|
Since: Jul 11
Collinsville, IL
|
Please wait...
Jenky keep saying police knew she checked her messages because of her cell phone recods.(I don't know do cell phone records typically list when someone checks their voicemail?) I have always had a cell phone plan under someone else's name, so I never see the bill. I say police determined that the brief time maura had her phone on and it was pinging (4:37 p.m. monday) is what led them to conclude that maura must've been checking her voicemail, not from looking at her cell phone records.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Orko Kringer wrote: Jenky keep saying police knew she checked her messages because of her cell phone recods.(I don't know do cell phone records typically list when someone checks their voicemail?) I have always had a cell phone plan under someone else's name, so I never see the bill.
I say police determined that the brief time maura had her phone on and it was pinging (4:37 p.m. monday) is what led them to conclude that maura must've been checking her voicemail, not from looking at her cell phone records. Orko - go to Renner's site look at FM's bill records. Calls to voicemail are there own seperate category (inbound,outbound,calls to voicemail). Also I don't think LE would even need to see the call marked as a seperate category anyway. I would think LE would notice if MM called herself it would be to check voicemail. Right?
|
|
Since: Jul 11
Collinsville, IL
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Lighthouse 101 wrote: <quoted text>
Orko - go to Renner's site look at FM's bill records. Calls to voicemail are there own seperate category (inbound,outbound,calls to voicemail). Also I don't think LE would even need to see the call marked as a seperate category anyway. I would think LE would notice if MM called herself it would be to check voicemail. Right? Yes, but we have to be careful. Is that an actual cell phone bill or is that something the phone company would have. I have one day's worth (more like 12 hours) of maura's cell phone records and they look nothing like what is on renner's site concerning fred's cell phone bill. Police intially had maura's phone records (provided to them by family) not from the phone company. Would the records provided by the family be that detailed like the ones on renner's site.
|
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Jenkins wrote: shouldn't the public be pissed that their LE can't even tell if a girl killed herself or got murdered and investigate it as such? Everyone please note that the Jenkins form of investigation requires you to know what happened BEFORE the investigation has run it's course. His method requires you to reach a conclusion before the investigation is finished. He wants the investigators to know whether she was murdered or a suicide BEFORE the investigation is finished. And they need to be able to do this - WITH NO PROOF THAT SHE IS EVEN DEAD. Anyone see a problem with his concept of an investigation? Sorry, not back, but just couldn't pass up this Jenkin's gem of investigative and logic prowess. Bill
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Orko Kringer wrote: <quoted text>
Yes, but we have to be careful. Is that an actual cell phone bill or is that something the phone company would have.
I have one day's worth (more like 12 hours) of maura's cell phone records and they look nothing like what is on renner's site concerning fred's cell phone bill.
Police intially had maura's phone records (provided to them by family) not from the phone company. Would the records provided by the family be that detailed like the ones on renner's site. Deduce this with me. If Sharon R was able to see the terminating number to the Salmones - then lets assume the call from MM to her phone would show call to voicemail or show the terminating like (Salomones) to be her number hence she called her self. Also - Id imagine calls to check vm would be free so it would probably show up as a vm call to be rated as such, but if not see above.
|
|
JWB
Portland, ME
|
when you check your messages from your cell phone you are charged airtime and it will show up on your bill. Other point: Once again the LT landry never says it was a phone ping , he says it was an outgoing call from the Londonderry NH Tower (To 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"
|
|
hannah_b
Sweden
|
Judged:
1
1
Orko Kringer wrote: I know I have been blabbing on and on about the londonderry ping ordeal, but I really want to drive this point home.
As long as Maribeth was correct (And I am still waiting to hear from her) and maura did check her phone messages at 4:37 p.m., that monday, then regardless if maura had her phone on or off before then, she would've left a trace - vie cell phone pings - to her location over an hour after she left campus.
We would've heard about this location through the media.
