NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - # 3

[czechmate7]

I have a question; maybe Cyberlaw can answer (since he is in the legal profession) or anyone with the knowledge, regarding Fred Murray's not being able to review or obtain documents...Is this a standard practice (or law) that family is not privileged to such information? Does it matter if LE believes foul play is involved? Or is every missing person case treated equally ?? I guess I'm just trying to figure out why he can't have access vs another missing persons family having access??

 

[KatherineQ]

Although SBD accounts in the media are not consistent - do not know IF this is due to the media accounts or the reports from the SBD - ONE CONSISTENT ITEM that he reported to police, media and family is the driver was "a young girl about 20 years old"

Therefore, there should have been no confusion as to the gender and age of Maura Murray.

According to Sharon's post on www.mauramurray.com, she spoke extensively with Sgt Smith on 2/10 (24 hours after he found the abandoned car). He told her that he assumed the car was driven by Fred Murray because it was registered to him (as determined when he ran the plates); that he also assumed that Fred Murray had left the area in another vehicle because the area is a tourist/sking resort and often when autos break down or slide off of the road, the driver leaves with another party traveling in the same group. She states that she questioned him extensively and that he made no mention of knowing a female was the driver (note: according to SBD, he did know the driver was Maura). She also reports that he told her there was only one set of footprints leading from the driver's side of the car, confirming the driver was alone.

That Fred Murray was the driver and alone may indeed have been Sgt Smith's initial/original assumption/deduction. However, according to Sharon, he also told her that he went to SBD's home and inquired about the driver; that he and SBD drove around looking for the driver and because they found no one, that confirmed his assumption that the driver had left in another car traveling in a group. Therefore, based on SBD's reports, it is only logical to assume that by the time they were doing their drives up and down the road, he knew to look for a "young" female, not 61 year old Fred Murray.

Because the SBD has repeatedly said he knew the driver was "a young girl about 20 years old" and alone, then Sgt Smith, while perhaps not lying to Sharon on 2/10, certainly was not forthcoming, even if it was only because he knew that he and his department had made an error in judgement in not looking for Maura and putting a BOL for her immmediately.

Therein lies MY CRITICISM: we are all subject to mistakes and errors. But to intentionally continue errors (by not investigating) for weeks, months, and now years is inexcusable. Why not admit to the first mistake and do what is necessary to admit/correct the beginning unintentional error?

It is my opinion that Sgt Smith did not intentionally intend to be a party to Maura's missing, but the decision(s) of his police department have played a huge role in the inept/negligent investigation .

Websleuthers, what do you think?

Peabody - I read your post, and agree that there were mistakes and errors made initially. If I had the energy I could go back and do what the family and you have done, which is to painstakingly pick apart every shred of evidence of what happened from the moment she crashed the car on Feb. 9.

To me, I'm in the here and now, and that seems more important.

Here and now, LE has information that is relevant, and a judge has ruled it can be withheld.

This case doesn't appear necessarily an unsolved mystery. It's quite possible LE knows EXACTLY what happened, and they are withholding it and a separate court has agreed that's appropriate.

That's what makes me pull my hair out, not whether someone knew or admitted they knew Maura was driving the car, etc.

 

[Peabody]

I have a question; maybe Cyberlaw can answer (since he is in the legal profession) or anyone with the knowledge, regarding Fred Murray's not being able to review or obtain documents...Is this a standard practice (or law) that family is not privileged to such information? Does it matter if LE believes foul play is involved? Or is every missing person case treated equally ?? I guess I'm just trying to figure out why he can't have access vs another missing persons family having access??

I am no attorney;

Like Helena Murray, I have worked in the legal profession for many years.

FYI: I also find it interesting that Sharon, the mother of Maura's fiance also worked (works?) for attorneys.

While Sharon does not post here, perhaps Helena will offer her insight.


While there are laws that dictate what must be released, what is often disclosed or kept secret by prosectors/LE offices is often as a decision based on their individual personalities - not necessarily dictated by law. They will make decisions to keep information private UNLESS CHALLENGED in court. Most times, the challengers are the media in high profile cases because the average person just does not have the funds to pursue information through legal channels. One attorney that I worked for who is now a Common Pleas Judge told me at the end of the OJ Trial, "If you want justice, do not depend on the American jucidical system. There are too many factors: ability of judges, attorneys - both defending and prosecuting - as well as the bias of the jurrors." While I agreed with him, I have never truly gotten over the fact that a seasoned and reputable attorney would have the same opinion. Quite unnerving and scary - hope I never find myself in court! Sorry, I ramble.

