Yet another story on phone cell tracking

[sandwarrior]

This is the tv series "Serial".

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture...d-4-key-pieces-of-evidence-explained-20160701

My first thought when this guy is getting another trial or getting out, is "yeah, whatever, someone else getting off. Then after reading the story, it looks like some pothead pulled the wool over the cops eyes. AND THEY DON'T CARE!

They want the conviction, not the truth.

 

[Maggot]

Here's another.
[h=3]Voters To Decide if Prosecutor Is Guilty of Poor Judgment | WVTF[/h] wvtf.org/post/voters-decide-if-prosecutor-guilty-poor-judgment

Oct 29, 2015 - Now it's up to the voters to decide whether Lunsford is guilty of poor ... Commonwealth's Attorney Denise Lunsford talks with Charlottesville ...

 

[supercorndogs]

Seem similar to the case of the "Bellevue Murders" featured on the Netflix show "The Confession Tapes." Sometimes the sights are put on a suspect, and no mountain of evidence could convince the detective or prosecutor otherwise. They are too busy playing fantasy, and building a circumstantial case. Worrying only about the innocent life lost, and not if they are trying to destroy another innocent persons life.

 

[sandwarrior]

I think this clearly says what you guys were in the other post in that the prosecution "located" the defendant by means of cell phone signal interception. But, as the technology was not exact back in the day it could have placed him anywhere in a 4 sq. mile grid. They placed him at the scene based on being within the 4 sq. mile grid.

supercorndogs,

Agreed, as stated above, they are more interested a conviction than the truth. In essence the public is made MUCH less safe by their actions. A real killer is still out there and the public goes back to thinking they are safe.

 

[supercorndogs]

It was info from the phone company they used to place him. But its pretty scary when they can ignore the disclaimer, or not see it. OOPS. Bullshit.

I don't know if you have time to watch the show I sighted, but the only episode I watched so far that one. The lead detective is asked what made him start to suspect them, he said, basically They ordered wine and salad for dinner at the restaurant, and i realized they did it so the waiter would remember them. Then they did this and that and showed at the club at 1;50 making a scene. Instead of these being s series of alibis to him, and drunk kids being dumb. He decided it was part of an evil genius plan to commit the perfect murder. Further he sights evidence that they were in a play about committing the perfect murder, and looked similar to the leeds in the original.

 

[Slash0311]

I'm not saying this guy is guilty or innocent but I find anything from Rolling Stone difficult to accept.

Attorneys on both sides play all kinds of games with evidence. Example. I made a DUI arrest. Gal was drunk and hell with her toddler in the back. Gal was puking all over my backseat on the way to jail. (Taco Bell and alcohol don't mix). Her defense got her entire driving history suppressed at trial. Mistrial due to the jury not reaching a unanimous decision. This was her 4th DUI arrest in 4 different states. A conviction here would have kicked it up to a felony.

I got a drunk off the road that night but didn't get a conviction. Let the defense attorney stay awake at night when she kills someone driving drunk.

 

[Redmanss]

I got a drunk off the road that night but didn't get a conviction. Let the defense attorney stay awake at night when she kills someone driving drunk.

That would require DUI attorneys having a conscience.

 

[Maggot]

That would require DUI attorneys having a conscience.

God damn it Red, you need to be whipped.

Using 'attorney' and 'conscience' in the same sentence.

 

[Maggot]

I'm not saying this guy is guilty or innocent but I find anything from Rolling Stone difficult to accept.

Attorneys on both sides play all kinds of games with evidence. Example. I made a DUI arrest. Gal was drunk and hell with her toddler in the back. Gal was puking all over my backseat on the way to jail. (Taco Bell and alcohol don't mix). Her defense got her entire driving history suppressed at trial. Mistrial due to the jury not reaching a unanimous decision. This was her 4th DUI arrest in 4 different states. A conviction here would have kicked it up to a felony.

I got a drunk off the road that night but didn't get a conviction. Let the defense attorney stay awake at night when she kills someone driving drunk.