Police weren't telling the public everything about the case but as you can notice, they were releasing anything and everything about maura when it came to possible locations and destinations she may have gone because they wanted the public to assist them in finding her (regardless of the theory that is true concerning her disappearance).
The fact that no public news article or press release has ever come out and said "we know for a fact Maura was at such and such at 4:37 p.m.,(by tracing her cell phone) only points to the fact that they concluded she was driving on the interstate at that time and had turned on her phone to check for messages. Her phone was voice activated, so she could've easily done all of that while driving.
Bottom line, if she did check her messages, her phone had to be on at 4:37 p.m. and her location (within a certain mileage) would've been known.
The fact police didn't harp on that location to the public in helping find maura, only points more to the fact that they determined she was checking her messages at that time and was in her car driving and I believe that is what they told maribeth and that is what she reported. They did not reveal any and every possible location. They never revealed the location she was determined to have been at an undisclosed time after the accident. Maura was said to have been an inexperienced driver. Would she check vm while driving? Or would she stop someplace?
|
|
Jenkins
Brooklyn, NY
|
hannah_b wrote: <quoted text>
Londonberry, would that be the capital of Jenkonia? Hahaha, that was funny Hannah it really was, londonberry lol
|
|
OKAY
Dunstable, MA
|
Lighthouse 101 wrote: <quoted text>
Jenkins - we should move this forum from Franconia to Jenkonia, Because you are "cleary" in your own little world if you really think about it. why do you keep trying to reason with him? is your head bloody yet from knockong it against the wall? this, my dear, is not a debate. it's piddling NONsense.
|
|
Jenkins
Brooklyn, NY
|
Orko Kringer wrote: Jenky keep saying police knew she checked her messages because of her cell phone recods.(I don't know do cell phone records typically list when someone checks their voicemail?) I have always had a cell phone plan under someone else's name, so I never see the bill.
I say police determined that the brief time maura had her phone on and it was pinging (4:37 p.m. monday) is what led them to conclude that maura must've been checking her voicemail, not from looking at her cell phone records. Yea they definitely would know from her phone records. According to lighthouse sprint actually had vmail calls listed separately. The way I used to see it on my old cell bills is because to check my vmail I used to have to dial my own phone #. Someone dials themselves and it's a 1 minute call it is obviously to check their vmail. Orko Kringer wrote: <quoted text>
Yes, but we have to be careful. Is that an actual cell phone bill or is that something the phone company would have.
I have one day's worth (more like 12 hours) of maura's cell phone records and they look nothing like what is on renner's site concerning fred's cell phone bill.
Police intially had maura's phone records (provided to them by family) not from the phone company. Would the records provided by the family be that detailed like the ones on renner's site. LE didn't initially have her phone from her family because her family didn't even have her phone bill for that month yet. I would assume they brought historical phone records but for LE to get her current bill, from feb1-9 they needed to call and make a special request. There is a quote somewhere from Sharon where she is describing being in the room with the cop while he called sprint to get the phone records so she could give him the info he needed to obtain the records and offer her consent for their release. I would assume that the records were faxed over to LE directly from sprint an immediately as well. So it would've been impossible for the family to provide up to date phone records because they didn't have the bill for feb yet cuz it was the beginning of the months
|
|
Jenkins
Brooklyn, NY
|
Orko Kringer wrote: I know I have been blabbing on and on about the londonderry ping ordeal, but I really want to drive this point home.
As long as Maribeth was correct (And I am still waiting to hear from her) and maura did check her phone messages at 4:37 p.m., that monday, then regardless if maura had her phone on or off before then, she would've left a trace - vie cell phone pings - to her location over an hour after she left campus.
We would've heard about this location through the media.
Police weren't telling the public everything about the case but as you can notice, they were releasing anything and everything about maura when it came to possible locations and destinations she may have gone because they wanted the public to assist them in finding her (regardless of the theory that is true concerning her disappearance).
