Maura Murray

Orko Kringer wrote:

Other points (meant for discussion)
If this affadavit did not lead to the voice mail info in which maribeth (one of the only reporters to have full access to family and police) noted WAS THE LAST ACTIVITY ON MAURA"S PHONE, then where did maribeth get her info. Did she just make it up?
When police are looking at cell towers, they are looking to trace phones not ID people per se, True or False?
If Maura did have her phone off (all but a few seconds to check for messages) wouldn't that time she had her phone on (which leads to pinging and being able to be tracked) stand out and be very important for police to investigate.
And if you say, there is no proof maura had her phone off, then why can't we trace her movements all the way up until the second she went missing.
A turned on cell phone back in 2004 (Doesn't have to be in use, just turned on) is constantly sending out pings and every cell tower the phone comes in to range with when the phone is on, it leaves a trace behind).
Now a days, the technology is such that your phone can be off and still be traced, but that is a different story.

It´s very likely her phone was deliberately shut off, and just turned on to check vm. I doubt this has been considered all that important since her whereabouts after this time (4.37 pm) are known. I believe modern day phones can not be traced while turned off, but they can be remotely turned on without owners knowledge.

The vm checking at 4.37 pm probably means she had stopped her car at that point. Buying the snack food found in her car? Surveillance video from a store/fast food place? Never heard of one...

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
There is one located in Old School Street that was apparently constructed in 2002. The number is BSV841523IDC588663.
Non-Registered,2002-ANE-1115-O E,NA,43.1886111111111,-72.7611 111111111,NA,NA,NA,LONDONDERRY ,,50,890,NA,940,NA,CATAMOUNT ENERGY COPORATION,NA,,,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA ,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA ,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,FAA Filing,Issued,12/05/2002,NA,NA ,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA,NA

Is there a link for this? Thanks.

Det Dirtbag wrote:

<quoted text>Is there a link for this? Thanks.

http://www.antennasearch.com/downloads_ant_fr...

For discussion:

Going off of Maribeth's timeline for maura on monday feb 9.

Just before 1 p.m.---maura makes 3 minute (approx) call to Salamones.
1:13 p.m.----- Maura calls fellow nursing student
2:05 p.m.----- Maura makes 5 minute call to 1-800-Go-Stowe
2:18 p.m.-----Maura leaves a message on Billy's Cell Phone

(Her Language not mine) "Somewhere around 3:30 p.m., maura is seen leaving campus.

3:40 p.m.----- Maura makes atm withdrawl while en route to her destination
Unknown ---- Maura makes liquor store stop
4:37 p.m.---- Maura checks her voicemail. Maribeth notes "LAST RECORDED CALL EVER on Maura's cell phone (her words not mine).

Driving from Amherst to the battleboro then rockingham/wapole (SP) Vermont area off I-91 North would take around an hour (depending on speeds etc.)

That area would coincide with a 22 to 30 mile radius of the Londonderry Vermont area.

If Maura just turned on her phone to check messages at 4:37 p.m. A ping would be established and WOULD NOT SHOW UP ON HER CELL PHONE RECORDS, BUT BE PRIVY TO HER PHONE COMPANY SUCH AS SPRINT.

SPRINT would inform police that they had something.

Police would've had no idea to ask about a ping they knew nothing about.

Police (once informed) couldn't just get that sensitive info without going through a court (that is basically spying on someone if you track them through their ping activity) and so SPRINT would say hey we got something, but go through the proper channels.

Lt. Landry, who in 2004 likely didn't know much about ping technology (it was somewhat new I am guessing) wouldn't quite know what he is filling out a form requesting about, he would just know that sprint told him to do so because they have an important clue to reveal to him once he did.

Orko, there was an incoming call at 8.10 pm that went to vm. As seen in phone records on ID show.

Aftermath wrote:

The two left down south in that park. He knew them from Craftbury Common. One of them reminded him of the "love of his life," the one with whom he's been in fierce but friendly competition for years? Things come so easy for her....he sees it as unfair. He's searching for some satisfaction by repeatedly doing away with youthful versions of her. That little apartment over the cafe....the campus....he'd been following for a while. He did not kill because they were women or for their identity. To him they were just 2 more versions of her, his beloved. The one in Montgomery...is the spitting image of his beloved in her youth. The face, the body.... could have been mistaken for identical twins. When he saw her the first time in the restaurant,he must have been blown away... Wonder if he paid for that meal by credit card?

It sounds like you have someone picked out????Why not Israel Keyes?

hannah_b wrote:

Orko, there was an incoming call at 8.10 pm that went to vm. As seen in phone records on ID show.

You may very well be right, but that is the first I have heard about that.

IMO, that would prove to not be significant. Maura's phone was likely turned off and someone (Family or boyfriend) would've likely been trying to get a hold of her. Everyone now knows she was missing by this point and her phone has never turned on since. So that call was probably (guessing but likely) ruled out as being a murderer or someone she was meeting.