The prosecutors I have worked with often share info with victims and or their families; occasionally, they do not. I do not know what motivates their decisions.

Of course, once charges are filed, all evidence must be shared with the defendant.

Therefore, I am not sure your question has a clear cut answer. But, the superior court of Grafton Co NH is backing NH LE for withholding info from Fred Murray, although he has appealed the decision to the NH Supreme Court.

However, there are certain documents and information that are public record: specifically, 911 calls, and emergency time logs.

Do you recall listening to the OJ and Kobe Bryant 911 calls?

This is what amazes me - even this information has not been released to Fred Murray, and was denied in his recent law suit. I do not understand how the court could have refused this information.

I have read the entire law suit by Fred Murray, the subsequent answer to his suit by NH Attorney General and the complete decision by NH Judge.

I do not have a link for these documents, and I do not currently have the time to type them, but if any are interested, please let it be known by a public post, please no PM's; If enough are interested, I will see what I can do........after all these are PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, just as the 911 calls and emergency time logs that NH WILL NOT RELEASE to Fred Murray. He still does not know if the time that Maura's accident was first reported by 911 was 7:00 PM or 7:30 PM - meaning that instead of vanishing in 10-15 minutes, she may have been on the side of the road for 40-45 minutes.


Also, a year ago, when Fred met with the governor and subsequently the Attorney General and other LE officials, they promised him a Victim's Advocate to answer any of his questions.

He indeed was assigned a victim's advocate. I was priviledged that a family member shared an email with me in which she (the Victim's Advocate) told Fred Murray that LE would not answer any of his questions. The questions that I was privey to were such things as "have you followed up on this tip" "did you follow up on the reporting there was a sighting of Maura?" Granted, IF they are of the opinion that Maura was/is a runaway, they would not report to Fred if they had confirmed a sighting, but to refuse to say if they followed up on a tip regarding foul play blows my mind and seems most callous, especially when they are telling the media they are spending 1000's of man hours on this case.

Also, on the day of the law suit, the representative from NH Attorney General's Office announced to the press that there had been a recent search for Maura which had not produced any results.

Fred Murray learned of this information through his attorney who happpened to read the article.

Please explain to me why they cannot tell Fred Murray, or Maura's mother or someone in her family that they did a search instead of telling the press first?

Perplexed as to the actions of NH LE

Supportive of the Murray Family

Praying for Maura

.

 

[czechmate7]

Peabody,
Thanks for the explanation.... I was under the impression that the answer was black or white , but evidently there seems to be a lot of grey matter involved!!

 

[Peabody]

Peabody,
Thanks for the explanation.... I was under the impression that the answer was black or white , but evidently there seems to be a lot of grey matter involved!!

I am sure that some matters regarding the releasing of info are black and white; however, as you say, may are also in a very gray area.

I hope that an attorney who has passed the bar in the USA will offer their legal expertise.


.

 

[mocity]

More than one of us has taken the time to explain why some of us don't take family assessment that a missing person would "never runaway" as an absolute fact. They even provided examples of parents and family being wrong in thinking their loved one would "never do that" and yet you post asking why we don't. That sounds like your mind is just made up, end of story.

Ok, that's your right. No one is calling you a name over it or telling you you can't post. And since I now see you have your mind made up I probably won't even bother responding to any of your similar posts in future.

As to the disagreements that seem annoying to you: People do disagree and this thread includes case discussion. It is in the nature of things we won't all always agree on things. At least no one is being called names here and people get to post their points about the case. I might disagree with some posters very much but there isn't anyone yet that I would,if I could, push a button and ban them from posting. I might agree with others very much but I would not want only those to be posting either. The world needs diverse thoughts.

I could care less about whether or not you "even bother responding to any of my similar posts in the future". I didn't ask you to. As you said the world needs diverse thoughts. I have NOT made up my mind either way and didn't say that I have. I tend to believe she met with foul play but as I pointed out I have no idea what happened and neither do you. I was merely pointing out that the tone to this discussion seems to be disrespectful.

 

[nnglas]

For all of the posters who think that Maura met with foul play.....I am curious as to what you make of the phone call to her boyfriends cell phone. I just wonder how that jives with the foul play theory.

 

[Masterj]

For all of the posters who think that Maura met with foul play.....I am curious as to what you make of the phone call to her boyfriends cell phone. I just wonder how that jives with the foul play theory.

