Maura Murray

JWB wrote:

sorry all but Orko has no credibility. Made a statement of fact and can't back it up at all.
Londonderry VT Really? show us the media you said it was mentioned in.

Orko said likely Londonderry Vermont.Never stated it as fact. GOOD GOD JWB GIVE IT A BREAK. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH A POSTER DO IT IN A CIVILIZED WAY. I think Orko is just misunderstanding Maribeths article.

Here's a website that appears to have been a side project for someone cataloging cell towers in Vermont. It was being updated through August 2007. It's possible that not all towers were identified and listed on this page since it was a hobby project. But it's interesting to note that there are no towers for any company, including Sprint, located in Londonderry, VT. I'm not knowledgable enough to know, but it wouldn't seem to me that cell towers would be built or dismantled frequently. Anyhow, here's the link:

http://www.solitarypine.net/necellularsites/V...

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what else you want.
was maribeth conway just making this up?
She notes it was the last recorded phone call (maura checking her messages).
You guys claim she was getting a phone call from the Salamones at this time or some mystery friend or lover.
You refer to an affadavit done up (way before maribeth conway came out with her investigative feature on the case).
Wouldn't this be the results of the affadavit, that police discovered it was maura checking her messages at this time?
Do you think police lied to maribeth conway about the last phone activity on maura's cell? Really?
Maura would've been in range to Londonderry Vermont (along I-91) at the time she checked her messages, check it out for yourself do a google map search from amherst up 1-91 and see where you end up a litte over an hour into your route.

I think I see where your going wrong orky, I may be wrong but I don't think so.
You ate talking about the last call on her phone records which is her calling to check her vmails.

The whole point of the affidavit was because the Londonderry ping was an ATTEMPTED incoming call TO Maura's cell, it was never connected and therefore not on her cell phone records. That was the whole entire point of the affidavit because that info could not be obtained from her phone records.

The affidavit definitely was not regarding Maura checkin her messages, they already had that info.
In the affidavit Landry specifically states that they are tryin to determine who it was that called her cell phone, why would they need to determine any calls about her vmail? That makes no sense.

This call as NOT on her phone records.

Also when you say Londonderry vt that is just a guess your making based off the fact that she was near that town. There is no media or anything else that says that to my knowledge, that is an assumption your making correct?

One thing we can be sure of is that affidavit had nothing to do with her checking her voice mail, it was an attempt to find the identity of someone who tried calling her but never got through, calls that don't get connected don't go on your phone bill.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Maura checking her voice mail and the affidavit are two seperate issues.Maura last used her phone around 4:37 to check her voice mail. The Londenderry NH ping was an incoming call to Mauras cell phone. There is no time listed on the affidavit. It only states late afternoon.I have no idea why a time was not listed in this affidavit.Late afternoon is so vague.According to an unknown witness Maura was last seen in Amherst around 4:00.

Thank you Citigirl (as always) for the clarification.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know LH. I actually have been thinking for years now that she DOES remember the call and has either been frightened by the killers or was in on the murder of Maura. It is the only thing that makes sense. For proof I would point you to JWB, Bob and obviously shack. I mean how does someone not remember a phone conversation? She MUST be involved and should be pressed hard. Not by those silly police, but by the topix forum truth squad using good old fashion Gestapo techniques. This is too important to be left to the police, we need the vigilantes to come out and go after her, like they did SBD.
Now, since that seed is planted I am sure that shack will be able to torture Salamone with this. To the point that she either confesses, or flees the area. Silly me, that will never happen. Oh, wait, it has already happened once.
To the kind words expressed to me, thank you. I haven't had time to really even read much and the shear volume of the foolishness is very impressive. I did try to scan some of the more humorous posts but I am hoping to have more time in the near future because I can always use a chuckle. I have been, and am still too busy to really do anything right now. BUT, how could anyone argue the high quality entertainment that is being generated. A lot of the same exact entertainment as in the past but still high quality. It is of such high quality, I really don't think it should be stopped. Reasonable people will likely see it for what it is i.e. total bullshit. Talk about the windmill going into overtime. And the mention that there are too few facts, all true but they won't let them stop them from the fantasy sleuth sideshow.
When I get time, I have some very interesting pictures of a dented hood, that people with common sense I think will find very interesting. Just need the time to get it ready for showing.
Bill

Damn bill you can really talk some bullshit huh?

Just the other day I posted about how it was extremely unlikely that salamone would remember a 3 minute call 8 months later with some person she had never met in her life and isn't rent her place to. Actually makes a lot more sense that she wouldn't remember the call if you think about it.

