Maura Murray

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
EXACTLY....even IF let's say She was in the 22 mile radius of the Londonderry NH tower. It still would not show for Her phone as a ping.
John

back in 2004, her phone being turned on automatically meant it was sending pings. She could have her cell phone in the trunk of her car. No phone call needed to come in, she didn't need to be calling someone or talking to someone, just the fact that her phone was powered up, meant she was pinging and If you are pinging you are leaving a trace of yourself behind.

Police would be very interested in where Maura's cell phone pings.

Not quite sure police have the resources to worry about the location of every person that calls mauras' cell phone that seems like a tedious task to undertake

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
BillNH
If they (Sprint) don't know the caller or the number that made the call, then what is the point of a subpoena?
It was sprint that notified police about this Londonderry thing, not the other way around

WHO says that...."LE does not have that info"

Nobody knows that but LE and a few selected individuals.

John

citigirl wrote:

BillNH"That's the confusing part. An outgoing call to Murray." If someone was trying to call Mauras phone this would be an incoming call because the other party is trying to contact her. If Maura was trying to make a call on her phone that would be an out going call because she is trying to contact another party.

The call they are looking for is outgoing from the tower, not Maura's phone. Outgoing from the Londonderry, NH tower would mean that someone in the 22 mile radius of the tower was trying to call Maura's phone. The tower is receiving that call from the caller(incoming to the tower) and then sending it to Maura's number (outgoing from the tower). Had Maura's phone been turned on, then it would be incoming to her phone but still outgoing from the tower.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
BillNH
If they (Sprint) don't know the caller or the number that made the call, then what is the point of a subpoena?
It was sprint that notified police about this Londonderry thing, not the other way around

THe number and name of the caller was unknown to police. If it was just Maura checking her VM then there would be no reason to withhold that but if it was someone else I am assuming they needed the affidavit to get that number, probably for privacy reasons. I can imagine that during the conference call with Landry and Rausch the Sprint rep saw another call on there and was able to tell Landry that there was a call, but not who was calling. The affidavit would allow Sprint to tell.

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
WHO says that...."LE does not have that info"
Nobody knows that but LE and a few selected individuals.
John

Aw, putting words in my mouth, that is a bad habit.

I didn't say LE Doesn't have it (now at least) I said LE wouldn't have it before sprint would.

If Maura had her phone off and someone from Londonderry NH cell tower vincinity attempted to call her, there would be no record of that call on Maura's cell phone bill... and last I checked police are not Houdini, they can't know about a call that there is no record of. Therefore police can't request about something they don't know about.

But Sprint would be privy to that unknown knowledge. And therefore sprint would contact police not the other way around

The Saturn sustained autobody damage before it left Amherst MA. The damage was shown to an autobody repairman. Who showed him the damaged Saturn?

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
THe number and name of the caller was unknown to police. If it was just Maura checking her VM then there would be no reason to withhold that but if it was someone else I am assuming they needed the affidavit to get that number, probably for privacy reasons. I can imagine that during the conference call with Landry and Rausch the Sprint rep saw another call on there and was able to tell Landry that there was a call, but not who was calling. The affidavit would allow Sprint to tell.

Two points

1. we are assuming this conference call that jenky mentioned took place and that the content of that call was about this Londonderry thing.

2. I am going to use your own logic to dispute you.
You note that police would need an affidavit to locate a person's number because of privacy issues. Is Maura not a person?

I would think that even if sprint figured out that their info matched up with cell records of Maura's check for voice mail messages that they would still be obligated by law to have police go through the proper channels of getting a subpoena before they could tell police anything.

Now if that conference call with Sharon took place and if that conference call was about getting to the bottom of the Londonderry thing, then I think that would be a reasonable counter explanation to what I believe and that is why I mentioned that to Jenky.

But I haven't personally verified that conference call that jenky mentioned, so I still stand for now by what I believe.

whiston wrote:

Hi all ,just sitting her reading about Whitney Leanne Carpenter,seems like all the places she lived in from Joanne drive in Hanson go straight up interstate 91.take care philip

Exactly Philip.....

Sorry I missed this post before. This would be My best guess.

OK....

LE obtains cell records

Sprint ADVISED AFFIANT,OUTGOING CALL TO MAURAS CELL.

What is the problem here people.....?

Read it one more time......or again and again IF that's what it takes.

"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."

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Two points
1. we are assuming this conference call that jenky mentioned took place and that the content of that call was about this Londonderry thing.
2. I am going to use your own logic to dispute you.
You note that police would need an affidavit to locate a person's number because of privacy issues. Is Maura not a person?
I would think that even if sprint figured out that their info matched up with cell records of Maura's check for voice mail messages that they would still be obligated by law to have police go through the proper channels of getting a subpoena before they could tell police anything.
Now if that conference call with Sharon took place and if that conference call was about getting to the bottom of the Londonderry thing, then I think that would be a reasonable counter explanation to what I believe and that is why I mentioned that to Jenky.
But I haven't personally verified that conference call that jenky mentioned, so I still stand for now by what I believe.

I too am not confident that the conference call took place but that was a convenient way to make my point. It could also be that Mrs. Rausch told Sprint they could work with the police in RE to the phone use which seems obvious since police had the call records at this point. And it could have happened over days or weeks that the info came about. Police already had MM's phone records at this point so MM's privacy was not an issue. Telling the police about the existence of another call would not breach any privacy policy since no names were necessary. That would then allow Landry to request the details with the affidavit.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
I too am not confident that the conference call took place but that was a convenient way to make my point. It could also be that Mrs. Rausch told Sprint they could work with the police in RE to the phone use which seems obvious since police had the call records at this point. And it could have happened over days or weeks that the info came about. Police already had MM's phone records at this point so MM's privacy was not an issue. Telling the police about the existence of another call would not breach any privacy policy since no names were necessary. That would then allow Landry to request the details with the affidavit.

