the same as the one found at the crime scene?

There do seem to be significant differences.

Dman has done a side by side comparison pic

http://diwataman.files.wordpress.com/20 ... .jpg?w=906

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Don't make me have to start a POLL on this

Same phone or not?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

The sticker doesn’t concern me as much (though, why would it have been removed?); what does concern me, however, is the obviously missing, half-inch, diagonal gouge between the sticker and the “bil” of “T-Mobile”.

I don’t think it’s grass, for 3 reasons:

1) Scale. It is far too small to be grass
2) Jagged shape
3) Given the location of the light source (flash), if it were a piece of grass, the shadow produced would be on the other side. The location of the shadow is with respect to the light source implies an indentation into the phone, not a piece of debris sitting on the surface of the phone.

Side note: there also appears to be a blemish above the lens in the 12th supplement phone, that is not present in the original photo.

Side note 2: the “with” in “with Google”: can photo resolution explain why “with” appears to be a solid block of white in the 12th supplement photo? It looks like it’s been covered with white-out, it’s so blurred.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Chip
You raise valid points.
IMO (hate it, but its all I got) is that it is the same phone. Different lighting and lower resolution in Sup12.

I think the resolution issue at least gives a possible answer.

But it's worth a thought.. further investigation.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Look also at the wide angle:



The light is coming from a flashlight directly to the left of the phone. It is all but impossible for a piece of grass/debris to leave a shadow on the light-source side of the grass/debris.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

The different resolutions could explain the some of the differences, I was looking at the edges on the heart and they appear raised on the phone on the right, but smooth on the phone in the left. If you compare the gouge to the grass on top you can see shadows, edges on the grass but the gouge does not appear to have them. I'm leaning to different covers.

although I'd like the credit, it was bori and wrongonred.

_________________
No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it will never become the TRUTH!

Chip, I believe it's the same phone because I believe that's a blade of dead grass. Take a look at the color and compare it to that one dead blade to the left of it. It's exactly the same color, tint, hue (pick one). What is the chance that the metal under the paint (if scratched) would be the same color, tin, hue? I would give it the same chance as Georgie chasing down Mr. Martin. Zip, nada , bupkis, ain't gonna happen.

_________________
No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it will never become the TRUTH!

It is probably trivial but I am disturbed by the removal of that sticker. You can see some bubble effect to the original at the lower point and your upper left curve. You can see that the glue is disturbed like maybe at one stage whoever owned the phone might have tried to remove it then pressed it back down.

The phone is no longer wet either. But I find it hard to believe that the sticker dried up and fell off on its own. The glue looks smudged on your lower right side. It bows outwards.

I still think it is the same phone. If you look at the "M" in Mobile there is a defect in the printing like a / shaving off part of the top it in both photos.