You just love making up bullshit to say about people huh?

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I see where your going wrong orky, I may be wrong but I don't think so.
You ate talking about the last call on her phone records which is her calling to check her vmails.
The whole point of the affidavit was because the Londonderry ping was an ATTEMPTED incoming call TO Maura's cell, it was never connected and therefore not on her cell phone records. That was the whole entire point of the affidavit because that info could not be obtained from her phone records.
The affidavit definitely was not regarding Maura checkin her messages, they already had that info.
In the affidavit Landry specifically states that they are tryin to determine who it was that called her cell phone, why would they need to determine any calls about her vmail? That makes no sense.
This call as NOT on her phone records.
Also when you say Londonderry vt that is just a guess your making based off the fact that she was near that town. There is no media or anything else that says that to my knowledge, that is an assumption your making correct?
One thing we can be sure of is that affidavit had nothing to do with her checking her voice mail, it was an attempt to find the identity of someone who tried calling her but never got through, calls that don't get connected don't go on your phone bill.

Jenky, if you were an old poster. do you remember the phone expert Dawn.

Here was something she posted back in the day.

Dawn:
For the record

There is NO WAY that the information is correct that she (maura) received an incoming call from Londonderry - I would go toe to toe on this one. I wish wiki had to be backed by actual facts. Anyone want to talk to an engineer - PM me.

We can argue till we are blue in the face about which tower it came from.

When you, police or sherlock holmes are looking at cell phone towers for information, you are not looking for specific people by phone number.

You are abstracting cell phone tower information to result in you narrowing down a LOCATION not a PERSON.

And technically when you check your messages (at least with the type of phone maura had) you are dialing your own phone number to yourself to get to your messages. So in a technical sense, you are receiving an incoming call.

Maura checking her phone for messages at 4:37 p.m. would technically mean (that whereever she was at the time) an out-going call would be made from THAT AREA right back to her as she dialed into her messages.

Orko Kringer wrote:

For the eyes of JWB and Hannah Montana:
From Todd Landry's affadavit:
Notes to follow:
5. During the course of this investigation, Cellular Telephone records have been obtained by Law Enforcement that were used by MURRAY. A representative from Sprint Corporate Security advised this affiant that during the late afternoon hours of February 9, 2004an outgoing telephone call was made to Murray from the Londonderry, NH Sprint tower. This call had to have been made from within a 22 mile radius of the tower. The identity of this caller and telephone number has not been made as of this date.
6. That identifying the caller of the telephone call could be pertinent to the ongoing investigation and may lead to the whereabouts of Maura Murray.
7. Based on the foregoing, there is probable cause to believe evidence in the suspicious disappearance of Maura Murray may be found through Sprint Wireless Cell Tower Telephone Records, including any outgoing calls from the Londonderry tower of Sprint to Maura Murrays Sprint PCs number ********** for February 9, 2004 from 0001 hours to 2400 hours.
Todd D. Landry

So you're admitting you were wrong about it being
VT and it having anything to do with her checking her vmail right?

It's just obvious that affidavit had nothing to do with checking vmail, there's no need for an affidavit regarding any calls that Maura personally made, they already had full permission and access to all of Maura's cell records from Sharon, the person who owned her account and paid the bill.
Also the affidavit clearly says nH, not Vt.

Now if you're trying to challenge the authenticity of The affidavit that's one thing, but changing what it
Says just seems silly

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenky, if you were an old poster. do you remember the phone expert Dawn.
Here was something she posted back in the day.
Dawn:
For the record
There is NO WAY that the information is correct that she (maura) received an incoming call from Londonderry - I would go toe to toe on this one. I wish wiki had to be backed by actual facts. Anyone want to talk to an engineer - PM me.

Yes I remember dawn, she made an extremely strong argument for the affidavit to be FAKE. That was the point of her postings, she claimed the affidavit was fake and it was planted for someone to find , which seems unbelieveable to me but he did make a strong case for it being so.

But she was right, there is not way she received an incoming call from that tower, but that was the supposed point of the affidavit, was that she never received the call, but someone attempted to call her. The whole point of it was to find out who attempted to call Maura from the Londonderry Nh area that afternoon.

Dawns whole point was that the whole thing was a forgery, she made a strong argument but I'm not really sure what to think about the Londonderry ping. It looks to me like that could be a fake affidavit. Renner believes its real and I'm gonna hav to take his word over some anonymous poster
Claiming it to be fake. Dawn said some interesting things but she also said several things that others proved were false.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenky, if you were an old poster. do you remember the phone expert Dawn.
Here was something she posted back in the day.
Dawn:
For the record
There is NO WAY that the information is correct that she (maura) received an incoming call from Londonderry - I would go toe to toe on this one. I wish wiki had to be backed by actual facts. Anyone want to talk to an engineer - PM me.

