+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 74
Latest: Bosworth 1485
New This Month: 3
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 1078
Total Topics: 193
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 18
(December 12, 2020, 11:44:40 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 3
Total: 3

Author Topic: Completeness of Grafton County Log & Nature of Records  (Read 88 times)

MauraMurrayAdmin

  • Administrator
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 90
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Completeness of Grafton County Log & Nature of Records
« on: November 29, 2019, 11:02:27 am »
This post:
1. Is a historical post.

The purpose of this post is to assess the completeness of the Grafton County Sheriff Logs that are held in the public domain - and to attempt to describe the basic nature of the system that holds the records.

A summary of all of the calls and their times sorted in sequential order below. Note that most of the information comes directly from the logs. However, I have also included information that comes from the responses to inquiries made by KF. She explained her inquiries here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhmxKu5K9ZA&feature=youtu.be&t=46m20s

NUMBER.JURISDICTIONCALL#TIME     NOTES
1.LITTLETON474118:02
2.MERGED4742 18:02-08Not in Log, inquired by KF
3.HAVERHILL474318:08
4.GRAFTON474418:14
5.BRIDGEWATER474518:16
6.LITTLETON474618:32
7.BRADFORD VT474718:34Not in Log, inquired by KF. Information From KF was verified by Hanover logs. Both call centers handled Bradford, VT fire calls.
8.LITTLETON474819:00
9.SHERIFF474919:08
10.LITTLETON475019:08
11.LITTLETON475119:17
12.HAVERHILL475219:27
13.GRAFTON475319:36
14.GROTON475419:49
15.NEWBERYVT475520:00Not in Log, inquired by KF
16.BRIDGEWATER475620:07
17.BETHLEHEM475720:40
18.LITTLETON475820:46
19.SHERIFF475920:52
20.BATH476021:02
21.HAVERHILL476121:20
22.FRANCONIA476221:35
23.BATH476322:03
24.WOODSTOCK476422:54
25.BETHLEHEM476522:57
26.SHERIFF476623:03
27.CAMPTON476723:12(Not in Log, inquired by KF)
28.HAVERHILL476823:38
29.HAVERHILL47690:59
30.LITTLETON47701:27
31.BETHLEHEM47711:55
32.LITTLETON47722:28
33.BETHLEHEM47732:40
34.SUGAR HILL47743:37
35.SHERIFF47753:57
36.HAVERHILL47764:46
37.HAVERHILL47775:00
38.HAVERHILL47785:26
39.HAVERHILL47795:50
40.WATERVILLE VAL47805:56
41.HAVERHILL47816:12
42.HAVERHILL47826:36
43.LITTLETON47836:52
44.SHERIFF47847:02
45.LITTLETON47857:08
46.SHERIFF47867:10
47.LITTLETON47877:58
48.FRANCONIA47888:00
49.SHERIFF47898:04
50.FRANCONIA47908:13
51.BETHLEHEM47918:21
52.SHERIFF47928:29
53.LISBON47938:50
54.SUGAR HILL47948:52
55.BRIDGEWATER47958:54
56.LITTLETON47969:02
57.SUGAR HILL47979:38
58.LITTLETON47989:39
59.BETHLEHEM47999:58
60.BRIDGEWATER480010:01
61.LITTLETON480110:02
62.BATH480210:08
63.SHERIFF480310:11
64.LITTLETON480410:10
65.LITTLETON480510:33
66.ALEXANDRIA480610:34
67.RUMNEY480710:38
68.WOODSTOCK480810:48
69.SHERIFF480910:51
70.SHERIFF481010:53
71.SHERIFF481110:58
72.LITTLETON481211:02
73.SHERIFF481311:21
74.SUGAR HILL481411:25
75.LITTLETON481511:28
76.HAVERHILL481612:04
77.LITTLETON481712:17
78.LITTLETON481812:35
79.LITTLETON481912:37
80.GRAFTON482012:43
81.LISBON482112:50
82.ALEXANDRIA482213:00
83.BATH482313:10
84.SUGAR HILL482413:13
85.LITTLETON482513:27
86.SHERIFF482614:03
87.LISBON482714:13
88.SHERIFF482814:18
89.LITTLETON482914:53
90.BRIDGEWATER483014:58
91.WOODSTOCK483114:58
92.LITTLETON483215:26
93.HEBRON483315:42
94.WOODSTOCK483415:54
95.LITTLETON483516:01
96.ALEXANDRIA483616:22
97.WOODSTOCK483716:36
98.SHERIFF483816:50
99.WATERVILLE VAL483917:01
100.HAVERHILL484017:03
101.ALEXANDRIA484117:05
102.BETHLEHEM484217:11
103.HAVERHILL484317:17
104.LITTLETON484417:18
105.RUMNEY484517:27
106.LITTLETON484617:30
107.BRIDGEWATER484717:40
108.HAVERHILL484817:44
109.HAVERHILL484917:50
110.HAVERHILL485017:52
111.HAVERHILL485117:54
112.HAVERHILL485217:54

What is clear from this test is as follows:

1. Call numbers are assigned in sequential order

2. The log files are mostly complete, the exception being the information that has been redacted, or disclosed to KF when she inquired.

3. There is an anomaly on the page that contains information about Thornton. Only notes appear and the time the notes were taken was at 12:10.

4. The pages on which call numbers 4761, 4779, 4794, 4807, 4813, 4824 and 4834 appear, have these call numbers partially obscured, due to the 3-hole punches on the left side. However, we are able to determine what the call numbers were, based upon the times associated with the calls and the partial readability of the numbers allows a determination to be made.