I am not sure if she met with foul play or fell victim to the elements after becoming disoriented and possibly injured in the accident. As for the call to her boyfriend's cell phone, I am not sure. He swears it was her, but the call cannot be traced. We can only tell it came from a calling card, but it is impossible to trace beyond that. If she disappeared under foul play, there is the possibility someone kidnapped her and she made a quick call to him. Or if she was lost and disoriented maybe she called him, although I know cell coverage is pretty nonexistent up there.

I know he is certain Maura called him, but there is also the possibility it wasn't her at all. Of course if you believe her purposely disappearing theory, maybe she called him out of regret if she missed him and was second guessing herself.

Here is my question that perhaps the Murray family or someone close to them can answer - did Maura typically use the calling cards with her cell phone or were those for her dorm room or pay phones?

 

[Peabody]

I am not sure if she met with foul play or fell victim to the elements after becoming disoriented and possibly injured in the accident. As for the call to her boyfriend's cell phone, I am not sure. He swears it was her, but the call cannot be traced. We can only tell it came from a calling card, but it is impossible to trace beyond that. If she disappeared under foul play, there is the possibility someone kidnapped her and she made a quick call to him. Or if she was lost and disoriented maybe she called him, although I know cell coverage is pretty nonexistent up there.

I know he is certain Maura called him, but there is also the possibility it wasn't her at all. Of course if you believe her purposely disappearing theory, maybe she called him out of regret if she missed him and was second guessing herself.

Here is my question that perhaps the Murray family or someone close to them can answer - did Maura typically use the calling cards with her cell phone or were those for her dorm room or pay phones?

Please understand that this prepaid calling card call had to have originated on a land line such as a pay phone, or perhaps from a phone in a motel/hotel room where she was staying, or even from a residence where she was being held against her will.

It is a fact that the mystery call WAS NOT MADE FROM A CELL PHONE - the fiance's cell phone bill notes all calls as cell or land. The call in question is listed as a call from a certain ph # which when called gives one a recording something similiar to: "You have reached the number for a pre-paid calling card service. This number does not accept incoming calls."

It is certainly a possibility that the call was not from Maura.

But, in regards to your theory about her having regrets, it is my opinion that IF she was missing him and regretting her decision after only 36 hours [which was the approximate time frame from her missing until Lt (now Cpt) Rausch received the mystery call], she more than likley would have called again by now.

His description of the call was "chilling" - and also described as being very soft in volume; very short call with muffled sobs, labored breathing and deep, wet sniffs. This description could fit both a disoriented Maura holed up in an abandoned home OR an abducted Maura with only a few minutes to try for help who mistakenly called her fiance instead of 911.

The only thing is that considering the weather conditions on the day this call came through - the temps were very cold - and that she would have been in the wilderness, why has there been no body found?

This leads us back to either she was deliberately running away; she was suicidal (again no body - seems unlikely she would not want her loved ones to be able to bury her) or some harm has befallen her.



.

 

[hydemi]

Is important to those of us who have followed the unfolding tale of Maura's disappearance for two years now.

Peabody has given here the best account of the puzzling frustrating experience endured by the family on Feb 11 when told that the delayed search for Maura had to do with mix-ups or screw-ups or who knows what kind of error or perhaps just plain confusion on the part of the Haverhill police.

While Sgt Smith was the primary actor, there were others who had some idea that a young girl or young woman had gone missing on Monday night 2/9/04--
the police chief Jeff Williams and a NHSP officer named Monahan.

We are waiting on mauramurray.com to hear more from a local & poster named Anne about a scanner radio message of someone leaving "in a private vehicle" from an accident scene on 112 near Haverhill between 7pm and 7.30--a half an hour earlier than the timeline in the Case Info section of the Maura Murray website--which could explain the failure of local & state police to mount a full scale search for the missing woman on Tuesday 2/10/04.

So the questions posed here are quite valid.

Also one explanation for Maura not being seen on foot on 112 until the alleged sighting by the contractor is that she might have gone on Bradley Hill Rd to 116 which merges back to 112 about four to five miles east of the accident site (see your Mapquest maps) right near where the sighting occurred.

The contractor's name is known but being kept out of the media.

 

[PonderingThings]

I find one thing glaring. They know Maura was alone as there was only one set of footprints in the snow - yet there is no footprints down the road that they could follow? Did it only snow in a 2 ft radius of the car?

Do any of you "first responders" have an explanation/clarification for this?

 

[Peabody]

I find one thing glaring. They know Maura was alone as there was only one set of footprints in the snow - yet there is no footprints down the road that they could follow? Did it only snow in a 2 ft radius of the car?

Do any of you "first responders" have an explanation/clarification for this?