Yes I remember dawn, she made an extremely strong argument for the affidavit to be FAKE. That was the point of her postings, she claimed the affidavit was fake and it was planted for someone to find , which seems unbelieveable to me but he did make a strong case for it being so.

But she was right, there is not way she received an incoming call from that tower, but that was the supposed point of the affidavit, was that she never received the call, but someone attempted to call her. The whole point of it was to find out who attempted to call Maura from the Londonderry Nh area that afternoon.

Dawns whole point was that the whole thing was a forgery, she made a strong argument but I'm not really sure what to think about the Londonderry ping. It looks to me like that could be a fake affidavit. Renner believes its real and I'm gonna hav to take his word over some anonymous poster
Claiming it to be fake. Dawn said some interesting things but she also said several things that others proved were false.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're admitting you were wrong about it being
VT and it having anything to do with her checking her vmail right?
It's just obvious that affidavit had nothing to do with checking vmail, there's no need for an affidavit regarding any calls that Maura personally made, they already had full permission and access to all of Maura's cell records from Sharon, the person who owned her account and paid the bill.
Also the affidavit clearly says nH, not Vt.
Now if you're trying to challenge the authenticity of The affidavit that's one thing, but changing what it
Says just seems silly

I am saying the request by Lt. Landry was made in error.

I am also saying they resolved the matter and it was not anything the media ever had to get involved with.

Once corrected. Police were able to release the finding (fact) that maura checked her phone messages and that was the last known recorded activity on maura's cell phone.

The media (To include Maribeth, got a hold of this info and ran with it).

Maura was not in and could not have been in range to the Londonderry New Hampshire cell phone tower at 4:37 p.m. on the monday she went missing. It is physically impossible no matter how you slice it. That tower range is over 2 hours away from her campus.

A cell phone tower doesn't spitback phone numbers of people calling into maura's phone. A cell phone tower traces the locationm of phones.

If someone is missing, you are looking at cell phone towers to trace the MISSING person's phone, not someone who is calling it.(At least not when cell phone towers are concerned).

Police as noted by Lt. Landry, already had maura's cell phone records. That is not what the affadavit was about.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Before I report you the CDC I need a couple questions answered:
1. Are you saying "clearly" more than twice a day in situations that are anything but clear?
2. Are you going to work or school and offering solutions to problems by offering proof as "if you really think about it"
3. Are you making errors based on false assumptions that you made based on using the strategy mentioned in 1 and 2?
You may have stage four Jenkoma. Not to worry you can still live and carry on in life, but you may never be able to live in the same reality that everyone else does.

Lol, stage 4 jenkoma is funny, but you are full of shit.

1-I clearly say cleary a lot lol, but who gives a shit?
2- I've NEVER offered 'if you think about it' as proof of anything, obviously. If you're offering up something as proof there's no need to think
About it, it's either proof it it's
Not.
3-making errors based on false assumptiins huh? Everybody makes errors sometiimes, we are all humans here. But this point is just stupid. The biggest error based on false assumption on this forum is made by you and your buddies. The whole 'she was drunk' is an assumption, she was not drunk according to witnesses. You then extrapolate from that that she was scared of the cops. I dont think she wanted to talk to the cops but judging from witness statements it doesn't seem like she was all that scared of them. She was at the car for at least ten minutes, that is NOT the actions of someone who is scared I the cops. She could've been out of there in 30 seconds but she wasn't.
Then, based off of those two faulty assumptions you then conclude that she must have walked into the woods through 2.5' of snow to avoid them??? Wow, talk about a faulty assumption based off of filthy assumptions, my god. The woods would have been the absolutely worst place to hide if she was scared of LE, all they would've had to do was follow the giant trail she would've left. Nvm the fact that saying this youn girl walked into the woods through all that snow at night by herself is in its self completely ridiculous.

Apparently I caught this disease from bill, the correct name for it is 'billanoma'. I think u needed to consult your topic medical book again.
The whole assumptions based on faulty assumptions was around long before I started posting again, that's actually why I started posting again. Utter disbelief over what people like bill were stating as fact that were totally just faulty assumptions based on faulty assumptions.

