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

NO.	JURISDICTION	CALL#	TIME
1.	LITTLETON	4741	18:02
2.	MERGED	4742	18:02/18:08 (Not in Log, inquired by KF)
3.	HAVERHILL	4743	18:08
4.	GRAFTON	4744	18:14
5.	BRIDGEWATER	4745	18:16
6.	LITTLETON	4746	18:32
7.	BRADFORD, VT	4747	18:34 (Not in Log, inquired by KF)
8.	LITTLETON	4748	19:00
9.	SHERIFF	4749	19:08
10.	LITTLETON	4750	19:08
11.	LITTLETON	4751	19:17
12.	HAVERHILL	4752	19:27
13.	GRAFTON	4753	19:36
14.	GROTON	4754	19:49
15.	NEWBERY, VT	4755	20:00 (Not in Log, inquired by KF)
16.	BRIDGEWATER	4756	20:07
17.	BETHLEHEM	4757	20:40
18.	LITTLETON	4758	20:46
19.	SHERIFF	4759	20:52
20.	BATH	4760	21:02
21.	HAVERHILL	4761	21:20
22.	FRANCONIA	4762	21:35
23.	BATH	4763	22:03
24.	WOODSTOCK	4764	22:54
25.	BETHLEHEM	4765	22:57
26.	SHERIFF	4766	23:03
27.	CAMPTON	4767	23:12 (Not in Log, inquired by KF)
28.	HAVERHILL	4768	23:38
29.	HAVERHILL	4769	0:59
30.	LITTLETON	4770	1:27
31.	BETHLEHEM	4771	1:55
32.	LITTLETON	4772	2:28
33.	BETHLEHEM	4773	2:40
34.	SUGAR HILL	4774	3:37
35.	SHERIFF	4775	3:57
36.	HAVERHILL	4776	4:46
37.	HAVERHILL	4777	5:00
38.	HAVERHILL	4778	5:26
39.	HAVERHILL	4779	5:50
40.	WATERVILLE VAL	4780	5:56
41.	HAVERHILL	4781	6:12
42.	HAVERHILL	4782	6:36
43.	LITTLETON	4783	6:52
44.	SHERIFF	4784	7:02
45.	LITTLETON	4785	7:08
46.	SHERIFF	4786	7:10
47.	LITTLETON	4787	7:58
48.	FRANCONIA	4788	8:00
49.	SHERIFF	4789	8:04
50.	FRANCONIA	4790	8:13
51.	BETHLEHEM	4791	8:21
52.	SHERIFF	4792	8:29
53.	LISBON	4793	8:50
54.	SUGAR HILL	4794	8:52
55.	BRIDGEWATER	4795	8:54
56.	LITTLETON	4796	9:02
57.	SUGAR HILL	4797	9:38
58.	LITTLETON	4798	9:39
59.	BETHLEHEM	4799	9:58
60.	BRIDGEWATER	4800	10:01
61.	LITTLETON	4801	10:02
62.	BATH	4802	10:08
63.	SHERIFF	4803	10:11
64.	LITTLETON	4804	10:10
65.	LITTLETON	4805	10:33
66.	ALEXANDRIA	4806	10:34
67.	RUMNEY	4807	10:38
68.	WOODSTOCK	4808	10:48
69.	SHERIFF	4809	10:51
70.	SHERIFF	4810	10:53
71.	SHERIFF	4811	10:58
72.	LITTLETON	4812	11:02
73.	SHERIFF	4813	11:21
74.	SUGAR HILL	4814	11:25
75.	LITTLETON	4815	11:28
76.	HAVERHILL	4816	12:04
77.	LITTLETON	4817	12:17
78.	LITTLETON	4818	12:35
79.	LITTLETON	4819	12:37
80.	GRAFTON	4820	12:43
81.	LISBON	4821	12:50
82.	ALEXANDRIA	4822	13:00
83.	BATH	4823	13:10
84.	SUGAR HILL	4824	13:13
85.	LITTLETON	4825	13:27
86.	SHERIFF	4826	14:03
87.	LISBON	4827	14:13
88.	SHERIFF	4828	14:18
89.	LITTLETON	4829	14:53
90.	BRIDGEWATER	4830	14:58
91.	WOODSTOCK	4831	14:58
92.	LITTLETON	4832	15:26
93.	HEBRON	4833	15:42
94.	WOODSTOCK	4834	15:54
95.	LITTLETON	4835	16:01
96.	ALEXANDRIA	4836	16:22
97.	WOODSTOCK	4837	16:36
98.	SHERIFF	4838	16:50
99.	WATERVILLE VAL	4839	17:01
100.	HAVERHILL	4840	17:03
101.	ALEXANDRIA	4841	17:05
102.	BETHLEHEM	4842	17:11
103.	HAVERHILL	4843	17:17
104.	LITTLETON	4844	17:18
105.	RUMNEY	4845	17:27
106.	LITTLETON	4846	17:30
107.	BRIDGEWATER	4847	17:40
108.	HAVERHILL	4848	17:44
109.	HAVERHILL	4849	17:50
110.	HAVERHILL	4850	17:52
111.	HAVERHILL	4851	17:54
112.	HAVERHILL	4852	17:54

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: https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/CSFW9E6y5X4twsdQT7IWOEvLwxBspDo4gt4h4CdG-rM.png 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