Michelle Fisher Young 3-3-09

[Tia]

Continue here.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Stellagant

I think Meredith's arrest is imminent and she will accept a plea to avoid the death penalty.

How odd. I haven't read anything to suggest that there is any evidence implicating anyone other than Jason Young, the Slayer.

[kingbuff]

Jason Young made his first phone call to Mrs. Money at 7:49 am (from SW)

they said the first call he made was to MM (from Oneder)
----------------

You still have it wrong. Can you see the difference?

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by kingbuff

Don't know which board you're reading. The only deal I can see is what I said before: the DA might give Jason immunity so he can talk. I have no clue what he can tell the cops, but the cops seem to think he can help them by talking. Needless to say, lawyers don't seem to trust the cops....for whatever reason.

Why would Jason need immunity if you believe him to be innocent of any wrong doing?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by kingbuff

Jason Young made his first phone call to Mrs. Money at 7:49 am (from SW)

they said the first call he made was to MM (from Oneder)
----------------

You still have it wrong. Can you see the difference?

Does that mean that his first call Jason made was at 7:49 on the morning that Michelle was discovered murdered? or are you suggesting that there was an earlier call to Pat? What are you trying to say?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by kingbuff

Don't know which board you're reading. The only deal I can see is what I said before: the DA might give Jason immunity so he can talk. I have no clue what he can tell the cops, but the cops seem to think he can help them by talking. Needless to say, lawyers don't seem to trust the cops....for whatever reason.

That's completely false. Lawyers and police move in the same circles, along with Judges and prosecutors. Lawyers rely on police, and trust them as colleagues.

I can't imagine why you would suggest that lawyers don't trust police. If a lawyer tells a client to remain silent, it is because the lawyer knows that the client's words could lead to a conviction. There is no other reason for a client to be told to be mute.

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by onederwomyn

Yep I see the difference.

OK, so what if any calls were before MM? If the 7:40 time was a call. to whom? Why wouldn't they put in the search warrant? I mean if it was voicemail, then why wouldn't they have just said it? Even if it was to Michelle, he called her cell at other times...why not just state in the SW? It wouldn't prove anything (other than further premeditation).

My best guess is that the 7:40 was to voicemail. If he had in fact turned his phone off, all calls would have gone to the voice mailbox. If he had a call in that mailbox from MM, he probably returned that call first thing. Just a guess.

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by onederwomyn

This could also be poor wording on the search warrant because by definition, a ping is a "call" to the cell tower. I think that may have been what they were saying because they said the first call he made was to MM, not another person or voicemail (which technically also registers as a call). Additionally if it was voicemail, I believe they would have stated it.

I don't think so one. It states the first ping is at 7:40 and then goes on to say "this call" and the location. The reference to MM is only to establish his first call to her on that day was at 7:49am. I think everyone has mistakenly assumed his first call of the day was to her.

Sils

[Tia]

Originally Posted by Jester

That's completely false. Lawyers and police move in the same circles, along with Judges and prosecutors. Lawyers rely on police, and trust them as colleagues.

I can't imagine why you would suggest that lawyers don't trust police. If a lawyer tells a client to remain silent, it is because the lawyer knows that the client's words could lead to a conviction. There is no other reason for a client to be told to be mute.

ITA. Jason has remained mute from day one, even when it came to fighting for his daughter. If his attorney is advising him to do this, they know that his words will most likely lead to a conviction. I cannot imagine any other reason for not speaking up in the WDS or the Custody Suit.

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by Jester

Does that mean that his first call Jason made was at 7:49 on the morning that Michelle was discovered murdered? or are you suggesting that there was an earlier call to Pat? What are you trying to say?

His first call or text was made or received at 7:40am.

Sils

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

I don't think so one. It states the first ping is at 7:40 and then goes on to say "this call" and the location. The reference to MM is only to establish his first call to her on that day was at 7:49am. I think everyone has mistakenly assumed his first call of the day was to her.

Sils

What's the importance of Jason's first call being at 7:40 or 7:49? I thought the initial discussion was in reference to where Jason may have been when he first turned on his phone. Is there a different reason for the discussion, or does 10 minutes make a significant difference to anything?

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

His first call or text was made or received at 7:40am.

Sils

Thanks. Can you tell me why it is important?

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by Tia

ITA. Jason has remained mute from day one, even when it came to fighting for his daughter. If his attorney is advising him to do this, they know that his words will most likely lead to a conviction. I cannot imagine any other reason for not speaking up in the WDS or the Custody Suit.

