>> “If she texted him, the phone company has the contents of that text (unlike the content of a voice call).” <<
.
They have the content of the voice call too.
The voice data is stored and rebroadcast in digital systems.
I have demonstrated this to my wife by calling her cell phone with mine when we are in the same room, and my voice is delayed about 3 seconds between speaking, and when it comes over the phone.
You know the witness for T-Mobile, Raymond MacDonald? I worked with him for Law Enforcement Relations projects. We worked with the DEA, the NYPD, FBI, etc. to streamline the process of responding to subpoenas for information. I left there two years ago for my home in central KY.
We had a myriad of data sources from which to pull all sorts of data. We were required by law to save it for at least 7 years. Though the data was frighteningly detailed, voice call content was not part of it.
Now, in the last two years things may have changed, so my information becomes antiquated with every passing year.
Three seconds is an astounding amount of delay. After more than about half a second delay it really begins to impinge upon conversations. That said, the delay comes from several things, such as encoding and decoding, packet size, and buffering. None of these are relevant to whether or not the information is retained. In other words, the call could be recorded with no perceptible delay, or not recorded with very long delays. The act of recording does not introduce any delay whatsoever.
That's insane. There is NO SUCH delay in calls from room to room... I can practically here myslelf saw a word before I finish it.
Try talking to someone in Europe... with a 30-40 sec delay. It's DIFFICULT.
You'll last longer here at FR is you try not to just MAKE SHIT UP.
Perhaps Zimmerman could subpoena the NSA and get their copy of the phone call??