An Overlooked Part of Maura's Phone Use and Background Info

Evernote

As I have been entering the phone records into a usable format for analysis it dawned on me that we need to look at these records only as a partial record at best.  This might be more evident to us older people. (!)

Back 2004 and specifically with the cellular plan that Maura was part of the world of phone use was significantly different.  I know this not only from my own experience as an early cell phone user but in fact I worked in a call center as a customer service agent for Sprint PCS up until 2004.  I probably should have mentioned that this very job experience was why I reached out to Sprint recently to clarify the plan and request a copy of the TOS from that time period.

Regardless, I am still waiting for a response because although I already know the answers to the questions I asked in the Sprint Request, I don't want you to take my word for it, I want you to see the primary source information.

The point I wish to discuss is that back then minutes were money and going over was a huge risk.  I believe for credit-based plans like the one Maura was a part of, overage minutes were charged at the rate of $0.35/min. The reason I mention this information is that people were paranoid about using minutes because they could go over and it got really expensive.  I remember one customer had used $1500 dollars in one month of overage minutes.

So here is how the minutes worked  on this plan:

There were 2000 Anytime Minutes which were basically day use minutes and if you ran out you paid the overage rate.  There were unlimited night and weekend minutes which were after 9pm to 7am, so no overage risk.  Then there were unlimited minutes for PCS - PCS calls which on the bill are represented by the phone icons.

One way that many people minimized their anytime minutes usage was to check their voicemail from a landline. Because landlines were still very prevalent this was an easy work around.  Some folks even wanted to have a private voicemail box so they bought the minimum plan and just interacted with the system that way.  When I was in high school that is what I did.  I got a phone in 1998 and I just bought the basic plan so that I could have a private answering machine basically so my parents wouldn't answer calls from people I didn't want them to!

Which brings me to my actual point here.  These records are handy, but considering Maura knew Billy could see the records and was probably paranoid about using too many minutes, they aren't even close to what could have been going on with her communication wise.

For example, say she had a side piece.  He just calls, leaves a message on her password protected VM and she returns the call on another line.  It will be interesting to see how many calls Billy made to Maura though, because if I read him right I bet he tried to get into that voicemail.  We shall see.

Addressing the Criticisms of my Report Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account

I released my findings in a report on 12/23/2019 called Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account.  As expected, I received a considerable amount of criticism, most of which ignored why the animation and report indicated times that have been deemed impossible.  I take that to mean that I failed in my presentation and did not keep the interest of the reader to the end where the real conclusion emerges.  Thus, for the sake of clarity I am going to present the conclusion unchanged from the report as a single item in reverse.

So here we go:

A plausible solution to the Witness A/001/Cecil controversy has nothing to do with the physics of the matter.  It has to do with a clerical issue in regards to the Grafton County Sheriff's Log that was really easy to overlook.  So I am not trying to "fit" anything here.  My contention is that Sgt. Cecil Smith was at the accident scene near 19:36, which allows the Witness A account to be substantiated.  I know that is a big deviation from the explanations that have been going around the internet for the past 15 years.   Here are the main things:

1.  The system they used indexes the calls by the timestamp of the first contact.  FW 911 call defines the log entry we are concerned with.  All data that comes in as the situation progresses is essentially filed under the timestamp of the initial call.

2.  It appears as if once the "incident" or "file" that is created with the timestamp of the first contact (in our case FW), as units (FD, PD, EMS) are dispatched they are added individually as entries.  In our case, Cecil Smith, Woodsville Pumper E2, and Woodsville A1) .

3.  It appears based on all the available entries that each unit can only be attached to the file once.

4.  The system allows each responding unit one set of the 4 times, Disp, En Rt, Arvd, Cleared.

The problem here is that Cecil was responding to more than one call.  So we know that his dispatch time and enrt times are for FW's Call.  But then Atwood gets through to Grafton at 19:43 as the second 911 call for the incident and requests the 10-25.

So which call is the 19:46 arrival time for, FWs or BA's?

I think it was the arrival time for BA's request for the 10-25.  And it is not because I just like it or want to push a narrative.