There is so much information regarding Maura's case that most of the time it can be difficult to easily and quickly locate the facts.

However, I am fairly certain I was told that it was only snowing lightly, that salt/sand had been placed on the roads preventing footprints on the road and that the footprints from the drivers door were in the snow bank.

Hydemi, Helena and any other long term posters - do you agree or disagree?


.

 

[PonderingThings]

Thank you Peabody for providing, once again, a clear informative answer. It is truly appreciated.

This will be my last post on this thread. I thank those who took a moment to clarify things for me and to answer my questions. I will continue to search for Maura, but I don't think I, personally, need to pursue a discussion of the case to do so.

For Maura's family and loved ones, I hope this beautiful girl is returned to you soon.

 

[Peabody]

Thank you Peabody for providing, once again, a clear informative answer. It is truly appreciated.

This will be my last post on this thread. I thank those who took a moment to clarify things for me and to answer my questions. I will continue to search for Maura, but I don't think I, personally, need to pursue a discussion of the case to do so.

For Maura's family and loved ones, I hope this beautiful girl is returned to you soon.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

PonderingThings,

This is a discussion thread and I feel let down that you have chosen to no longer pursue your interest in this forum. This "let down" feeling is because it is my opinion that the more that post and attempt to dwelve into the mystery publicly, the more apt we all are at putting all of the little pieces together to hopefully arrive at some answers.

Also, fair or not, it is easier for familiy and loved ones to obtain media coverage when an internet search provides links that shows interest.....Had Maura's initial thread not been mistakenly deleted, her thread would be one of the most viewed threads.

Granted, we cannot all post on all the threads, and we are drawn to certain threads (as I have been drawn to Maura's), but I do hope you will reconsider. You have asked some very well thought out questions.

And perhaps, if you find that you are resolved to stick to your decision to no longer post here in the discussion, please reconsider to the possibility of posting occasionally on Maura's case at Websleuths' Missing Persons Info and Support or Missing but not Forgotten Threads. Maura also has a thread under Weekly Spotlight - Maura Murray http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30819 In addition, there is a wealth of material on Maura's website www.MauraMurray.com


.

 

[KatherineQ]

It is a fact that the mystery call WAS NOT MADE FROM A CELL PHONE - the fiance's cell phone bill notes all calls as cell or land. The call in question is listed as a call from a certain ph # which when called gives one a recording something similiar to: "You have reached the number for a pre-paid calling card service. This number does not accept incoming calls."


Peabody, do they still have the phone number that the call originated from? I keep ruminating on that phone call. I didn't realize they had an originating number - I thought they just had a phone call, with no evidence to trace it except Lt. Rauch's word that it was Maura, and LE saying it was Red Cross.

I'm getting SO FRUSTRATED with this case. Surely the Murray's are 100 times more frustrated than I am.

Why not publish the phone number on huge billboards, with maura's picture, and the simple message, "whose phone number is this?" It's amazing what the public knows if they're just allowed the information.

 

[crypto6]

So until there is a crime, or evidence of a crime, and evidence against person or persons unknown, it sitll is a missing person case.

As it should be.........

Does this affect your opinion that this remains a missing person case??

From http://www.unionleader.com/article....ec-4d23727040df from Superior Court Judge Vaughn regarding Fred Murray's request for records:

Vaughn sided with the state.

“(The state) maintain(s) that release of the records could result in the destruction of evidence, chilling and intimidation of witnesses and the revelation of the scope and nature of the investigation,” Vaughn wrote.

Murray has been critical of how the investigation into his daughter’s disappearance has been conducted. He contends that the information gathered over the past two years could help his own efforts in finding his daughter. A group of private investigators is looking into the case.

“Considering that it sometimes takes several years — even decades — for the state to prosecute major crimes, a lapse of two years is not a long period of time,” Vaughn wrote. “Release of the records could jeopardize the investigation and lead to, among other things, destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses and loss of communications with entities providing confidential information.” ​

I don't know the legal implications of this ruling. Does the judge have leeway to nuance, parse or otherwise mislead here, or has this indeed become a criminal case??

 

[nnglas]

Thanks for the video! Unfortunately I can't see videos on my computer (some kind of conflict) but I can hear them. I've listened to this twice.

I have another question.....

Why would Maura turn down the ride/assistance from the bus driver that lived right there, yet accept a ride from another stranger that happened down the road? This does NOT compute for me.

Personally I think there was someone in the car with her that "hid" when the guy stopped.... did the man go around the car? Could he really tell if she was alone?