The fact that no public news article or press release has ever come out and said "we know for a fact Maura was at such and such at 4:37 p.m.,(by tracing her cell phone) only points to the fact that they concluded she was driving on the interstate at that time and had turned on her phone to check for messages. Her phone was voice activated, so she could've easily done all of that while driving.
Bottom line, if she did check her messages, her phone had to be on at 4:37 p.m. and her location (within a certain mileage) would've been known.
The fact police didn't harp on that location to the public in helping find maura, only points more to the fact that they determined she was checking her messages at that time and was in her car driving and I believe that is what they told maribeth and that is what she reported. This isn't exactly accurate. LE didn't really release her locations at all. We know she went to an ATM machine and a liquor store. To my knowledge they never told us which liquor store or what ATM she went to. We don't know where she stopped for gas, we really know nothing except she drove up 91n and crashed at the WB curve. What other known location has LE release that you know of? The only other thing we know is that at 4:37, somewhere along her trip, presumably on 91n she called and checked her vmail. LE has really released very little info about where she was that day and they didn't even release her ATM photo, which is very strange for a missing persons case. They almost always release the last known photo of a missin person, which is generally an ATM photo or a security footage from the liquor store, or something along those lines. I wonder why they never released that. Even stranger, they never even showed it to the family to confirm it was actually her.
|
|
Jenkins
Brooklyn, NY
|
The 'one party intercept' that's noted in the court records is NOT referencing anything that has to do with any ping data, two completely seperate things. Pings are pings, that would be included under the cell phone records data. A 'one party intercept' by definition is a conversation that is being recorded where one person is aware and has given consent for the recording to be taking place. This can be either a phone conversation or a face to face conversation where one person is wearing a recording device. Ping data is not a one party intercept, it's just not. That one party intercept has to be something else and I would love to know what it is, thats just a highly unusual thing to be present in a missin persons investigation. Can anybody think of any way a one party intercept can even be used in a case like this? The only thing I can really think of is them trying to get a suspected perp recorded bragging about the crime to use as PC, what else could it possibly be? Just that one piece of evidence listed is a pretty good indication that this is truly a murder case they're working on, or at least believe they're working on. If they thought suicide, or even just lost in the woods, how could a one party intercept apply in any way shape or form?
|
|
JWB
Portland, ME
|
Jenkins wrote: The 'one party intercept' that's noted in the court records is NOT referencing anything that has to do with any ping data, two completely seperate things. Pings are pings, that would be included under the cell phone records data.
A 'one party intercept' by definition is a conversation that is being recorded where one person is aware and has given consent for the recording to be taking place. This can be either a phone conversation or a face to face conversation where one person is wearing a recording device. Ping data is not a one party intercept, it's just not.
That one party intercept has to be something else and I would love to know what it is, thats just a highly unusual thing to be present in a missin persons investigation.
Can anybody think of any way a one party intercept can even be used in a case like this?
The only thing I can really think of is them trying to get a suspected perp recorded bragging about the crime to use as PC, what else could it possibly be?
Just that one piece of evidence listed is a pretty good indication that this is truly a murder case they're working on, or at least believe they're working on. If they thought suicide, or even just lost in the woods, how could a one party intercept apply in any way shape or form? The one party intercept could have possibly been the phone number that LE uncovered . The phone that called Mauras Number from the Londonderry NH area. This data should have been available to sprint. Cell companies can determine incoming calls (caller id). The call probably didn't go through to Maura because she was out of the service area. LE could have determined who called Maura and put a Tap on that number.
|
|
JWB
Portland, ME
|
Here is a copy of JR's Scope of the investigation list just to refresh things. - Fred Murray's cell phone records - phone records of family members and friends - personnel records - military records - Grand Jury subpoenas - search warrants - credit card info - criminal record checks - witness interviews (including 19 written statements and 3 transcribed interviews) - 2-page statement of Fred Murray - lab reports - unknown photographs - copies of Websleuths forum conversations - one-party intercept memoranda (possible wire taps) And, most interestingly, 4 polygraph examinations. Also in the report is an affidavit from assistant AG Jeff Strelzin, who tells the court that he believes there is a 75% chance that criminal charges will be filed in this case.
|
|
Since: Jun 08
Arizona
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Orko Kringer wrote: I know I have been blabbing on and on about the londonderry ping ordeal, but I really want to drive this point home.