Very good points

But that just takes us back to the start.

Are we talking about a phone number being released (which privacy laws wouldn't really impact)

Or are we talking about someone's movements. Which is a big privacy issue that would require court action to learn about

If I am investitgating someone that is missing, I would want to know their movements well before I would want to know where grandpa was at the precise moment he called the missing person.

Done with the PING THING.....!

Have fun..

John

Orko Kringer wrote:

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.

Very simply, because the person that made that call could be a "person of interest" in her disappearance, which could be a missing person or a homicide, nobody knows which.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Very good points
But that just takes us back to the start.
Are we talking about a phone number being released (which privacy laws wouldn't really impact)
Or are we talking about someone's movements. Which is a big privacy issue that would require court action to learn about
If I am investitgating someone that is missing, I would want to know their movements well before I would want to know where grandpa was at the precise moment he called the missing person.

I believe the affidavit is specifically requesting the name and number of a caller originating within 22 miles of the Londonderry, NH Sprint tower.

I would assume that in order to track her movements they could get that information freely with the permission of the owner of the service contract (Mrs. Rausch). I would also guess that Mrs. Rausch gave that permission(why would she refuse it?)in an effort to track where Maura went. The police would not need a court order to get that information unless Mrs. Rausch refused them access.

With the Londonderry caller, they would need a court order to get the name and number because they do not have consent to get it from the owner of the service contract since they don't know who it is yet. Telling police of the existence of that call would not raise any privacy issues because it was activity on MM's number but who it is attempting to call requires court intervention.

I believe calling the Londonderry, NH tower issue a "ping" is extremely incorrect and that's on Renner's terminology. The affidavit is specific about an attempted call to MM's number and does not mention a "ping".

can't argue with your last paragraph.

But do you really think that one has to get a court order to get someone's phone number and address.

Think of all the lawsuits to corporations that freely pass around people's names and phone numbers for business solicitation.

Tracking someone from one point to another (Basically spying/eavesdropping) I would like to think that if someone was going to do that on me that they would have to go through a court first

Orko Kringer wrote:

can't argue with your last paragraph.
But do you really think that one has to get a court order to get someone's phone number and address.
Think of all the lawsuits to corporations that freely pass around people's names and phone numbers for business solicitation.
Tracking someone from one point to another (Basically spying/eavesdropping) I would like to think that if someone was going to do that on me that they would have to go through a court first

I think they do need that court order for the Londonderry caller but it all depends on the terms of service. I am not going to dig through my cell plan but I would bet that information is not given freely. If they had a name, a number or an address they would probably be able to find the caller with a public records search. LE had no information at all except that a call was made to Maura's number.

As far as tracking I would believe that they need permission, and not getting that permission, then a court order is needed. I can't imagine Sharron not giving that permission.

Oh, cool, the link works, it didn't the few times I tried it.

:)

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
The call they are looking for is outgoing from the tower, not Maura's phone. Outgoing from the Londonderry, NH tower would mean that someone in the 22 mile radius of the tower was trying to call Maura's phone. The tower is receiving that call from the caller(incoming to the tower) and then sending it to Maura's number (outgoing from the tower). Had Maura's phone been turned on, then it would be incoming to her phone but still outgoing from the tower.

I honestly thought you were confused concerning incoming and out going calls. After reading this posting I now understand what you are referring to.

Google Maps shows the drive time from the parking lot west of Kennedy Hall to the farthest point of the radius on I-91 on the Londonderry VT map is 78.6 miles and 1 hour, 19 minutes.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Two points
1. we are assuming this conference call that jenky mentioned took place and that the content of that call was about this Londonderry thing.
2. I am going to use your own logic to dispute you.
You note that police would need an affidavit to locate a person's number because of privacy issues. Is Maura not a person?
I would think that even if sprint figured out that their info matched up with cell records of Maura's check for voice mail messages that they would still be obligated by law to have police go through the proper channels of getting a subpoena before they could tell police anything.
Now if that conference call with Sharon took place and if that conference call was about getting to the bottom of the Londonderry thing, then I think that would be a reasonable counter explanation to what I believe and that is why I mentioned that to Jenky.
But I haven't personally verified that conference call that jenky mentioned, so I still stand for now by what I believe.

Why would anybody assume that the call I referred to had anything to do with the Londonderry thing? That's an incorrect assumption.
This call took place at the beginning of the investigation, first day probably, & it opened up ALL of Maura's cell phones activity to LE.

LE then learned that someone had unsuccessfully tried to call Maura from the Londonderry area. Sprint by law was able to tell them this call existed but without a court order they couldn't release any details about the call, hence the affidavit.

This is very simple stuff here, someone tried to call Maura from the Londonderry, NH area that day & LE wanted to know the identity of that caller so they wrote up an affidavit to obtain the info.

This affidavit has absolutely nothing to do with any pings or locating anyone physically, it says nothing about that, Unless you count Renner wrongly naming it the londonderry ping.

This affidavit definitely has nothing to do with Maura checking her vm or her cell phone pinging.
Come on Orky-just read the affidavit! This is very simple stuff, all you have to do is read the affidavit, that's it. I'm sorry but what you're saying doesn't make any sense and I can't believe you're STILL trying to say it does. Come on buddy