So get your shit straight, it's billanoma, not jenkoma

Jenky and anyone else:


Lt. Landry in his own words

A representative from Sprint Corporate Security advised this affiant (me) that during the late afternoon hours of February 9, 2004 an outgoing telephone call was made to Murray from the Londonderry, NH Sprint tower."

So someone from the tower was trying to get a hold of maura?

This doesn't even make sense.

No body calls from a freaking cell phone tower.

Cell phone towers emit pings back and forth with cell phones.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I am saying the request by Lt. Landry was made in error.
I am also saying they resolved the matter and it was not anything the media ever had to get involved with.
Once corrected. Police were able to release the finding (fact) that maura checked her phone messages and that was the last known recorded activity on maura's cell phone.
The media (To include Maribeth, got a hold of this info and ran with it).
Maura was not in and could not have been in range to the Londonderry New Hampshire cell phone tower at 4:37 p.m. on the monday she went missing. It is physically impossible no matter how you slice it. That tower range is over 2 hours away from her campus.
A cell phone tower doesn't spitback phone numbers of people calling into maura's phone. A cell phone tower traces the locationm of phones.
If someone is missing, you are looking at cell phone towers to trace the MISSING person's phone, not someone who is calling it.(At least not when cell phone towers are concerned).
Police as noted by Lt. Landry, already had maura's cell phone records. That is not what the affadavit was about.

you appear to be now contradicting yourself with previous postings you have made.Did Landry tell you his request was an error or was this just an assumption on your part?

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I am saying the request by Lt. Landry was made in error.
I am also saying they resolved the matter and it was not anything the media ever had to get involved with.
Once corrected. Police were able to release the finding (fact) that maura checked her phone messages and that was the last known recorded activity on maura's cell phone.
The media (To include Maribeth, got a hold of this info and ran with it).
Maura was not in and could not have been in range to the Londonderry New Hampshire cell phone tower at 4:37 p.m. on the monday she went missing. It is physically impossible no matter how you slice it. That tower range is over 2 hours away from her campus.
A cell phone tower doesn't spitback phone numbers of people calling into maura's phone. A cell phone tower traces the locationm of phones.
If someone is missing, you are looking at cell phone towers to trace the MISSING person's phone, not someone who is calling it.(At least not when cell phone towers are concerned).
Police as noted by Lt. Landry, already had maura's cell phone records. That is not what the affadavit was about.

Hold on orky, now I'm wicked confused by what your saying.
What do you mean it was made in error? The whole affidavit was made in error or just the Londonderry nh thing was in error? Im not getting that.

Maura's call to check her vmail was known within days of her dissapearance. There was never any need for an affidavit regarding her checking her
Vmail, that info was already well known to LE.

This affidavit was an attempt to find the identity of someone who called her phone from the Londonderry Nh area, either that or it is completely fake.

Where are you getting all of this info from? What your saying really makes no sense in the fact that there was never any need for them to make an affidavit to get records that they already had since the first days of this case. They knew exactly when he checked her vmail, they knew her last calls. What they didn't know was the identity of someone who tried to call her from Londonderry and never got through.

So where are you gettin this from? Where are you gettin the affidavit was made in error? You'd have to be a pretty big moron to accidentally fill out a whole affidavit for info you would never need an affidavit to obtain. They had full permission from sharon to view her phone records from the start.

Also what your saying about the tower is completely wrong too. Of course cell towers have records of the numbers going through them, how else could they track where someone is? In addition to that they aren't ONLY used for finding the location of a missin person, they can obviously be used to see who attempted to call a missing person but didn't get through cuz they were out of range or their phone was off or if they just didn't answer

Orko Kringer wrote:

We can argue till we are blue in the face about which tower it came from.
When you, police or sherlock holmes are looking at cell phone towers for information, you are not looking for specific people by phone number.
You are abstracting cell phone tower information to result in you narrowing down a LOCATION not a PERSON.
And technically when you check your messages (at least with the type of phone maura had) you are dialing your own phone number to yourself to get to your messages. So in a technical sense, you are receiving an incoming call.
Maura checking her phone for messages at 4:37 p.m. would technically mean (that whereever she was at the time) an out-going call would be made from THAT AREA right back to her as she dialed into her messages.

Any out going call made from her phone would have showed up on her phone bill even if she was dialing up for her phone messages. With an incoming phone call to her phone it would not show up on her phone bill because it means some one is trying to contact her.

Orko Kringer wrote:

Jenky and anyone else:
Lt. Landry in his own words
A representative from Sprint Corporate Security advised this affiant (me) that during the late afternoon hours of February 9, 2004 an outgoing telephone call was made to Murray from the Londonderry, NH Sprint tower."
So someone from the tower was trying to get a hold of maura?
This doesn't even make sense.
No body calls from a freaking cell phone tower.
Cell phone towers emit pings back and forth with cell phones.

