Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

Orko Kringer wrote:

just a couple of points/questions
As even as Det. Columbo has posted point No. 5 of the affidavit 700 times on here, I still am not convinced that Maura wasn't just checking her cell phone for messages and that was what this is all about.
When you check your phone (back in 2004) for voice mail, are you making an outgoing call technically?
Have we established by now that it was SPRINT that informed police about this Londonderry call/ping and not police that went to sprint and asked about something they would have no reason to know about ahead of time?
Why in the wide world of sports would we know every person Maura called (the salamones, fellow nursing student etc.) yet for this one particular supposed phone call, police have been keeping the identity under wraps all these years? That doesn't add up. This is a missing person's case right, not a homicide investigation.
Knowing who Maura contacted is valuable information.

Judged:

1

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
IF they do know........It isn't gonna be public knowledge.
Make sense..?
John

Orko Kringer wrote:

You are welcome in advance:(haha)
I took the liberty of going to the actual source Sprint Corporate Security to try and get some answers on this whole ping thing.
I did not talk to someone mind you, but I found some interesting info and will post it here.
This is from an actual handbook that Sprint put out for law enforcement (probably circa 2002) in how to properly go about getting phone information and utilizing the courts.
This below is what Sprint Corporate Security would provide police concerning someone's cell phone.
Sprint Corporate Security
Subscriber Information:
Name, address, SS #, Driver’s Liscence #, dates of service and ESN (Electronic Serial Number)
Call Detail Information:
January 2000 to present:
----Incoming/Outgoing available for most recent 45 day time period – can be put on diskette in a .csv file;
---- 10 months available on bill images – can be put onto diskette in an image viewer format
Cell Site Information:
Cell site information identifies the actual tower address calls are being received and placed through within the Sprint PCS CDMA Network. These tower sites are within a 1 to 3 mile approximate radius of the handset and triangulated by sectors. This information can be put on a diskette in a .csv file.(this information is released pursuant to search warrant signed by a magistrate or court order).
I haven't made heads or tails out of this, maybe someone with more cell phone lingo and knowledge can translate this for us.

Judged:

1

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
It would make sense in a homicide investigation, not a missing person's investigation where you want the public to know every place and everyone that the missing person has been and had contact with.
So you are saying this is a homicide investigation? Wow, you are the first to say that. All police accounts I have ever come across on this case, they have said there is no evidence of foul play.

Judged:

1

1

1

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
So why did they request the cell tower info and not just info on the particular phone that made the call?

Judged:

1

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't put words in My mouth....so to speak. I never said that.
Have You ever been in Law Enforcement..?
John

citigirl wrote:

Orko Kringer." 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)" Where do you get your info from to state that police were interested in the ping at the same time Maura was checking her messages. According to her phone bill the last out going call from her phone was at 4:37 pm. It shows no incoming or out going calls after 4:37 pm. I personally have found this affidavit to be very odd.According to the affidavit it states there was an incoming call to Mauras phone in the late afternoon and dont know who the caller is. The affidavit is to vague to me. It has no info in it. I would think that if sprint was able to trace an incoming phone call to another phone that they would have an actual time on the call and a name considering this as an investigation of a missing person.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm with you Citi,
The affidavit doesn't add up, but then again we have no context for it or even date of the affidavit itself.
Also, Interesting that you refer to the 4:37 p.m. check for messages item as an OUTGOING call. where have I heard that language before ... Hmm ... Oh yeah, the affidavit by Lt. Landry

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm with you Citi,
The affidavit doesn't add up, but then again we have no context for it or even date of the affidavit itself.
Also, Interesting that you refer to the 4:37 p.m. check for messages item as an OUTGOING call. where have I heard that language before ... Hmm ... Oh yeah, the affidavit by Lt. Landry

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the confusing part. An outgoing call to Murray. But if it was her checking her VM, why would they not know the caller and the number that made the call. Certainly looks like it's someone else trying to call her that did not connect because her phone was turned off.

Judged:

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the confusing part. An outgoing call to Murray. But if it was her checking her VM, why would they not know the caller and the number that made the call. Certainly looks like it's someone else trying to call her that did not connect because her phone was turned off.