Maura Murray

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Sprint Samsung SPH-A620

Thanks yep that looks familiar

Sophie Bean, I agree. FBI is trying to put a time line of this murderer and his travels.

Orko Kringer "Lt. Scarinza -- "I got the call at 6 a.m. on Wednesday morning from the chief of police in Haverhill," recalls Scarinza. "They had a CAR ACCIDENT. But they didn't find a driver."

Note that Fred contacted them and gave out a scenario, not the other way around.(which is telling that police hadn't even worked up a theory days after the accident)

Lt. Scarinza ---
“What I was told was that the first thing out of Fred's mouth was,'She's gone to the North Country to commit suicide, to go off and die like an old squaw."

This is supported by the 911 logs for Feb 10 as Fred was urgently trying to get a hold of police because he had something important to tell them regarding maura"Why was it Scarinza was unaware until Feb. 11 that there was a car accident and the driver was missing when a state police officer was already on the scene Feb.9 investigating? I would be willing to bet the first thing out of Freds mouth would be have you found my daughter yet. The Feb. 10 call supports nothing. You have no clue as to what was so urgent that he had to speak to LE or what there conversation was. You are wrong in making an assumtion as to what you think this call was about when you have no knowledge as to what was said. Its only your opinion as to what you think the log means and not a fact.

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?

They could have been doing a "one party intercept" on FM, bugging his phone, if they suspected he was hiding something or maybe even was in contact with Maura. Judging from the list JWB posted from Renner´s site, a lot of the early investigation seems to have focused on FM. I´m convinced one of the 4 polys was his, we know two others were SBD and Billy.

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.

I dont know how Mauras phone worked but I know when I check my voice mail I have always had to dial a phone number and then a pin number in order to retrieve my messages.

citigirl wrote:

Orko Kringer "Lt. Scarinza -- "I got the call at 6 a.m. on Wednesday morning from the chief of police in Haverhill," recalls Scarinza. "They had a CAR ACCIDENT. But they didn't find a driver."
Note that Fred contacted them and gave out a scenario, not the other way around.(which is telling that police hadn't even worked up a theory days after the accident)
Lt. Scarinza ---
“What I was told was that the first thing out of Fred's mouth was,'She's gone to the North Country to commit suicide, to go off and die like an old squaw."
This is supported by the 911 logs for Feb 10 as Fred was urgently trying to get a hold of police because he had something important to tell them regarding maura"Why was it Scarinza was unaware until Feb. 11 that there was a car accident and the driver was missing when a state police officer was already on the scene Feb.9 investigating? I would be willing to bet the first thing out of Freds mouth would be have you found my daughter yet. The Feb. 10 call supports nothing. You have no clue as to what was so urgent that he had to speak to LE or what there conversation was. You are wrong in making an assumtion as to what you think this call was about when you have no knowledge as to what was said. Its only your opinion as to what you think the log means and not a fact.

Look at the dispatch logs on Renner´s site under "documents", then Part 2 of "Documents given to Fred Murray", page 24. It says

Fred actually did call because (quoting log): "he heard that his daughter is missing". He requested someone call him back, message was relayed, but Fred later called back saying the officer had not gotten back to him. FM then goes on to say he had "some very important information" to give the officer.
Ok, important information, not just a question where is my daughter.

JWB wrote:

Just Read the afidafit again and no where is the word "ping" used.Renner uses the word "PING" and posters have used the word "ping" in the past. Here is a partial of the afidafit again. I also noticed that Sprint tower is mentioned specifically. The tower in Londonderry VT is a US Cellular tower.
" 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.

Isn't it possible that it's simply a poorly worded affadavit?

For example: Couldn't it be that, on Maura's logs, they had an INCOMING call number xxx.xxx.xxxx. The cross-referenced all the available databases, but it was not available (to get the name of the owner/registered user). Then, they were able to get the information from the phone compay as to the pings - of where the phone number pinged...this 'mystery' caller. However, they were still waiting on the name/address information because it was drafted so early on in the case,that they hadn't obtained name/info before requested ping information?

