|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
READ CAREFULLY....#5 Outgoing call to MM phone from Londonderry NH tower. Simple enough "Supporting Affidavit for Issuance of Search Warrant I, Todd D. Landry, do hereby depose and say; 1. That I am currently employed by the State Police and have been for the past ten years. Currently, I am assigned as a Detective at Trooop- F in Twin Mountain, NH. I have received extensive training in the investigation of criminal matters. 2. That on February 9, 2004 at 1927 hours the Haverhill, NH Police Department responded to a single vehicle motor vehicle crash on Route 112 in Haverhill, NH. Upon arrival, Sgt. Cecil Smith was unable to locate the driver of the vehicle. Subsequent investigation determined that the driver of the vehicle was MAURA MURRAY (d.o.b. 05/04/82), 22 Walker Street, Weymouth, MA. 3. A witness at the scene later confirmed that the driver was MURRAY. 4. An extensive search of the area has been conducted and MURRAY has not been located. 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"
|
|
Since: Mar 13
Woodsville, NH
|
Please wait...
Everyone has also assumed that the Affidavit was wrong and it really meant Londonderry, VT. Google shows Amherst to Londonderry, NH to Woodsville takes 4 hours and 10 minutes. That is based on all posted speed limits. I routinely shave 10 - 15% off of google estimates of time simply because I drive faster than the speed limit. On a quiet February night of highway driving I suggest that 15% could easily be shaved off the drive time if you are not bound by the posted limits. If the 'she was seen on campus around 4' was really closer to 345 than 4 then the 15% reduction in time gets her to I93 and past Londonderry, NH and to WB curve in the proper time. Unless of course there was a time associated with the Londonderry ping affidavit, but I don't recall that ever being public knowledge.
|
|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
Unbelievable with this ping thing.
4 PM Amherst to 7:30 PM Woodsville is 3 1/2 hrs
4 hours.....say what.
|
|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
|
|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
http://www.mapquest.com/ 2 1/2 hrs...... Leave at 3:30 arrive 6 pm Leave at 4 arrive at 6:30 pm 3 hrs. to be safe adds 1/2 hr to time John
|
|
Since: Mar 13
Woodsville, NH
|
Please wait...
Det Columbo wrote: Unbelievable with this ping thing.
4 PM Amherst to 7:30 PM Woodsville is 3 1/2 hrs
4 hours.....say what. Read what I wrote. Amherst to Londonderry, NH to Woodsville. 4 hrs and 10 minutes using posted speed limits. I am not saying that I think this happened but I am saying it is possible since no one really knows what route she took AND Landry's affidavit says Londonderry, NH. Instead of assuming the affidavit, a legal document, is incorrect, maybe it is correct and she did not take the route that everyone thinks she did. I am saying that an alternate route is possible.
|
|
Shack
Groton, MA
|
I realize that hours are important to so many....but, I think that Maura's hours of travel are from 4 pm ish to 7 pm ish, not so helpful.
Often wondered if LE checked with towns along 91 No.
I have never believed that she went from Amherst to
93 North.
These thoughts are only from own travel routes/times.
|
|
Since: Jul 11
Mount Vernon, IL
|
Please wait...
BillNH wrote: <quoted text>
Read what I wrote. Amherst to Londonderry, NH to Woodsville. 4 hrs and 10 minutes using posted speed limits. I am not saying that I think this happened but I am saying it is possible since no one really knows what route she took AND Landry's affidavit says Londonderry, NH. Instead of assuming the affidavit, a legal document, is incorrect, maybe it is correct and she did not take the route that everyone thinks she did. I am saying that an alternate route is possible. let me be clear, I understand exactly what you are saying concerning the affidavit and why would police be interested in a ping at the same time Maura was checking her phone for messages (which they already would know about and get from her cell phone records) I am saying police didn't pursue the phone company about cell phone pings they had no idea about. And police didn't get the cell phone records from the phone company.(Family provided police with Maura's cell phone records). In a separate occasion, the phone company notified police about ping activity on Maura's phone. Police had no idea what or when that ping activity took place and could not find that info out (to match it up with Maura checking for phone messages) because of privacy issues. So it wasn't until police filled out the affidavit and turned it in and got back the info from sprint that they knew what they had. And my guess is that is when they determined that the ping activity matched in line with when Maura checked for cell phone mesasages at 4:37 p.m. So basically I am saying Lt. Landry filled out an affidavit NOT KNOWING What precisely he was going to get, but was following proper procedure. I don't even think he knew exactly how to ask for what the phone company was telling him about. He uses very generalized every day form filling out police lingo
|
|
Jenkins
Southbury, CT
|
Orko Kringer wrote: <quoted text>
Do u understand what I am saying though.