I personally think that this may be a very viable theory. I remember reading a while back that someone reported seeing a man smoking a cigarette by the car or in the car. I myself have thought that maybe Maura had a male friend with her. That would make her comfortable enough to drive that car in the condition it was in. Also, that would explain why she told the BD that she had called AAA, whoever her companion was could have gone for help.

I also think it could explain the different types of alcohol that she bought. And why she didn't wait for the police. Maybe she was worried about how it would look to her family and friends. It could also explain the phone call to the boyfriend, perhaps she was upset and wanted to explain. And perhaps the person she was with had bad intentions.

 

[KatherineQ]

Nnglas - it seems like it would be VERY difficult to hide a young man at the scene. And what for? Why would a young man companion hide? There's no explanation for that. This girl gets in a wreck, a big burly bus driver approaches her and speaks to her for several minutes, and a male friend is hiding? ???

I could be wrong.

But it seems to me she didn't want to go with the bus driver primarily because she wanted to get out of dodge, not get to a warm house 100 yards down the road and wait for the cops to show up with a breathalizer.

By all descriptions the bus driver is physically intimidating, kind of scary, and he was suggesting calling police.

The only explanation I can think of that makes a shred of sense, as to why she didn't wait for the cops is because she was drunk. I don't mean to be insulting, but a young woman facing walking miles and miles in the freezing cold vs. going with this big burly stranger, vs. waiting for the cops . . . her cell phone's not working out there, he leaves to go call police for her, and she packs up most of the alcohol and leaves on foot. What other explanation is there, besides she's been drinking and she's alone? If she had a male companion, she might have been quite willing to go with the burly bus driver. Except that she'd been drinking . . .

 

[Peabody]

It is a fact that the mystery call WAS NOT MADE FROM A CELL PHONE - the fiance's cell phone bill notes all calls as cell or land. The call in question is listed as a call from a certain ph # which when called gives one a recording something similiar to: "You have reached the number for a pre-paid calling card service. This number does not accept incoming calls."


Peabody, do they still have the phone number that the call originated from? I keep ruminating on that phone call. I didn't realize they had an originating number - I thought they just had a phone call, with no evidence to trace it except Lt. Rauch's word that it was Maura, and LE saying it was Red Cross.

I'm getting SO FRUSTRATED with this case. Surely the Murray's are 100 times more frustrated than I am.

Why not publish the phone number on huge billboards, with maura's picture, and the simple message, "whose phone number is this?" It's amazing what the public knows if they're just allowed the information.

I will try to explain:

It is my understanding that the fiance and the family both still have the number that was displayed on LT. Rausch's cell phone Caller ID.

Over the last 2 years, they have contacted numerous investigatiors/phone companies in an attempt to trace the call. Aside from the NH SP telling the Rausches at the Haverhill Police Dept on the evening of 2/11 that they traced the call to the American Red Cross, EVERY party attempting to trace the call for the Rausches and Murrays (this includes professional volunteers as well as paid investigators) are in total agreement that this call cannot be traced WITHOUT THE CALLING CARD NUMBER AND PIN NUMBER.

Although both Fred Murray and Sharon Rausch gave Maura calling cards, neither kept records of that information.......only reasonable - do any of you keep that information when you give calling cards as gifts?


I will try to explain what I have been told: Each calling card company "buys up" a certain number of land lines through which they route their calling card calls (just as you obtain an outside line when dialing "9" from a motel/hotel or even some work places). When a person dials their calling card number and pin number, they access one of the land lines (the mystery call to Lt. Rausch'S cell phone originated from an area code in Colorado and has been confirmed to be an ATT line specified for the sole purpose of calling card calls - but that is as far as any trace can go WITHOUT THE ATT CARD NUMBER AND PIN NUMBER)

As well intended as your suggestion, being that it is not possible that the call cannot be traced since no one has the card and pin numbers, I am sure that ATT would not appreciate the number beiong published. If it was published, each time someone would call it, the number would be busy and in effect be" "out of order for ATT".

If I have made this as clear as mud, I apolgize. It is just as you say so frustrating" and often so confusing :banghead:

.

 

[hydemi]

one explanation offered, again on the Maura site, of the burning or red light inside the car was that Maura's cellphone (a Samsung A620) had a red light signal visible when it was being used, and perhaps a witness or neighbor saw this inside her car when she was trying to use it and get a cell signal.

There have been many theories offered of a second party or helper or accomplice including that of DocWho on this site, but none that has so far been able to find supporting evidence.

So the explanation above (offered I think by Sharon on the Maura site) seems pretty logical to me.