As long as Maribeth was correct (And I am still waiting to hear from her) and maura did check her phone messages at 4:37 p.m., that monday, then regardless if maura had her phone on or off before then, she would've left a trace - vie cell phone pings - to her location over an hour after she left campus.
We would've heard about this location through the media.
Police weren't telling the public everything about the case but as you can notice, they were releasing anything and everything about maura when it came to possible locations and destinations she may have gone because they wanted the public to assist them in finding her (regardless of the theory that is true concerning her disappearance).
The fact that no public news article or press release has ever come out and said "we know for a fact Maura was at such and such at 4:37 p.m.,(by tracing her cell phone) only points to the fact that they concluded she was driving on the interstate at that time and had turned on her phone to check for messages. Her phone was voice activated, so she could've easily done all of that while driving.
Bottom line, if she did check her messages, her phone had to be on at 4:37 p.m. and her location (within a certain mileage) would've been known.
The fact police didn't harp on that location to the public in helping find maura, only points more to the fact that they determined she was checking her messages at that time and was in her car driving and I believe that is what they told maribeth and that is what she reported. Are you certain her phone was (1) voice activated, and (2) able to ping even when turned off? This was back in 2004. My cellphone back then was not equipped with voice activation, and I don't believe would ping towers unless turned on. I could be wrong, maybe I am misunderstanding the fine points ....
|
|
OKAY
Gloucester, MA
|
Lighthouse, pull up a chair over here a moment. think about how Obama won the election. did he argue with Romney? did he "debate"? of course not! do you remember when Obama stepped back during Romney's big moment? the one when Romney was finally scripted and prepped to debate, and, hopefully, would get out of his own way? oh, sure, Obama came off as apathetic and unprepared...his numbers took a slide, but Romney was left to debate....with himself...while Obama kept his silence, shrugged, and made a few funny faces. i'm thinking you might find yourself standing at a podium next to the guy who arrives with a suitcase to spend the night, an empty can of Red Bull, and one long script that he keeps re-reading. let me know when you're ready to throw your arms up in the air and release those fancy balloons into the sky. after all, letting go is always the hardest thing to do.
|
|
sophie bean
Skowhegan, ME
|
findmaura wrote: <quoted text>
A serial killer is on my "wheres Maura"list.With all the current news on Serial Killer Israel keyes&his excessive travels,I really feel he shouldnt be discounted in the Northeast. thank you. it's astounding to me that anyone would ignore the possibility that Keyes was responsible for her disappearance, but I look around and there seems to be little interest in this possibility. odd.
|
|
OKAY
Gloucester, MA
|
Advocator wrote: <quoted text>
Are you certain her phone was (1) voice activated, and (2) able to ping even when turned off? This was back in 2004. My cellphone back then was not equipped with voice activation, and I don't believe would ping towers unless turned on. I could be wrong, maybe I am misunderstanding the fine points .... i agree, Advocator. voice activation wasn't the norm or mainstream in '04. my blind relative would have benefitted substantially by the technology, but it was in its infancy before she died, and that was nearly 4 years ago. i'll leave the pinging to the pingers.
|
|
JWB
Portland, ME
|
The model number for Mauras phone is out there on the internet but I can't seem to find it again. I have been able to get specs and info on it in the past. If anyone can come up with the model number it should answer your questions. The model number might have been listed on one of the posters/
|
|
mcsmom
Vernon Rockville, CT
|
JWB wrote: The model number for Mauras phone is out there on the internet but I can't seem to find it again. I have been able to get specs and info on it in the past. If anyone can come up with the model number it should answer your questions. The model number might have been listed on one of the posters/ Sprint Samsung SPH-A620
|
|
|
Dating