Police had her cell phone records, they didn't need sprint to tell them about Maura checking her phone messages.
However, Maura's phone pinging (because she checked for messages) would be something that does not show up on the cell phone records and sprint would be only privy too.
Sprint can not legally tell police what the ping they have is because of privacy laws.
Police had to make out an affidavit to get the ping info.
All in all I am saying that Maura checking her phone for messages left both a cell phone record trail and a separate cell phone ping trail. Orky- I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you're WAYYYY off on tthis whole londonderry ping thing. First of all it should've never been called the 'londonderry ping' because that is a misleading name, in reality that affidavit had nothing to do with pings, which reveal the location of a phone but rather was an attempt to find out who called Maura at that time. The affidavit is clear, it is an attempt to figure out the phone number and identity of someone who tried to CALL HER from the Londonderry area LE had absolutely no need for any affidavit to get any info from Sprint regarding Maura's cell phone, the phone was in Sharon's name and Sharon gave LE full permission to get any and all info they could out of it. That means that right from the start they had ALL of her info, all her phone calls, all of her pings. When the owner of the account gives complete permission there is no need for any affidavit. There is even a quote from Sharon where she talks about being on the phone with Sprint with an investigator there so they could set it up to see her phone records, which would obviouly include ping information. Since the owner of the phone gave persmission there is NO privacy problem at all. The affidavit clearly states it is looking for the number of an INCOMING call TO Maura's phone that was routed through the Londonderry, NH cell tower. The affidavit actually has absolutely nothing to do with any location of anybody, it is about obtaining the phone number of someone who attempted to CALL HER. It says this in the affidavit plain as day, there's nothing about anything regarding locating where Maura was it was about someone trying to call her. By the time this affidavit was written LE knew where her final ping was at, they knew that within the first days of the investigation. Basically they asked Sprint if anybody had tried to call her number, they probably asked every cell company and with Sprint they got a hit. Sprint told them that someone tried to call her at a certain time and through a certain tower. LE then used this info when writing this affidavit. Orky you gotta re-think this one, what you're saying doesn't make any sense on several different levels. Just because Renner decided to call it the Londonderry Ping does not mean that it was really about cell phone pings, which are used to track people. It was about trying to find the identity of SOMEONE WHO CALLED HER THAT AFTERNOON FROM THE LONDONDERRY,NH AREA. The NHSP had all of her call history and ping info a long time before this affidavit was ever written up. I don't see how anybody can think anything different, just READ THE AFFIDAVIT, it's very clear as to what it's pertaining to and it's NOT about Maura's final ping, which they wouldn't need an affidavit to obtain anyways.
|
|
Jenkins
Southbury, CT
|
Orko Kringer wrote: <quoted text>
Do u understand what I am saying though.
Police had her cell phone records, they didn't need sprint to tell them about Maura checking her phone messages.
However, Maura's phone pinging (because she checked for messages) would be something that does not show up on the cell phone records and sprint would be only privy too.
Sprint can not legally tell police what the ping they have is because of privacy laws.
Police had to make out an affidavit to get the ping info.