We had one like that in Virginia a years back. Some douche bag with 5-6 DUI's driving on a revoked license ran his pick up into a school bus full of kids and burnt up several. Unfortunately the POS lived.

 

[Redmanss]

God damn it Red, you need to be whipped.

Using 'attorney' and 'conscience' in the same sentence.

You're not my type Mags, but if you feel froggy, jump. I'm only a two hour drive, better pick up Tuck on the way because you're going to need help. I'll be getting drunk so it will be a fair fight.

 

[Gunfighter14e2]

That would require DUI attorneys having a conscience.

Or, a officer to use his throw down piece!
There are times doing the wrong thing to some is the right thing to many.

 

[sandwarrior]

I'm not saying this guy is guilty or innocent but I find anything from Rolling Stone difficult to accept.

Attorneys on both sides play all kinds of games with evidence. Example. I made a DUI arrest. Gal was drunk and hell with her toddler in the back. Gal was puking all over my backseat on the way to jail. (Taco Bell and alcohol don't mix). Her defense got her entire driving history suppressed at trial. Mistrial due to the jury not reaching a unanimous decision. This was her 4th DUI arrest in 4 different states. A conviction here would have kicked it up to a felony.

I got a drunk off the road that night but didn't get a conviction. Let the defense attorney stay awake at night when she kills someone driving drunk.

I find the Rolling Stone, not my first choice in definitive authorship either. So, I read a couple other news versions of it, and they kind of corroborate what is being said. ALL point to the fact, his verdict is being overturned. Will the state retry him? Not yet said.

Which brings us back to the Stingray case/thread. The police used the stolen cellphone to track this guy to within 700 yds. Which was no where near his home. They then used the number that called both the first victim and the number from a friends phone who was also called to have sex with the perpetrator. My question to you is, "If the guy called them and there is a number, why is that not a usable lead?" <<My question...no one else's. My understanding is at no point in the trial was the fact he was located by his phone a piece of evidence. It was simply evidence he left behind. His phone number on three different phones (it was also found on the stolen phone).

In reading the Verdict of the appeal, the state (D.C.) never even argued that the phone number on the three phones was evidence. Why would you not argue that, if that was the phone number that called these three phones and set these girls up for sexual assault and robbery?

So, what gives here? Do you have to get a warrant to investigate every piece of evidence the criminal leaves behind?

 

[Mike_Honcho]

I'm not saying this guy is guilty or innocent but I find anything from Rolling Stone difficult to accept.
.

So does Duke Lacrosse

 

[Redmanss]

So does Duke Lacrosse

As well as University of Virginia.

 

[Slash0311]

I find the Rolling Stone, not my first choice in definitive authorship either. So, I read a couple other news versions of it, and they kind of corroborate what is being said. ALL point to the fact, his verdict is being overturned. Will the state retry him? Not yet said.

Which brings us back to the Stingray case/thread. The police used the stolen cellphone to track this guy to within 700 yds. Which was no where near his home. They then used the number that called both the first victim and the number from a friends phone who was also called to have sex with the perpetrator. My question to you is, "If the guy called them and there is a number, why is that not a usable lead?" <<My question...no one else's. My understanding is at no point in the trial was the fact he was located by his phone a piece of evidence. It was simply evidence he left behind. His phone number on three different phones (it was also found on the stolen phone).

In reading the Verdict of the appeal, the state (D.C.) never even argued that the phone number on the three phones was evidence. Why would you not argue that, if that was the phone number that called these three phones and set these girls up for sexual assault and robbery?

So, what gives here? Do you have to get a warrant to investigate every piece of evidence the criminal leaves behind?

I'm not quite sure I'm following your question on a "usable lead". It sounds to me like the cell phone information was only one of the pieces of evidence being used with this case and if I'm reading it right, the cell history wasn't a major part of it.

A couple ideas on it to try and answer your question. The prosecutor may have felt he had a good case (stronger case) with other evidence and chose not to dwell on the cell phones knowing the poor location issue for incoming calls. Part of defense and prosecution is smoke a mirrors. (If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit" from OJs trial). Each side only wants to highlight what helps their side.

