With the millions upon tens of millions of dollars that the USA spends on Homeland Security every year, does it make sense that the fatal flaw in this entire security machine would be pre-paid calling cards. Any terrorist organization could use any card and avoid the tracing or detection thereof.
That the bad guys would use pre-paid calling cards knowing that the Government or Homeland security would be unable to track them at all.
That criminals and criminal organization would specifically use pre-paid calling cards to their advantage. That would be a huge hole in security and LE.
Kind of defeats the millions of dollars spent on security and leave Homeland Security futile.
From: //www.manishin.com/pressdocs/RCRwirelssNews033103.html
How are U.S. officials responding to surveillance obstacles posed by pay-as-you-go mobile phones, prepaid cards and other modern packaging of wireless access that gives terrorists and criminals virtually anonymity?
In some cases, industry support is critical.
Howard Segermark, head of the International Prepaid Communications Association, has worked with law enforcement since the 2001 terrorist attacks to educate agents. "We can help law enforcement if they don't know the name of a prepaid company," said Segermark. From there, law enforcement can acquire call detail records.
LE has the means, techniques, methods, technology and training to trace pre-paid phone cards.
They also have the co-operation of the entire pre-paid communication network.
Please note the following course is ONLY one of many resources available to people involved in LE.
The tracing of pre-paid calling card by people other than LE would be illegal.
It is specifically for LE and restricted to such.
www.telestrategies.com/leatraining/lea_webinar.cfm?Course=LEA3
The detection and identification of calls made with a prepaid card can be done using the methods covered in the webinar. This webinar will focus on all the ways prepaid cards are used by targets of investigation and discuss specific procedures to identify if a card is being used and how to reliably obtain call information from calls made on the card. Specific analytical techniques are covered using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. Properly applied, these methods ensure that virtually no prepaid card calls can be lost to a determined investigator.
That is why I fully believe (rightly so) when LE traced the call from the Red Cross to the BF, it did so with the means, resources, technology and training available only to LE.
That is why when an average person off the street, says: But a person cannot trace pre-paid calls, they would be speaking as an "average person".
They do not have the sophistication and knowledge of a person who works within LE.
How did the Murray's determine that it was not one person within the entire Red Cross that called the BF.
The Murrays would not have the resources to track down everyone and speak to them and asked them if they called.
They might have only spoken to one person whom they were in contact with, this one particular person did not call them, so they ASSUMED no one within the entire Red Cross did.
Call display would take care of any problem with the cell phone number.
When I think of contact information, the first thing would be how do we relay a message to you, how would we get in "contact" with you.
Well call me on my cell phone, I will be travelling to NH.
That would be the purpose of a cell phone to reach you when you are mobile.
Just because the BF claims that he did not give his cell phone number to the Red Cross does not mean that no one did, or that this contact information was not relayed to others.
Or would he just tell them that he would call them while he is searching for Maura, but for them not to contact him and leave no number where he can be reached."
No it does not make sense. Especially when he is arranging emergency leave from his military position.
So when the BF states that the call was from Maura, there was a voice message, but now there is not, I find that very suspicious.
He was at the airport on his way to meet with the family and LE to search for Maura.
Would he not have given this evidence to LE at the first opportunity, like when he arrived in NH.
It would have been evidence to support his position.
But unfortunately he deleted information that could have helped him and supported his position that it was Maura calling.
I wonder why.........
Guess what
.. any person working within LE would look at this with a raised eye-brow and a skeptical look on their face.
It is just an unsubstantiated claim, a story, without any evidence.
But of course that does not fit in with the story put forth by the family that LE is to blame for everything.
That they are not doing their jobs have bungled the investigation, etc.
All we have is the BF belief that the call was from Maura with no supporting evidence.
The belief could be "wishful" thinking that Maura called him, that she is in trouble, not that she choose to runaway from both him and the "family".
All the BF had to do was save the voice mail, he did not even have to listen to it again, just inform LE of its existence.
If there was a problem with the voice mail, they could contact the cell phone service provider.
So again this man has military training, college educated, and he deletes info that could help LE .
Nothing like working against the people who are trying to help you, then calling them incompetent and liars.
The Red Cross has pre-paid calling cards that are specific to their organization and can be identified as such.
So again, I look at "situations" with fact, not claims, stories, but facts, with common sense based in reality.
I again find the information supplied by this family as not truthful and factual.
Theyseem to only put forth information that supports their "story".
That the BF deleted the call because he could not stand to listen to it again, that he just knows that the call cannot be traced therefore he deleted it. Does not make sense.........heck he only had to listen to it one time. Saved it. Informed LE. End of story.
BTW I am in no way shape or form involved in LE.
An adult as a self -actualization person can "leave" on their own accord to do whatever they want with their life.
They are now the adult-child of their parents. Adult being the opertive word.
They not under the care, supervision and control of Mom and Dad.
Unfortunately, some parents and family members do not like this.
They still try to control their adult children and make decisions for them.
They still see their 18+ year old "child" as a child. Not the adult which they are.
The adult can make any decision they want in regards to their own adult life.
It is up to the adult to decide what they want to do for their own well being, notwithstanding what the 'family" feels they should or should not do.
That means if you want to ditch your family, friends and co-workers to start a new life. No one can stop you and you are free to make that CHOICE for yourself.
That means that if you never ever want to contact your family again(except by your own choice) you are free to do so in a free society.
Hopefully your family will not "track and hunt" you down because they feel that you should not have ditched them, that you should not have made the choice to leave them, not contact them and speak to them.
Heck if that was the case, you would not have left anyways without informing your "family" where you are.
Sort of defeats the purpose of "running away" does it not.
If we lived in a perfect world, with perfect families, perfect people, perfect jobs, perfect co-workers, perfect children, perfect Mothers, perfect personalities, perfect character, perfect Fathers, perfect siblings, perfect credit, perfect boyfriends, perfect girlfriends, then adult children would not "ditch" their parents and families and jobs to "start a new life on their own terms."
Again it is the choice of the adult to do what they feel is in the best interest of their life.
Also there is a significant amount of research that adult parents "ditch" their adult children and families.
So yes, in a free society people can CHOOSE to "ditch" whomever they want to.
Sometimes people just needs a 'break" from their "loved" ones.
If that break is one week, one year or 10 years, it is still the decision of the adult to determine the time frame.
The adult child has no legal obligation to inform their "loved ones" where they are, unless the adult child so chooses.
Some 800K adults each year in the USA make this choice.
They are in control of their own life and make their own decisions.
Sometimes they feel they are left no choice but to "runaway" from their "loved ones" for the sake of their own life and well being.