All in all I am saying that Maura checking her phone for messages left both a cell phone record trail and a separate cell phone ping trail. Orky- I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you're WAYYYY off on tthis whole londonderry ping thing. First of all it should've never been called the 'londonderry ping' because that is a misleading name, in reality that affidavit had nothing to do with pings, which reveal the location of a phone but rather was an attempt to find out who called Maura at that time. The affidavit is clear, it is an attempt to figure out the phone number and identity of someone who tried to CALL HER from the Londonderry area LE had absolutely no need for any affidavit to get any info from Sprint regarding Maura's cell phone, the phone was in Sharon's name and Sharon gave LE full permission to get any and all info they could out of it. That means that right from the start they had ALL of her info, all her phone calls, all of her pings. When the owner of the account gives complete permission there is no need for any affidavit. There is even a quote from Sharon where she talks about being on the phone with Sprint with an investigator there so they could set it up to see her phone records, which would obviouly include ping information. Since the owner of the phone gave persmission there is NO privacy problem at all. The affidavit clearly states it is looking for the number of an INCOMING call TO Maura's phone that was routed through the Londonderry, NH cell tower. The affidavit actually has absolutely nothing to do with any location of anybody, it is about obtaining the phone number of someone who attempted to CALL HER. It says this in the affidavit plain as day, there's nothing about anything regarding locating where Maura was it was about someone trying to call her. By the time this affidavit was written LE knew where her final ping was at, they knew that within the first days of the investigation. Basically they asked Sprint if anybody had tried to call her number, they probably asked every cell company and with Sprint they got a hit. Sprint told them that someone tried to call her at a certain time and through a certain tower. LE then used this info when writing this affidavit. Orky you gotta re-think this one, what you're saying doesn't make any sense on several different levels. Just because Renner decided to call it the Londonderry Ping does not mean that it was really about cell phone pings, which are used to track people. It was about trying to find the identity of SOMEONE WHO CALLED HER THAT AFTERNOON FROM THE LONDONDERRY,NH AREA. The NHSP had all of her call history and ping info a long time before this affidavit was ever written up. I don't see how anybody can think anything different, just READ THE AFFIDAVIT, it's very clear as to what it's pertaining to and it's NOT about Maura's final ping, which they wouldn't need an affidavit to obtain anyways.
|
|
Jenkins
Southbury, CT
|
What the cops did there was actually pretty clever-ask cell phone co's if anybody tried to call her number. SInce her phone was off they couldn't get that info from her phone so they had to use the back door, so to speak. Cell co's are allowed to tell LE about the existence of a call if they're asked they just aren't allowed to reveal any details without a court order. That's clearly what happened in this case. Sprint told them that someone tried to call her and the call was routed through the Londonderry,NH tower. They then used that info to write up an affidavit and obtain the caller's info. There was some debate as to whether or not this document is even real, there was a poster 'dawn' who made a strong argument towards it being a fake but IMHO it is a real affidavit and the cops really did try to find someone who was trying to call her. So there's some debate as to whether it's real but I don't see how anybody can debate what the purpose of the affidavit was, which was NOT to obtain Maura's final ping. That was info investigators had in the first week of the investigation latest, probably within the first day or 2. Remember that they had a distinct advatage due to the fact that the phone wasn't even in Maura's name, it was in Sharon's who gave full permission to LE to access the records
|
|
Since: Jul 11
Mount Vernon, IL
|
Please wait...
Judged:
2
1
Jenkins wrote: <quoted text>
Orky- I'm sorry to have to tell you this but you're WAYYYY off on tthis whole londonderry ping thing.
First of all it should've never been called the 'londonderry ping' because that is a misleading name, in reality that affidavit had nothing to do with pings, which reveal the location of a phone but rather was an attempt to find out who called Maura at that time. The affidavit is clear, it is an attempt to figure out the phone number and identity of someone who tried to CALL HER from the Londonderry area
LE had absolutely no need for any affidavit to get any info from Sprint regarding Maura's cell phone, the phone was in Sharon's name and Sharon gave LE full permission to get any and all info they could out of it. That means that right from the start they had ALL of her info, all her phone calls, all of her pings. When the owner of the account gives complete permission there is no need for any affidavit. There is even a quote from Sharon where she talks about being on the phone with Sprint with an investigator there so they could set it up to see her phone records, which would obviouly include ping information. Since the owner of the phone gave persmission there is NO privacy problem at all.