I read an interesting article recently on the right to remain silent and it's implications. I admit I didn't read the whole thing but the premise was interesting.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by Jester

That's completely false. Lawyers and police move in the same circles, along with Judges and prosecutors. Lawyers rely on police, and trust them as colleagues.

I can't imagine why you would suggest that lawyers don't trust police. If a lawyer tells a client to remain silent, it is because the lawyer knows that the client's words could lead to a conviction. There is no other reason for a client to be told to be mute.

Lawyers only trust them so much. I can imagine a few reasons why lawyers may not trust LE. Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law - no matter how innocent you may be. That is why lawyers tell their clients not to speak.

Sils

[Barbara2]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

Lawyers only trust them so much. I can imagine a few reasons why lawyers may not trust LE. Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law - no matter how innocent you may be. That is why lawyers tell their clients not to speak.

Sils

Nor how guilty.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

Lawyers only trust them so much. I can imagine a few reasons why lawyers may not trust LE. Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law - no matter how innocent you may be. That is why lawyers tell their clients not to speak.

Sils

In the real world, police and lawyers work together and trust each other. If lawyers walked around paranoid that police were out to get them or their clients, they wouldn't even last long enough to pass the bar exam. Lawyers with truly innocent clients tell their clients to speak up, and they sit with them to ensure their rights are protected. If a lawyer fears that their client is guilty or will implicate themselves in a crime, the lawyer will recommend the client remain mute.

Fear of police persecution, and mistrust of people in law enforcement, falls into the realm of mental illness, not reality.

[Tia]

Originally Posted by Barbara2

I read an interesting article recently on the right to remain silent and it's implications. I admit I didn't read the whole thing but the premise was interesting.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

YIKES! More "Game Theory"!

Looks interesting though!

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by Jester

What's the importance of Jason's first call being at 7:40 or 7:49? I thought the initial discussion was in reference to where Jason may have been when he first turned on his phone. Is there a different reason for the discussion, or does 10 minutes make a significant difference to anything?

I guess you didn't read the end of the last thread. There is an assumption that Jason's phone was off the night of the murder. That is not the only conclusion to be made. You might want to read it as it will answer your question more thoroughly.

Sils

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by Jester

In the real world, police and lawyers work together and trust each other. If lawyers walked around paranoid that police were out to get them or their clients, they wouldn't even last long enough to pass the bar exam. Lawyers with truly innocent clients tell their clients to speak up, and they sit with them to ensure their rights are protected. If a lawyer fears that their client is guilty or will implicate themselves in a crime, the lawyer will recommend the client remain mute.

Fear of police persecution, and mistrust of people in law enforcement, falls into the realm of mental illness, not reality.

That is your opinion. I have seen differently.

Sils

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

I guess you didn't read the end of the last thread. There is an assumption that Jason's phone was off the night of the murder. That is not the only conclusion to be made. You might want to read it as it will answer your question more thoroughly.

Sils

I have read that his phone was turned on in the morning, apparently at 7:40 and not 7:49. I don't think 9 minutes makes much difference. Whether he phoned Michelle Money first, checked his messages first, or called mom first ... does it really matter?

His phone was turned off during the murder, which was a couple of hours after he was seen heading for the exit of the hotel.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

That is your opinion. I have seen differently.

Sils

That's my experience, not my opinion. Where can I read about lawyers that are, in general, paranoid about police persecution and untrusting of law enforcement?

[BSNBREVARDNC]

Cellular providers, including Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless, know, within about 300 yards, the location of their subscribers whenever a phone is turned on. Even if the phone is not in use, it still communicates with cell tower sites, and the wireless provider keeps track of the phone's position as it travels. Cell phone GPS tracking is one of those advances. Cell phone companies can track a customer's movements by identifying the cell tower or towers through which his calls were handled.

http://www.pagerank10.co.uk/mobile_p...hone_tracking/

Hope this helps...........

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by Jester

I have read that his phone was turned on in the morning, apparently at 7:40 and not 7:49. I don't think 9 minutes makes much difference. Whether he phoned Michelle Money first, checked his messages first, or called mom first ... does it really matter?

His phone was turned off during the murder, which was a couple of hours after he was seen heading for the exit of the hotel.

emphasis mine.
We don't know if his phone was off.