I think so because when I plotted out Monaghan's report as a timeline, it mentions that he heard Cecil's dispatch, Cecil signing off, then Woodsville shortly after.  Woodsville wasn't on the radio until 19:42, and then after that Cecil was on the radio saying the female wasn't with the vehicle.

Cecil's police report alludes to the same thing -- he gets there, no one is there,talked to BA,  then found out a young female was with the vehicle prior to his arrival and starts searching.

I wasn't trying to prove this theory, it just popped out to me when I was plotting data so there is no narrative.  I think it is plausible because then neither Witness A's account of 001, The Sheriff Logs, Cecil's report, nor Monaghan's report need be interpreted as anything other than what is on the paper.

I welcome hardcore criticism here, and I appreciate those who can dish it out and take it because we can figure something out here I am sure of it.

Report Release -- Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account

I finally finished up the report detailing my findings about the Witness A and 001 controversy.  Special thanks to fulkstop who made the process and findings better and faster. For your reading pleasure:

Witness A and 001: A Plausible Account, Download

Real-time Animation of Witness A/001

Maura Murray Disappearance: Understanding my Assessment

I have been discussing my efforts on Reddit and I have repeatedly run into instances where people seem to misunderstand my position and purpose at this time.  I am not here to declare any of these stories true or false at this time.  One in particular issue I have run into is my assessment of the Karen (Witness A) sightings.  With these sightings I have made statements based on what the timelines themselves could mean, not what they do.

What seems to be misunderstood here is that proponents of this story seem to miss the probability issue here.  I am not talking about the probability of Karen's story being true or false or whether I or others should believe it.  I am referring only to the fact that seeing a vehicle at three points that are taking different routes an different speeds within certain time periods shouldn't be taken as a forgone conclusion without analysis.  There are tight constraints on that possibility.

In an effort to drive that point home, here are two simple incremental representations of a timeline.  The first two rows are one scenario, the blue being one driver, the other a second.  The areas of green show where they would have overlapped.  The second two rows are the same timeline shifted a few intervals one way -- notice how different the overlaps are.  This is what I wanted to analyze -- that these overlaps were possible given the parameters that we have, independently of anybody's story.

I found that there are about three 30 second intervals during the time that this story played out that this was possible.  A few 30 second intervals that allow for these events to EVEN BE POSSIBLE in a 30 minute drive are not high probability!

I am going to review other components of my Timeline 2a conclusions next.

Maura Murray Case: Sub-Timeline 2a: A New Standard

Video Explanation on YouTube and below timeline.

I think this week has been productive in moving forward with democratizing the timeline for the Maura Murray disappearance.  My initial goal was developing a 2 series timeline comparing/contrasting the Karen (Witness A) story with the physical realities of where and when 001 was.

As I say over and over, my goal is not to create and disseminate a narrative I like.  I have also stated that I do not wish to fit evidence to a conclusion.  In the interest of creating a decent model however, choices need to be made initially to continue (which may be corrected at a later time).  After much deliberation I feel that the timeline shown/linked farther down is the most data-based and non-inferential conclusion for how these events played out if indeed the whole event happened.

My Conclusion:

Before even attempting to evaluate Karen's recollection, we can logically show that the series of events that she reported was at least possible.  The conditions that make her testimony possible also limit the time range that these events could have occurred to a small range.  Since this could have only occurred within this small time range, which coincides with other parallel events, and was reported by someone indicates that it is very likely this happened.

Put another way, unless Karen did, or collaborated with someone to do the same analysis done here to get the times and locations correct within the range of time needed, is it likely that she made the story up?

I think that is highly unlikely, although it is possible.

I make this assertion for the following reasons:

Given:

1. Regardless of what Karen saw, the cell coverage issue is a real issue.
2. Regardless of what Karen saw, we know her approximate starting point and her approximate end point for the trip in question. 
3. Regardless of what Karen saw, her trip from work to Beaver Pond takes approximately 30 minutes.
4. Regardless of what Karen saw, her phone records indicate that she made a call at 7:52.