As for a warrant for each piece of evidence. I know from experience, cell phone records can be a pain in the ass. I've had companies dump entire records on my cases and then I had to wade thru that mountain. Every text, call, and data usage hits off a tower. Think of every time you use your phone each day. And you have to try and decode the format of that information. Which is an actual location and which is just a general area.

It can also depend on how that cell phone number was gathered. If it popped related to some other ongoing investigation, they may not focus on it so as to not burn a different investigation.

Could also be an inexperienced prosecutor and he just screwed up too. I've seen it happen but usually with a murder case, they have their best on it.

These are just a few ideas that I thought of reading the story. Who knows what the real reasons are.

 

[sandwarrior]

Useable lead being a point to investigate in solving a crime. The phone number he left on three separate calls/phones is what led them to the guy from 700 yds. away. The police got within 700 yds. by tracking the cell phone that was stolen from one of the girls. Meaning, you call me, I got your phone #. He did this to each girl he sexually assaulted and robbed. And, the friend who was there to watch out for the second girl was called as well She was robbed on the perps way out from robbing/assaulting the second girl. It was either the second victim or the friend watching out for the second victim who got her phone stolen.

In the initial trial, as you said, neither the history or content of the perpetrators phone was used. Only the fact that he called and they tracked and located him that way. I don't see where he has a right to privacy when he used his phone as part of a crime? I mean literally, he left his calling card.

It was during the appeal (hearing?) that the judge decided that tracking the perp with his phone, that he used in a crime, was a violation of his 4A rights. The police acknowledged it was a 'search' which is defined under the constitution. But, never argued that it was a search based on evidence left at the crime scene (his phone #)

 

[bogeybrown]

I wanna know where you guys are finding DAs that follow a "Law and Order" script and take tough cases to trial. Every one I've ever had to deal with would let 10 murderers plea to an Assault charge before risking a loss at trial. Anytime I see a DA boasting a 90-whatever percent conviction rate I know they aren't taking the worthwhile defendants to trial. Although our last DA lost some cases at trial where there was fucking DNA evidence, so maybe he should've been gun shy.

 

[sandwarrior]

I wanna know where you guys are finding DAs that follow a "Law and Order" script and take tough cases to trial. Every one I've ever had to deal with would let 10 murderers plea to an Assault charge before risking a loss at trial. Anytime I see a DA boasting a 90-whatever percent conviction rate I know they aren't taking the worthwhile defendants to trial. Although our last DA lost some cases at trial where there was fucking DNA evidence, so maybe he should've been gun shy.

...you have a good point.

 

[Slash0311]

One interesting thought here. If it was the cell phone records that lead the police to this suspect to begin with, AND NOW those records are possibly being tossed as a violation of the 4th amendment, I can't figure out why the entire case isn't bounced. Fruit of the poison tree... If I make a traffic stop and end up getting 10 pounds of drugs only to have a judge decide my traffic stop wasn't legit, then the arrest for the dope disappeares. I wonder why that's not happening here or if that's what could possibly require a retrial. My guess is there is more here than what's being reported.

Hell, I saw a jury find a rapist not guilty in the county next to mine. Guess what their hang up was... A probably match on the victims DNA of something like 8000 to 1. Granted, it wasn't an ideal match but fairly conclusive to most... Oh, maybe I should mention that was the victims DNA collected from a used condom in the suspects pocket. Too many people watch CSI and think real life should be that easy. It's being called the "CSI Effect"

 

[supercorndogs]

I wanna know where you guys are finding DAs that follow a "Law and Order" script and take tough cases to trial. Every one I've ever had to deal with would let 10 murderers plea to an Assault charge before risking a loss at trial. Anytime I see a DA boasting a 90-whatever percent conviction rate I know they aren't taking the worthwhile defendants to trial. Although our last DA lost some cases at trial where there was fucking DNA evidence, so maybe he should've been gun shy.

Its too bad, I am not sure which one is more of a disservice. I am sure these cases sighted here are in the vast minority.