Essentially, I'm suggesting that some friend of Maura's called her from near Londonderry.(Thus, an 'outgoing call placed to Murray.) While awaiting confirmation on the name/address, they shot out this affadavit quickly to get the ping information...while awaiting name and address.

Just a thought.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at the dispatch logs on Renner´s site under "documents", then Part 2 of "Documents given to Fred Murray", page 24. It says
Fred actually did call because (quoting log): "he heard that his daughter is missing". He requested someone call him back, message was relayed, but Fred later called back saying the officer had not gotten back to him. FM then goes on to say he had "some very important information" to give the officer.
Ok, important information, not just a question where is my daughter.

Thanks for pulling that out. I was just about to go get that myself.

But I should be clear. It is not fact that fred was telling them his daughter was suicidal (going off this 911 log) It is an assumption. The first time I saw that, that stood out (red flag) and I brought it up (maybe here maybe on websleuths) and I wondered why a parent would have info for the police when they had just found out their kid was missing? I would assume that the parents would be in complete shock and that an event like this would come from left field and they would be all ears for what police had to say to them, not the other way around.

Simply Caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't it possible that it's simply a poorly worded affadavit?
For example: Couldn't it be that, on Maura's logs, they had an INCOMING call number xxx.xxx.xxxx. The cross-referenced all the available databases, but it was not available (to get the name of the owner/registered user). Then, they were able to get the information from the phone compay as to the pings - of where the phone number pinged...this 'mystery' caller. However, they were still waiting on the name/address information because it was drafted so early on in the case,that they hadn't obtained name/info before requested ping information?
Essentially, I'm suggesting that some friend of Maura's called her from near Londonderry.(Thus, an 'outgoing call placed to Murray.) While awaiting confirmation on the name/address, they shot out this affadavit quickly to get the ping information...while awaiting name and address.
Just a thought.

What bugs me about this whole londonderry ping thing, is that in the affadavit it lists this "Mystery Phone Call" as taking place late in the afternoon.

Maura did check her phone for messages at 4:37 p.m.

How much later in the afternoon can you get for YET ANOTHER call taking place. Isn't 5 p.m. considered the start of evening?

And yet police and family have gone on record about all of maura's phone activity that day to include her checking for voicemails late in the afternoon ... Yet this one "Mystery Phone Call" that supposedly took place ... everyone is tight-lip about because its her killer. And yet nine years later (after knowing early on who her killer was if you are to believe jenky) then .... Why are they no closer to arresting someone. This killer must be also good in staying quiet and out of trouble for nine years.

OKAY wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

I posted the link for her phone a few pages back. It says right there that the phone had voice activation. I didn't read all of the descriptors for the phone and admit that I am by no means an expert on cell phones. I got the link for her phone from the mauramurray missing website, So I believe it to be credible.

Orko Kringer "And the answer from sprint security back to police was that maura was likely checking her phone messages briefly and then turned her phone back to the off position" I have never seen any such documentation where sprint security states this to police.

Nothing to really add here, but found this interesting.

I decided to go back and look at reviews for maura's phone from people back in 2004-2005 and one of the thing many people noted that owned this particular phone was that when you received a text from someone, you had to log on to the internet to actually get it.

Maybe more cell phones were like that. I didn't own my first cell phone until like 2008.

Doubt this tidbit changes anything concerning maura, but found that interesting.

citigirl wrote:

Orko Kringer "And the answer from sprint security back to police was that maura was likely checking her phone messages briefly and then turned her phone back to the off position" I have never seen any such documentation where sprint security states this to police.

There are no documents.

That was a suggestion (as I noted a few sentences earlier in that same post) for how the scenario could've played itself out. I was giving a scenario for Jenky on why the pinging of maura's phone could've ultimately led to them finding out she had turned her phone on to check for messages at 4:37 p.m. that Monday.