Pings hitting towers with no call activity may or may not be historically logged. We don't know if Jason's carrier logged the info so LE either has that info or they don't.

Bottom line: Jason's phone was off during the night OR he did not receive or make any calls during that time frame of no pings.

Sils

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by Jester

That's my experience, not my opinion. Where can I read about lawyers that are, in general, paranoid about police persecution and untrusting of law enforcement?

Paranoid about police persecution are your words not mine.

In my real world people are people and some of them are trustworthy and some are not. A good lawyer will have a healthy knowledge that not all LE are trustworthy.

Sils

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by BSNBREVARDNC

Cellular providers, including Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless, know, within about 300 yards, the location of their subscribers whenever a phone is turned on. Even if the phone is not in use, it still communicates with cell tower sites, and the wireless provider keeps track of the phone's position as it travels. Cell phone GPS tracking is one of those advances. Cell phone companies can track a customer's movements by identifying the cell tower or towers through which his calls were handled.

http://www.pagerank10.co.uk/mobile_p...hone_tracking/

Hope this helps...........

Hi BSN,
It is my understanding that GPS systems on cell phones is relatively new. I don't think this technology was the norm in 2006. I looked for a date in this link but didn't see one.

ETA: It also mentions towers through which his calls were handled - so it is still referencing calls being tracked.

Sils

[Tia]

Originally Posted by BSNBREVARDNC

Cellular providers, including Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless, know, within about 300 yards, the location of their subscribers whenever a phone is turned on. Even if the phone is not in use, it still communicates with cell tower sites, and the wireless provider keeps track of the phone's position as it travels. Cell phone GPS tracking is one of those advances. Cell phone companies can track a customer's movements by identifying the cell tower or towers through which his calls were handled.

http://www.pagerank10.co.uk/mobile_p...hone_tracking/

Hope this helps...........

Thanxxxxxxxx!

I tend to believe his phone was off all night to avoid those pesky "pings" while he was earning his "slayer" title.

JMO

[kingbuff]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

I guess you didn't read the end of the last thread. There is an assumption that Jason's phone was off the night of the murder. That is not the only conclusion to be made. You might want to read it as it will answer your question more thoroughly.

Sils

Silsbee, many posters jump on without reading past posts. Sad but true. You show much more patience than I. I've learned to ignore them.

[Tia]

Originally Posted by kingbuff

Silsbee, many posters jump on without reading past posts. Sad but true. You show much more patience than I. I've learned to ignore them.

Ignore away. I've read the posts. I just don't see the point in many. Jason has been declared Michelle's slayer, he has not fought for his daughter, has not uttered a word in his defense, even in a civil suit, so I tend to believe he has plenty to hide. Post after post about cell phone pings change none of those facts.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Barbara2

Yes. This was a comment made by someone to that article:

"Cell phone carriers most certainly log those "pings". I should know, I work on the databases that log these records. I'm not sure about other companies, but ours keeps these records online for about 6 months. But we can go back 1 year on tape. Furthermore, if any of these phones made a call, we have a CDR (Call Data Record) that will record information about the call (Location, time in call, number called, etc..). Some of the newer phones even receive/transmit GPS signals to the tower. This is used primarily for 911, but it's called "Location Based Services". Some advertising companies have expressed interest. We can pin point down to a couple of feet, from what I hear in the field."

Yes and others noting the fact that the cost would be astronomical to provide the processing power and raw storage for that massive amt of data. The industry experts said it isn't logged, which is more credible than someone posting anon on a blog that 'their company does it'. I know for a fact that the other posts saying the costs would be ginormous to house that amt of data is 100% correct. A huge expense that offers no cost benefit to the company.

The SW states clearly the first ping was from a call, not from the device being powered on. That leads me to believe they don't have any non-call ping log.

It's a toss up for sure as to if the phone was powered on or not, but to state as a fact it was because of the lack of pings is simply not accurate.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by BSNBREVARDNC

Cellular providers, including Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless, know, within about 300 yards, the location of their subscribers whenever a phone is turned on. Even if the phone is not in use, it still communicates with cell tower sites, and the wireless provider keeps track of the phone's position as it travels. Cell phone GPS tracking is one of those advances. Cell phone companies can track a customer's movements by identifying the cell tower or towers through which his calls were handled.

http://www.pagerank10.co.uk/mobile_p...hone_tracking/

Hope this helps...........

From your link:

Cell phone tracking capability is coming into play for the first time

Hope this helps.........

