Phone Records: Maura 1/23/2004 - 2/2/2004

Here is the whole list with the new formatting:

Google Sheets

Evernote

Friday Wrap-up 1/17/2020

Evernote

Patreon Support

I am shifting my focus back to getting this knot of information untangled and organized for public consumption after my little foray into the world of theory presentation and defense.

I have decided to embark on a long venture of getting this data in a format for discussion that is easy, unified, and easily reference to facilitate online discussion of the case.

I am not trying to convince you to fund this -- If you want to help me out its fine, if not the content will remain the same.

I spend about 10-15 hours a week researching, analyzing, digitizing, organizing and reporting on data related to the Maura Murray Case.  I also occasionally investigate different angles to add to the body of knowledge.  I incur expenses to do so in addition to my time.  

I estimate this project will consume 12 - 18 months to complete.

I am sure this looks like I am trying to cash in on a missing persons case, and honestly I have no way to prove to you that I am not.  All I can say is that you can see the products I produce for consumption by the community at large and my goal is to create a usable body of information for people to reference in discussions.  Nothing comprehensive exists at this time that simplifies the content.

I plan to be accountable for any people that wish to help in a monetary fashion, however until this gets going I do not know exactly how to do so.



Become a Patron!

Introducing Weekly Email Subscription

I hate shamelessly self-promoting on places like reddit.  So if you are interested in weekly developments of this blog sign up for the weekly newsletter:

Weekly Email Update

Introducing Evernote Links

One of the main challenges in having a robust fact-based discussion is that the information is all over the place. I like to use Evernote to record my research journey.  If you are not using a notes program for this case I highly suggest it.

I will be adding links to quickly add pages to your own notebooks.

Evernote Website

Letter to Grafton County Sheriff's Department Dispatch Center

Part of my January 2020 trajectory included new avenues to falsify the conclusion I made in Witness A/001: A Plausible Account.  One such avenue included reaching out the the Grafton County Sheriff's Department Dispatch Center for clarification.  Here is the letter I sent:

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

Witness A / 001 Timeline Reconstruction Update

I wanted to give a quick update on the progress of the timeline.  I am working on putting the finishing touches on a very detailed report, animation, and video explanation of the controversy swirling around Witness A/001.

Look for the information 12/23/19 or 12/24/19

Maura Murray: Sub-Timeline 3 -- Inconsistencies

When I created Sub-Timeline 3 I was using the Grafton County Sheriff's Dispatch log to fill in the times for the Woodsville FD response.  I knew about the Woodsville FD log picture but I did not look at it until today.  Of interest is the reporting time of 8-9pm. Take a look:

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

UPDATE: UPDATE: Sub-Timelines 1-2

I have been informed that 26 Ralston St is nearer to the address of Karen's workplace.  I have updated the timeline to reflect these changes.

UPDATE: Sub-Timelines 1-2

I received information that Friendship House WAS NOT on 6 Church St in 2004 as it is today.  In the interest of providing information that takes into account the least possible assumptions I have updated relevant timelines to show "Unknown" for slots which 6 Church St was a factor.

I will try to find the correct address and update ASAP.