If maura was truly meeting someone, she would've left her cell phone on the entire day and not turned it off while driving. And while that is my opinion, you would want to be fully coordinated (with other person for arrival time, pit stops etc).

If maura did have her phone on. We would know what towns she drove by, how long she stayed in towns when exactly that she arrived in the area she went missing etc...

Maura was avoiding people, only wanting to hear from them on her terms not theirs IMO.

Orko, on Renner´s site are some documentation on FM phone calls. Tower sites are included. LE already had that on MM phone.
I think they were checking out a certain persons whereabouts.

findmaura wrote:

<quoted text>
It sounds like you have someone picked out????Why not Israel Keyes?

I think Aftermath is either a serial killer or a novelist. In any case he is rude, demanding answers from others but never answering questions himself.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
You may very well be right, but that is the first I have heard about that.
IMO, that would prove to not be significant. Maura's phone was likely turned off and someone (Family or boyfriend) would've likely been trying to get a hold of her. Everyone now knows she was missing by this point and her phone has never turned on since. So that call was probably (guessing but likely) ruled out as being a murderer or someone she was meeting.
If maura was truly meeting someone, she would've left her cell phone on the entire day and not turned it off while driving. And while that is my opinion, you would want to be fully coordinated (with other person for arrival time, pit stops etc).
If maura did have her phone on. We would know what towns she drove by, how long she stayed in towns when exactly that she arrived in the area she went missing etc...
Maura was avoiding people, only wanting to hear from them on her terms not theirs IMO.

I think the 8.10 pm call (which went to vm since her phone was turned off), is significant but in a different way than you may think. The timing fits with her being supposed to call her dad at 8 pm. She never did, so he probably tried to call her. He made a big deal of her being very reliable and if she could call me she would, or something to that effect. But she didn´t call when supposed to, and didn´t answer when he tried to call her. So why didn´t he try again later? Or the next day? Instead he claimed he wasn´t informed until late Tuesday afternoon she was missing. Something is off with this. JMO.

Orko Kringer wrote:

I am honestly confused right now.
Going off of the affadavit from Lt. Landry, he notes in one sentence that his department has maura's cell phone records.
(From what I have gathered on internet, NOT FULLY FACTUAL, but LIKELY to be the case) It was family in the very early days that provided landry and police with maura's cell phone records and not Sprint.
Anyway in the next sentence after establishing that he has maura's cell records he notes that Sprint informed him of some cell phone activity on maura's phone.
Obviously this is not him looking over maura's cell phone records and saying hey we don't know who this incoming call was from lets ask sprint.
Sprint was INFORMING HIM and his department that they had additional info (ping activity if we are talking about cell towers) and that if he wanted it he had to go through the proper channels (affadavit) to get them to reveal that info to them.
His language in the affadavit is pretty standard investigative talk IMO, meant to speed up the process, by saying this info could result in blah blah blah.(that is an opinion).
Point is it was an incoming phone call in dispute here, it would be landry contacting sprint for them to get him the info , Not Sprint contacting police to tell them about it .... The police already have the cell phone records.

They got the records directly from sprint with Sharon's permission, as far as I know. Sharon didn't even have february's records yet, it was only the 9th. To get records that early it has to be by special request.
I'm sure Sharon brought out the old records, well told billy to anyways since they got sent directly to him in OK(if that's not a reason for her to want a 2nd cell idk what is).
So I would say Sharon provided LE with the historical records from the previous months but LE had to get her records from the first 9 days of the month. There is a quote from Sharon I believe about how she stood in next to the officer while he made the initial call to sprint and she helped him through it by giving him info he would need and probably offering her consent. She obviously gave sprint full consent for any LE to have access to MM's phone records.

As for the other part of your post- LE can make an inquiry to ohone companies about information they might have, they probably did this to all cell companies in this case.
The phone co is allowed to tell LE if there are any calls to someone's phone at a certain time from their company, but the company can not give out any specific details without an affidavit. So the company is allowed to tell LE that the call exists, but without a warrant the phone company can not legally turn over the calls details including who made the call.
They might've asked sprint for this info but an astute person at sprint who was giving them her cell records could've noticed this and told them. Could've been like hey, someone from another # tried to call her but it never got through. If you file an affidavit I can give you the info about that call.

They might've asked but it's not too far out of the realm of possibilities that someone at sprint noticed someone else trying to call her while they were searching her cell records.
But yes, the cell phone co def could alert LE if they knew about another attempted call onto her cell that wasn't on her records.
They would've been talking to a manager to get those records, a manager can see a lot about a ohone #'s history. If she put in feb 9 she would've seen every call dealing with that # including attempted calls, I could see that person telling LE about that..

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the 8.10 pm call (which went to vm since her phone was turned off), is significant but in a different way than you may think. The timing fits with her being supposed to call her dad at 8 pm. She never did, so he probably tried to call her. He made a big deal of her being very reliable and if she could call me she would, or something to that effect. But she didn´t call when supposed to, and didn´t answer when he tried to call her. So why didn´t he try again later? Or the next day? Instead he claimed he wasn´t informed until late Tuesday afternoon she was missing. Something is off with this. JMO.