The affidavit clearly states it is looking for the number of an INCOMING call TO Maura's phone that was routed through the Londonderry, NH cell tower. The affidavit actually has absolutely nothing to do with any location of anybody, it is about obtaining the phone number of someone who attempted to CALL HER. It says this in the affidavit plain as day, there's nothing about anything regarding locating where Maura was it was about someone trying to call her.
By the time this affidavit was written LE knew where her final ping was at, they knew that within the first days of the investigation.
Basically they asked Sprint if anybody had tried to call her number, they probably asked every cell company and with Sprint they got a hit. Sprint told them that someone tried to call her at a certain time and through a certain tower. LE then used this info when writing this affidavit.
Orky you gotta re-think this one, what you're saying doesn't make any sense on several different levels. Just because Renner decided to call it the Londonderry Ping does not mean that it was really about cell phone pings, which are used to track people. It was about trying to find the identity of SOMEONE WHO CALLED HER THAT AFTERNOON FROM THE LONDONDERRY,NH AREA.
The NHSP had all of her call history and ping info a long time before this affidavit was ever written up.
I don't see how anybody can think anything different, just READ THE AFFIDAVIT, it's very clear as to what it's pertaining to and it's NOT about Maura's final ping, which they wouldn't need an affidavit to obtain anyways. this is the only post I have seen that does provide a (believable alternative) to what I have posted. But that is all under the assumption that A) we are not talking about cell phone pings. And B) Sharon did what you described and gave blank permission for police to obtain all of Maura's ping activity (I admit, I don't know the law on that and how it works). I am still not satisfied with changing my mind though. Maura was very likely physically in the vincinity (cell range) of Londonderry Vermont when she turned on her phone. That is way too coincidental for me to believe that around that same time she was also getting a phone call coming in from Londonderry New Hampshire. It seems almost humanly impossible.
|
|
Since: Jul 11
Mount Vernon, IL
|
Please wait...
Two other points about the affidavit that was just randomly introduced by James Renner.
There is no context
There is no date
Is this document the key to solving marua's disappearance or is it just a standard document that was filled out in the early days of the investigation to glean some basic info from that some nine years later released on a blog out of the blue is made to sound like a bombshell newsbreak.
Also Jenky,
It is often stated that Sharon was in charge of the cell phone plan, when in actuality she did not get the phone bills each month. They went directly to billy wherever he was stationed at. So he was the one who saw the phone bill each month. Who knows when he actually turned them over to police. It could've been well after they had already heard from sprint about Londonderry.
|
|
Jenkins
Plymouth, NH
|
Orky- while billy did get the bills in OK the cell phone plan was under Sharon's name. According to her they just added Maura to the family plan that billy was under too. So Sharon paid the bill, but for some reason they had the paper bills mailed to billy in OK. Completely different topic but if that's not a reason for her to want a second phone idk what is.
But Orky, are you trying to suggest that LE waited for the family to provide the paper bill that arrived in the mail? Come on that's just not happening, they wouldn't even have the bill for those first 9 days of feb for another month, in a missing persons case it is neccesary for LE to obtain those phone records immediately, & directly from the company.
In the first days of an investigation the cell phone records are the biggest source of information. There's been missing persons located by their cell phone pings alone, there ain't no way they're waiting for the bill to show up next month to do that. They either get permission from the person in charge of the account, like in this case, or they get a court order if it's in the missing persons name. And they'll get a court order fast, that very day if they have to, it could literally be life or death.
There is an interview with Sharon where she described being with an investigator when he called sprint so she could provide him with all the information he needed to open up the acct to LE. Sounded like without a court order the cop needed to have all of her info. That took place in the first days. IT HAD TO.