QED:  Regardless of what Karen saw, she made a call at 7:52. Based on cell coverage issues in the area, the first window of opportunity to make her call based on her starting destination is in the immediate area of Beaver Pond.  The trip from 26 Ralston to Beaver Pond is approximately 30 minutes which places her departure from work at about 7:22.

Given:  

1. Regardless of the actions/observations Karen/001 could have made, Maura's accident was reported at 7:27 by FW
2. Regardless of the actions/observations of Karen/001 could have made, police were dispatched to the scene at 7:29.
3. Karen was driving in the area surrounding the notification/dispatch/response.

QED:  The notification/dispatch/response to Maura's accident fit roundly into the 7:22 - 7:52 time span and area covered by Karen's trip.

Given:

1. Regardless of what Karen saw, she made a call at 7:52. Based on cell coverage issues in the area, the first window of opportunity to make her call based on her starting destination is in the immediate area of Beaver Pond.  The trip from 26 Ralston to Beaver Pond is approximately 30 minutes which places her departure from work at about 7:22
2. Regardless of the actions/observations Karen/001 could have made, the notification/dispatch/response to Maura's accident fit roundly into the 7:22 - 7:52 time span and area covered by Karen's trip. 

QED:  It is at least possible that Karen/001 could have seen each other.

Given:

1. It is possible that Karen could have seen 001 during her trip.
2. We know Karen's route and travel times.
3. 001 was on the road during the 7:22 - 7:52 timespan.

QED:  A portion of Karen's and 001's routes must have overlapped.

Given:

1. A portion of Karen's and 001's routes must have overlapped.
2. Karen claimed to have been passed by 001 on Swiftwater Rd.
3. Karen saw 001 at the intersection of French Pond Rd and 112.
4. Karen saw 001 at WBC.

QED:  Karen and 001's trips must have overlapped on Swiftwater Rd and at the intersection of French Pond Rd and 112 and at WBC.

Given:

1. Karen and 001's trips could have overlapped in both location and time.
2. Karen's route was fixed.
3. The timeline shows that only a small range of times to allow for all 3 sightings.
4. The range of times for a trip that included all 3 sightings also fits directly within the notification/dispatch/response times.
5. Karen would not have been able to make a phone call much prior to 7:52 because of cell coverage issues.
6. Karen exactly specified these sightings.
7. Karen's phone records show a call at 7:52.

QED:  The scenario is well defined and possible.

Direct Google Sheets Link

Sub-Timeline 2a: Conservative Deductions/Conclusions Thus Far

Video Explanation Below

As I have stated I am not interested in providing any conclusions beyond what can be deduced from fact.  This is an important distinction and is different from other approaches I have heard about thus far.  What is different is that I am not looking to prove or disprove a story -- we are only at the point in analysis where we can determine IF a story could even be possible based on the laws of the Universe we live in.

To recap, this is what we have accomplished step-by-step:

1. Determined the start and end points for both Karen's and 001's trips.
2. Broken the trips into legs that can be used to isolate the overlapping areas.
3. Used independent travel times from Google Maps to rebuild each trip from its terminus to it's origin.
4. Listed locations for Karen an 001 at one minute intervals.
5. Substituted actual clock times in for each interval.
6. Juxtaposed the both timelines, creating one.
7. Proved that it was possible for the overlaps to happen.
8. Adjusted the timelines as a whole to reflect both Karen's story and the Grafton County Sheriff Records.

I think this allows us to safely deduce and conclude that Karen's story is at least possible.  Additionally, the data shows that while 001 could have responded to the scene according to the Sheriff's log timing, Karen's sighting would not be possible under these conditions.  Finally, if Karen is correct in her recollection, based on the dispatch time noted in the Sheriff Logs, 001 would have been at the scene much sooner than the time the logs report Smith arriving to the scene.

I urge you to come at me full force with any refutations of these methods or conclusions.  I am not looking to fight, but I am only one person with one brain so it is possible I did not see something or made a logical fault.  The best way to figure this out is to argue about it until any and all criticisms are solved and the record corrected.