Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:

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"

Judged:

1

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
Tang have you noticed that this annoying habit of posting the same statement over and over with no supporting commentary actually accomplishes nothing? Beagle is an expert at it and look where it has gotten him. Is this where you are trying to go? For you and Alden both, if you have some thing to say, just say it. The games are annoying and accomplish nothing relative to this forum.

Judged:

1

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Wah Wah.......
Read #5 people.......
Understand Your point, but people here are dense. CALL TO HER PHONE FROM LONDONDERRY TOWER....22 MILE RADIUS.
I don't believe She traveled to 93 north. JMHO
John

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
I happen to agree with you but it took me a while to get there. I am still not 100% and you shouldn't be either because it is a bit ambiguous. We don't know exactly what they are referring to and we do not know what path she took.
However, the couple of sentences explaining your position was much friendlier than posting the affidavit over and over.

Judged:

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank You....agreed.
Some people just DO NOT READ ITEMS but then post about it. It got Your attention though, let's see IF anyone else gets it.
John

Judged:

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
We all have access to the affidavit. The repeated posting was not helpful, just annoying.

Once Again wrote:

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.

Judged:

1

1

1

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
well said.
note: "The time of departure was reported second hand."
and, yet, the navel gazing has gone on for 24+ hours now, not to mention previous ping discussions
over the years. this is what keeps the whole dang conversation going.
it will rewind, again.
leaps to and bounding over points of departure....without having established facts...do not justify the conclusions that are drawn, and so it remains an exercise in futility until the next go-around.
and it ain't gonna solve anything.
but it's all grist for the gristmill, or wind for The. windmill. round 'n round.

Judged:

3

3

2

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>and yet you are still here.......HmmMmmmmmmm

Judged:

1

1

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.

Det Columbo wrote:

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"

Once Again wrote:

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.

Judged:

1

1

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly the point I was trying to get across. I t is clear reading the affidavit that they were looking for the person who called Maura. Their phone hit the londonderry tower but never transfereed to Mauras phone/bill since her phone was turned off or out of the service area.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
Read the affidavit carefully. They were asking for a lot more info than just who called MM.