5. The call logs are kept in a computer database system. This means that when reports are run, certain fields and records can be excluded from the query.

6. All Vermont calls were excluded from the query. If the original request had asked for all of the calls, only 1 would be "missing" and that is only because two different callers reported the same incident that took place prior to 18:02 at Littleton.

7. All domestic disturbance calls were excluded from the query (I'm not sure this is true - I have to recheck)

8. Clearly the log files were printed out on an earlier date and placed in a binder. Later on these pages were copied. In reference to point 10 below, a paper misfeed in the copier took place.

9. Each jurisdiction's section of the logs were printed separately.

10. The last page of the [Grafton County Sheriff jurisdiction]'s section has its obviously blank bottom portion of the page obscured by the first page of the Haverhill log. This is obviously an error that was made when the document was either printed out, or copied at an earlier date before the page was 3 hole punched and copied again. Its not even worth mentioning.

11. The second page of the PDF document I link to after this sentence contains a more compete version of Haverhill's log files, here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7_atAFvowRhNnA5N0JrSDBfbkk/view It is clear from looking at this page and comparing it to the Haverhill page provided with the 40 page log set, that some additional information (described below) is missing from the log files as a whole. This is not alarming at all, as the second print out set was run from the computer with a clear purpose: to exclude personal information from the print out, i.e. Fred Murray's address or his Saturn's VIN. Again, databases are able to do this - and Government agencies are responsible for protecting confidential information. Weather they choose to back out certain pieces of information after a report is printed out - or if they chose to cause the program to generate a report that does not to contain personal information is immaterial.
OTHER INFORMATION

Any time a researcher states that there are 3 versions of the Grafton County Sheriff Logs have been released, they specifically mean the following:
1. The stand alone print out of the Haverhill log, printed on 2/10/04 here:

Note: this version was made available to the community at the family's website - for a number of years.

2. The "least redacted" version of the complete set of Grafton County Sheriff Logs sent to Fred Murray as a result of his FOIA/Right to Know request - printed November 4, 2004, here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByBfe6nS9-d4bXFhZnhkNmxTMTA/view?usp=sharing Note: this version was made available to the community on January 28, 2009 by Advocate, here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/findmauramurrayfr/grafton-county-sheriff-log-total-33-pages-t62.html . The link no longer works, I saved a copy and made it available.

3. The "most redacted" version of the complete set of Grafton County Sheriff Logs sent to James Renner, who asked for a copy of the records sent to Fred Murray. Note that this set also has a November 4, 2004 print date. Copies are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7_atAFvowRhSXdPM1JPNDNGSTg/view
and
here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7_atAFvowRhYzlmMm9OaEZwX28/view

Clearly when the 40 page set was first generated on 11/4/2004, it was expected that the document would be available for public consumption. As such, fields, in which records that would most certainly contain personal information were excluded purposely from the query. This is a form of redaction For example, the names and addresses of vehicle owners (Including Fred Murray's) were excluded from the database query[1], and as a result, from the report overall. (See #5 and #6). Lastly, for reasons unclear, information about dispatcher notes were excluded from the query, and, as a result, the report overall. Specifically: 1.) the date 2.) the time and 3.) who entered the dispatcher notes.
The anomalies that some researchers have asserted is evidence that the log files were altered, are, in fact, not an indication of any alteration of records within the base system, nor are they an indication that the base system's integrity is compromised. Furthermore, none of the anomalies are substantial.

It is clear that some people are calling the "most redacted" copy of the logs a "third version" as if the later added manual black box redactions are an indication of the log system's lack of integrity. This, of course, is misleading. So, I strongly suggest people check the logs for themselves before repeating what has been said - as not doing so could prove to be embarrassing for you later.

Lastly - I encourage everyone to trust their own brains and ability to research. And to do so by doing their own research.

[1] Its a no brainer that the system is a database, based upon the fact that some information was purposely excluded - example - the Vermont calls. But the fact that the contents are now in a MS Access database proves it. Databases have the ability to store unique records in uniform fields and allow for the exclusion of records stored in fields from being included in a query generated report.

The least redacted version of the logs are available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByBfe6nS9-d4bXFhZnhkNmxTMTA/view?usp=sharing
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 03:49:40 pm by MauraMurrayEvidence »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


 

+-Recent Topics

The index card with directions to Burlington by TheRealFinn
October 29, 2020, 08:00:57 am

Butch Atwood's Actual Statements by TheRealFinn
May 11, 2020, 02:57:32 am

Bill R bought a Saab in 2002 by TheRealFinn
March 25, 2020, 05:01:28 am

MASTER INDEX: MAURA MURRAY EVIDENCE by TheRealFinn
February 24, 2020, 06:46:45 am

Some of Maura's Handwritten Notes by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 19, 2020, 10:23:59 am

Maura's Gas Tank Measured Full (when studied in 2011) by TheRealFinn
February 09, 2020, 11:01:01 am

When Maura crashed her car, she was listening to The New Radicals - You Get What You Give by TheRealFinn
February 09, 2020, 10:56:27 am

Comprehensive Overview of search efforts in the Maura Murray Case-Part 1 by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 02:22:33 pm

Transcription of Q&A With Strelzin et al From Missing Maura Murray Episode 27-Part 1 by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 02:14:09 pm

License Suspension [as] "alerted by MA police"? by MauraMurrayEvidence
February 08, 2020, 01:47:21 pm