Simply Caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
Isn't it possible that it's simply a poorly worded affadavit?
For example: Couldn't it be that, on Maura's logs, they had an INCOMING call number xxx.xxx.xxxx. The cross-referenced all the available databases, but it was not available (to get the name of the owner/registered user). Then, they were able to get the information from the phone compay as to the pings - of where the phone number pinged...this 'mystery' caller. However, they were still waiting on the name/address information because it was drafted so early on in the case,that they hadn't obtained name/info before requested ping information?
Essentially, I'm suggesting that some friend of Maura's called her from near Londonderry.(Thus, an 'outgoing call placed to Murray.) While awaiting confirmation on the name/address, they shot out this affadavit quickly to get the ping information...while awaiting name and address.
Just a thought.

Yes I think it is a poorly written affadavit.

But most on here seems to think that a because someone is in law enforcement that they know everything there is to know about everything.

Truth is when I had to have an officer in my small town write up a report on some potential ID theft that had happened through my computer ... Well we will just say that the report and the case went nowhere (even though I personally traced and ended up dealing with myself the party involved in the theft)

And the final product of that report looked like something a third grader had written up. But I digress.

When Fred first talked, on the telephone, to or with NH LE...we don't know what was said. We don't know the conversation. Imagine you got a message that your child was in an accident and was missing. What could/would be the conversation?

It would be a splatter of "when, how, where..."
It would be a blather of panic, anger, fear.

The one who would know his words would be the one taking the call (AND recording) It would be more exacting if the recording was memoralized.(We the public will not know) Though it would dispell so much made up conversation.

I really don't doubt that Fred nervously made some comment, when he got up to Haverhill PD, about a
squaw walk. He was a wreck...his child was missing.

sophie bean wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Today,the Louise Chaput NH case was added at the Israel Keyes Facebook
page..It is a distinct possibility he killed in the North.especially with his NY house to Maine trips&his admittance of finding his prey on trailheads&desolate areas.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at the dispatch logs on Renner´s site under "documents", then Part 2 of "Documents given to Fred Murray", page 24. It says
Fred actually did call because (quoting log): "he heard that his daughter is missing". He requested someone call him back, message was relayed, but Fred later called back saying the officer had not gotten back to him. FM then goes on to say he had "some very important information" to give the officer.
Ok, important information, not just a question where is my daughter.

Hannah I did not say Fred did not call LE.I know what is in the log because I recieved a copy of it in 04. What I was saying there is no way that Orko would know what was discussed between LE and Fred during there phone conversation. Orko made the assumption that when Scarinza said the first thing out of Freds mouth was "shes gone to the North country to commit suicide to go off and die like and old squaw." This originally came from HP. They said this was the first thing that came out of Freds mouth after he entered the police station. Sorry I didnt explain it well. Hopefully I have ezplained it better now so you understand what Iam saying.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I posted the link for her phone a few pages back. It says right there that the phone had voice activation. I didn't read all of the descriptors for the phone and admit that I am by no means an expert on cell phones. I got the link for her phone from the mauramurray missing website, So I believe it to be credible.

Thank you for the clarification. I recall very limited voice activation functions, though I, by no means, have investigated, even to the extent you have.
I recall that the biggest obstacle to cell phone use over many years has always been spotty reception, which precluded the use of functionality...the most frustrating feature of cell phones until the addition of towers and the technology with smartphones / iPhones.
From a practical point of view, and going anecdotal, like Jenky, there was limited use of cell phones in New England, most often due to poor-to-no reception. Using additional features were gradually added when texting became more common.

Hi all,We are told Scarinza got a call wednesday Feb 11th. at 6am from Williams.What could Williams have said.We have an abandoned car we may have a missing driver and if we are lucky we may have an accident report by the weekend but we did take the time to get a search warrant.too weird.take care philip

findmaura wrote:

<quoted text>Today,the Louise Chaput NH case was added at the Israel Keyes Facebook page..It is a distinct possibility he killed in the North.especially with his NY house to Maine trips&his admittance of finding his prey on trailheads&desolate areas.

Great observation findmaura, I wonder where Keyes was in November, 2001?

Link to the FB page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Have-You-Ever-m...