I agree that could've been her father.

And it was probably verified, just never a need to go public with that.

hannah_b wrote:

Orko, on Renner´s site are some documentation on FM phone calls. Tower sites are included. LE already had that on MM phone.
I think they were checking out a certain persons whereabouts.

I know exactly what you are talking about, however, I have a set of Maura's cell phone records myself in my posession and they don't list cell tower data.

Maybe the thing on james site, is a more detailed phone log that only the phone company would have and not the standard phone bill that customers get.

Law enforcement got maura's cell phone records (correct me if i am wrong anyone) from family. They did not get them from sprint. So initally, law enforcement would have just the standard looking phone bill to go off of.

Biggest problem I have with this whole "Londonderry Ping" scandal that has been artificially created (not intentional but nevertheless):

We are talking about taking a document (Done likely in 2004 or early 2005) and presenting it in the present day as some sort of fresh clue to a case.

I don't think James Renner intentionally tried to mislead with this. However, this is and especially back in the day was a day-to-day revolving case where as new info came in, stories did have to change and evolve as the news and investigation was "On-Going".

Requests for info by police back in 2004 were likely followed up on and solved. Police would not (IMO) keep the results of phone record searches private, if they had to to with tracking maura.

Media reports done years later, would not have to go back and re-hash every document that police used to gather their info. They would be given the results of the info from the police themselves.

If that affadavit was truly a significant clue, it would've never been released to the public

IIRC the talk about the affidavit being "fake" and "planted" also came from it not being written on official stationery paper. Strange, maybe, but not proof it was fake.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
I think the 8.10 pm call (which went to vm since her phone was turned off), is significant but in a different way than you may think. The timing fits with her being supposed to call her dad at 8 pm. She never did, so he probably tried to call her. He made a big deal of her being very reliable and if she could call me she would, or something to that effect. But she didn´t call when supposed to, and didn´t answer when he tried to call her. So why didn´t he try again later? Or the next day? Instead he claimed he wasn´t informed until late Tuesday afternoon she was missing. Something is off with this. JMO.

You're so on point on this one, great questions. She was supposed to be so reliable but yet he wasn't worried at all when he didn't hear from her? That doesn't make sense.

What's even weirder is not only did he not trying to call her, he wasn't around until the next night. That's jus weird, if she was so reliable shouldn't he have been more worried? Shouldn't he have been more worried than he was? You would think he would've at least kept the phone nearby in case something happened. And something did happen and he want there to answer the call. Whole thing seems odd.

The is honestly one of the things that makes me consider Fred a potential suspect and that LE might as well. But idk, once again I give the NHSP and the FBI just a little more credit than that. I would hope that if Fred killed her they coulda figured that one out. How hard would that be? But then again, if he disposed of her body really well, like maybe under a frozen lake, then what can hey do? No body, no case.
It is possible Fred is the prime suspect in this case although I feel it's highly unlikely. Nobody has ever been able to show he was anywhere but CT that night. LE has said that he was working out of state. They've never officially ruled him out or said they checked his alibi but from what I've seen it appears they believe he was working out of state.

hannah_b wrote:

IIRC the talk about the affidavit being "fake" and "planted" also came from it not being written on official stationery paper. Strange, maybe, but not proof it was fake.

FWIW,

I believe it to be authentic and I also believe that james (either through phone or email correspondence) verified its legitimacy with Lt. Landry himself.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
You're so on point on this one, great questions. She was supposed to be so reliable but yet he wasn't worried at all when he didn't hear from her? That doesn't make sense.
What's even weirder is not only did he not trying to call her, he wasn't around until the next night. That's jus weird, if she was so reliable shouldn't he have been more worried? Shouldn't he have been more worried than he was? You would think he would've at least kept the phone nearby in case something happened. And something did happen and he want there to answer the call. Whole thing seems odd.
The is honestly one of the things that makes me consider Fred a potential suspect and that LE might as well. But idk, once again I give the NHSP and the FBI just a little more credit than that. I would hope that if Fred killed her they coulda figured that one out. How hard would that be? But then again, if he disposed of her body really well, like maybe under a frozen lake, then what can hey do? No body, no case.
It is possible Fred is the prime suspect in this case although I feel it's highly unlikely. Nobody has ever been able to show he was anywhere but CT that night. LE has said that he was working out of state. They've never officially ruled him out or said they checked his alibi but from what I've seen it appears they believe he was working out of state.

Might be something to that.

However, it could've just as likely been Billy. At some point he would want to return Maura's phone call and email from earlier that day.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Might be something to that.
However, it could've just as likely been Billy. At some point he would want to return Maura's phone call and email from earlier that day.

Whomever it was, it´s odd they didn´t try to reach her later that evening, or the next day before being notified she was missing.