Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Judged:

1

Maruchan wrote:

It appears my posts with links to 22-mile radius maps of Londonderry, NH, and Londonderry, VT, aren't showing up. If anybody can see them, please let me know.
A 22-mile radius from a cellphone tower located in southwestern Londonderry, NH, includes towns/cities in NH and Massachusetts, including Nashua and Manchester, NH, and Lawrence, Haverhill and Lowell, MA.
The farthest points of the 22-mile radius are:
(a) north - Pembroke, NH;
(b) west - Temple, NH;
(c) south - between Acton, MA, and Carlisle, MA;
(d) east - between Merrimac and Amesbury, MA.
The directions in my post above are from the parking lot west of Kennedy Hall to the farthest northern point of a 22-mile radius from Londonderry, VT, along I-91. From the parking lot weste of Kennedy Hall to the farthest southern point of that radius on I-91 is 53 miles, 57 minutes.

Judged:

1

1

1

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenky, I know what the affidavit says and I hear you.
I am just not confident that in 2004 any officer including Lt. Landry was that hip on cell phones and all the terminology and how everything works with tracing etc.
That kind of technology was very new. Sprint even put out a handbook for law enforcement (trying to simplify things) in 2004.
I can't assume that Lt. Landry's wording is 100 percent accurate in what he is requesting.
I also can't for the life of me calculate why one would need a court order to get someone else's name and phone number. Those aren't privacy issues. Tracking someone is a privacy issue.

Judged:

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Cell phone pings weren't that new in 04, cell phones had been around almost 20 years then & by 04 almost everyone had a cell phone. I'm sure lt Landry hadn't drawn up that many cell affidavits but the guy isn't a complete moron. He's gotta have some smarts to be a Lt. In the nhsp. I think he can diferentiate between trying to locate Maura using ping data & trying to get the name and phone number of someone who attempted to call Maura & was routed through the londonerry, NH tower.
I also think the guy can diferentiate between NH & VT. You're suggesting that he not only worded it completely wrong so bad that it means something else completely AND he even got the state wrong?? Listen to what you're saying how does that make ANY sense??
And what do you mean someone's name and phone number aren't private? You enter into a contract with the phone company & you do have an expectation of privacy & LE needs a court order to obtain those records. By law the phone co can tell LE if a call was attempted but they can't give any details without a warrant. The affidavit also makes sense in that respect as well.

Judged:

1

Orko Kringer wrote:

Our Own Det. Columbo, a guy that claims to be working on the Maura murray case, has pointed out that police have possibly chosen not to release the ID of the person that supposedly called Maura from Londonderry NH tower range nine years into the investigation.
Another poster has pointed out that the reason is likely because of a "potential suspect" etc..
So if that truly was the case, then wouldn't the affidavit be sealed to the public and protected under investigation protection policy?

Judged:

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
The affidavit, no, not sealed. The reply to that affidavit, yes, sealed. And we(the public) don't know the name and number of the caller.

Judged:

1

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think it works that way. Had this alleged person called and Maura's phone was turned on, their info would've been on Maura's cell phone bill. So because of fate and because they called Maura when she just so happened to have her phone off, they get special treatment and police must go through the courts to get any kind of info about them. But someone else who called Maura earlier in the day when she had her phone on, doesn't get that same type of treatement. Don't they have a right to privacy as well?
I believe privacy is not about someone's phone number and name.
Privacy is about monitoring people, spying on people, following movements etc.. things that would violate someone's basic rights. Those are the type of things that would involve a court order, NO.

Judged:

2

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
the affidavit gives off a pretty good clue (that the person called from Londonderry NH area. I bet Maura doesn't know many people from that area. wouldn't family be able to take that info and track someone down and possibly do harm to that person if they thought that person was involved in Maura's death

Judged:

1

1

1

SnowyB wrote:

citi - do you have any opinion or comment about the endless speculation made where JG holds court, and commenters alternately suggest, in various scenarios, that Julie, Maura or Kathleen may have been pregnant (and with various implications for Maura)? they accuse Julie and Billy of having a relationship with JG, all the while, expressing his sympathy for the "poor girl".
one poster, only one, steps up to suggest JG is off the mark, at which point JG bites back and the poster returns with softened language and with tail between legs.
he takes another slap at topix posters for the hell of it.
the whole subject has taken on a life of its own, a romance novel with strangers creating wildly imaginative drama from seeds of probably unrelated information about your relative.
i'd imagine any family member of someone disappeared would take a stand and/or make a statement to dismiss the momentum created by the chatter / gossip.
the conversation is truly disgusting, at least imo.