Orky- come on buddy, you are obviously more intelligent than that. Obviously nobody can call FROM a cell tower, that's ridiculous. But a call most certainly can ORIGINATE from a cell tower, which is obviously what Landry is talkin about in that affidavit.
You must know that.
, unless you can tell us how you got the info that the whole affidavit was made in error, that he was really looking for when she called her vmail, which makes ZERO sense, then we have to assume that you're wrong and just making assumptions based on certain things.

Heres the point, either the affidavit is fake like dawn said it was, or it was real and they were really trying to figure out who called her from the Londonderry area. The only thing we can confidently assume about this is that it has nothing to do with her calling her vmail. That call was known to LE within days, there would never be a reason to make an affidavit about that, unless Landry is a complete and total moron.

Habs wrote:

I do question your closemindedness however towards abduction and murder by someone locally. Just saying.

I think you misunderstand Habs. I have NEVER said and have always included that kidnapping and murder were always a possibility, by a local or other. It is others that keep saying that I don't include that in the list of things that could have happened. What I have fought are those that insist that is the ONLY possibility. And while it is possible, there is not a shred of any evidence that is what actually happened.

Bill

Orko Kringer wrote:

Note 1: Right before Landry talks about getting cell tower info from sprint through the courts he points out that police already have maura's cell phone records.
In other words police weren't looking for names at this point. any incoming call to maura's cell would already be in their posession from the cell phone records.
Note 2:Sprint notfied Landry specifically about ping activity from maura's phone and stated that it came from the londonderry Tower. Landry is a cop in New Hampshire, there is a Londonderry New Hampshire ... see where the confusion could of came in on which londonderry we are talking about.
Note 3: As the great Mitt Romney once said and I paraphrase
"Cell towers are not people my friends!!!!!!!!!!
The request for the londonberry ping info was not about a person trying to call maura (pings track people's movement they don't call people and talk to them).
Lt. Landry, likely (back in late 2004 or early 2005) didn't know much about pings and how they work and what he is requesting on this affadavit doesn't even make sense.
But no worries this was all cleared up and that is why we NOW know maura checked her own phone messages (thanks to the ping info from the londonderry VERMONT tower).
Note D:
Here is how pings work.
If I am driving in my car down the interstate and I have my phone off, but momentarily turn it on to see if I missed a call, my cell phone would start pinging the second I turn it on.
Once I have checked messages and then turned phone back off, The phone quits pinging and no more tracing can be done by law enforcement.
that is why law enforcement hasn't been able to create a complete accurate timeline of maura's travles because for 99 percent of her trip up north, she had her phone off. It was the brief seconds she turned it on (that a ping was created) and this is what lt. Landry ultimately discovered as a result of this affadavit.

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. They already knew she checked her messages within days of her dissapearance because they had her cell records. So her call to check her vmail was known the entire time, it was never any sort of secret.

I can assure you that the NHSP had a very good understanding of how cell phone pings work and how they can be used in an investigation, it's not
Very complicated.

The affidavit is clearly in regards to unsung the identity of someone who attempted to call her phone from the Londonderry Nh area, where are you getting vt from? Does Londonderry vt even have a tower? From what I can tell they don't, it seems like 'whatif' found the same info.

What you said about how pings work is true but you left out a big fact. When someone CALLS someone their phone pings a cell tower, which is what happened that day, that tower then sends the call through its system to the tower that is closest to the person who's supposed to receive the call. Cell ohone pings can be used to locate someone but they can also definitely be used to find the identity of someone who tried to call someone but was not successful, which is exactly what this whole affidavit is about.

Again, where Did you get this info about it being vt not Nh?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you misunderstand Habs. I have NEVER said and have always included that kidnapping and murder were always a possibility, by a local or other. It is others that keep saying that I don't include that in the list of things that could have happened. What I have fought are those that insist that is the ONLY possibility. And while it is possible, there is not a shred of any evidence that is what actually happened.
Bill

Who exactly are you talkin about when you say people who say that's the only possibility? I know you can't be talking about me because I've never said anything even remotely close to that.

I openly admit that there's a possibility she's lost in the woods, even though there isn't one shred of evidence to support that theory. There's absolutely no evidence indicating there's any sort of likelihood that's what happened and besides that it just makes zero sense that she would choose to hide in the woods, the absolute worst possible place to hide and the most difficult and painful place you could possibly choose to hide.