What if she was in the woods somewhere and her cellphone was pinging? You can be damn sure that they had the cell company searching for pings for those first few days at least and if the phone ever pinged they would've been alerted. Nowadays that's like job #1 in a missing persons case.
There is no date on that affidavit, that was actually one of the reasons dawn said it was fake, but I believe it's real. But it's not talking about pings at all, it's talking about retreiving a number from a tower. It's not about physically locating her at all, it's about determining the number and therefore name of someone that might have information that could lead to the whereabouts of MM.
I don't think it's that big of a coincidence either, there's Londonderry right in the middle of both States. The signal travels up to 22.5 miles iirc so that gives a 45 mile wide circle around the tower, that's a pretty big area. She would've been driving through that circle for a while going up 91. It is a coincidence that someone called her form the Londonderry,NH area while she was in the Londonderry,VT area but when you're driving up 91 you're in that area for a while and a lot of southern NH is in that area too
|
|
Once Again
Scotts Valley, CA
|
The affidavit asks for the identity of a person calling to maura. It places the location of the person who called Maura. It does not place Mauras location. At one point we had worked out that mathematically Maura had to have gone up the more westernly interstate.But that was based on a time stated as when voice mail was checked by Maura and placed her at Amherst. The ping was not a part of that determination. However caution on the above departure time. The time of departure was reported second hand. Further...no verifying evidence available to the public places her at the ATM to get a start time.
|
|
hannah_b
Sweden
|
Hi Jenky & Orky. For LE to even know to ask Sprint for records on who had tried to call her via the L-derry tower, they had to already know somebody had tried to call. How would they even know this if they didn´t have reports of somebody that might have called her from that area. This is kinda confusing or maybe I´m just too tired.
|
|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
READ CAREFULLY....#5 Outgoing call to MM phone from Londonderry NH tower. Simple enough "Supporting Affidavit for Issuance of Search Warrant I, Todd D. Landry, do hereby depose and say; 1. That I am currently employed by the State Police and have been for the past ten years. Currently, I am assigned as a Detective at Trooop- F in Twin Mountain, NH. I have received extensive training in the investigation of criminal matters. 2. That on February 9, 2004 at 1927 hours the Haverhill, NH Police Department responded to a single vehicle motor vehicle crash on Route 112 in Haverhill, NH. Upon arrival, Sgt. Cecil Smith was unable to locate the driver of the vehicle. Subsequent investigation determined that the driver of the vehicle was MAURA MURRAY (d.o.b. 05/04/82), 22 Walker Street, Weymouth, MA. 3. A witness at the scene later confirmed that the driver was MURRAY. 4. An extensive search of the area has been conducted and MURRAY has not been located. 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"
|
|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
Judged:
1
1
Who was driving that RED TRUCK on BHR parked beside the road at approx. the town line.? The intersection of 4 different towns. John
|
|
Since: Mar 13
Woodsville, NH
|
Please wait...
Orko Kringer wrote: <quoted text>
That is way too coincidental for me to believe that around that same time she was also getting a phone call coming in from Londonderry New Hampshire. It seems almost humanly impossible. It does not have to be around the same time or at least not close. The affidavit says "late afternoon hours". That could place the incoming call attempt as late as 6pm. So if there were 2 different activities (MM checking VM plus an incoming call attempt) an hour or more apart, then it does not seem so impossibly coincidental that one was in Londonderry, VT and one in Londonderry, NH. I would also believe that since Sharron and Landry and Sprint were on the same conference call that Sprint was aware of MM being a missing person and therefore Sprint was able to tell Landry about the incoming call so Landry could then get the affidavit for the details. The call to check her VM was right on the bill, the Sprint rep would see this as well and would know that the other activity was not the same.
|
|
“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”
Since: Dec 11
Franconia NH
|
Please wait...
WOWZER.....Where are You, so interested in the info You have. Is it about Me. Can't wait to hear.
Need to discuss Red Truck again as well.
John
|
|
|
Dating