I don't believe Jason's phones had GPS anyway, which is the guts of your link.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Barbara2

I read an interesting article recently on the right to remain silent and it's implications. I admit I didn't read the whole thing but the premise was interesting.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

And this is fascinating.

http://www.tuccille.com/blog/2008/07...-shouldnt.html

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

emphasis mine.
We don't know if his phone was off.

Pings hitting towers with no call activity may or may not be historically logged. We don't know if Jason's carrier logged the info so LE either has that info or they don't.

Bottom line: Jason's phone was off during the night OR he did not receive or make any calls during that time frame of no pings.

Sils

If a phone is turned on, it pings. BSN posted a link above, and from reading missing person's cases (Drew Sjodin comes to mind) I know this is one way that search areas are identified.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

Paranoid about police persecution are your words not mine.

In my real world people are people and some of them are trustworthy and some are not. A good lawyer will have a healthy knowledge that not all LE are trustworthy.

Sils

Within context of the original remark, I do not agree that lawyers distrust police, or that this alleged distrust has anything to do with reasons why a lawyer would advise a client to remain mute.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

From your link:

Cell phone tracking capability is coming into play for the first time

Hope this helps.........

I don't believe Jason's phones had GPS anyway, which is the guts of your link.

Drew was murdered in 2004, and her phone was pinging in a field because it was turned on. It stopped pinging when the battery went dead. If Drew's personal phone was capable of pinging in 2004, then it's highly likely that Jason's work phones were pinging in 2006.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Jester

If a phone is turned on, it pings. BSN posted a link above, and from reading missing person's cases (Drew Sjodin comes to mind) I know this is one way that search areas are identified.

Of course the cell phone pings. The question is, are the pings from non-calls logged and saved. Until e911, the only way to get a triangulation on a location of the cell phone of a missing person was to call or text their phone, as in the case of Kelsey Smith.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by alterEgo©

Of course the cell phone pings. The question is, are the pings from non-calls logged and saved. Until e911, the only way to get a triangulation on a location of the cell phone of a missing person was to call or text their phone, as in the case of Kelsey Smith.

The point, of course, is to argue that Jason's phone may have been turned on, but may not have had GPS pinging, and, if it did, the cell phone towers were not keeping a record of the pings?

All this to try to argue that he was at the hotel and the invisible phone means nothing?

[Silsbee]

Originally Posted by Jester

If a phone is turned on, it pings. BSN posted a link above, and from reading missing person's cases (Drew Sjodin comes to mind) I know this is one way that search areas are identified.

Yes it pings but those pings are not necessarily recorded and saved by cell phone carriers. BSN's link was more about GPS which is a more recent technology and not readily available on phones in 2006. Plus they still referenced tracking pings made by phone calls not just pings.

In the case of a missing person those pings are being monitored in real time. Jason's phone was not being monitored the night Michelle was murdered. We are talking about going back and retrieving those pings after the fact. If in 2006 Jason's carrier did not store that info LE would not be able to retrieve it.

Sils

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Jester

Drew was murdered in 2004, and her phone was pinging in a field because it was turned on. It stopped pinging when the battery went dead. If Drew's personal phone was capable of pinging in 2004, then it's highly likely that Jason's work phones were pinging in 2006.

Again, it's not a question as to if the cell phone pings when it's on. Of course it does. It's a question as to if the non-call pings are logged and saved. It was my understanding they called the phone to triangulate the location as a ping can show up to 5 towers depending on the location.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Jester

The point, of course, is to argue that Jason's phone may have been turned on, but may not have had GPS pinging, and, if it did, the cell phone towers were not keeping a record of the pings?

All this to try to argue that he was at the hotel and the invisible phone means nothing?

Where are you getting that Jason's phones had GPS?

And no that is not the argument. The argument was succinctly laid out by Sils.

[alterEgo©]

Originally Posted by Silsbee

Yes it pings but those pings are not necessarily recorded and saved by cell phone carriers. BSN's link was more about GPS which is a more recent technology and not readily available on phones in 2006. Plus they still referenced tracking pings made by phone calls not just pings.

In the case of a missing person those pings are being monitored in real time. Jason's phone was not being monitored the night Michelle was murdered. We are talking about going back and retrieving those pings after the fact. If in 2006 Jason's carrier did not store that info LE would not be able to retrieve it.

Sils

That's it in a nutshell.