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

[Peabody]

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,

I agree that it makes perfect sense IF Maura was drinking to attempt to avoid the police. And I would/could never dispute that she was drinking - I just cannot know. I do know that through emails with locals, they have told me that they just cannot believe that she was intoxicated or she would never have made it the 5-6 miles east of Wells River under the best of road conditions: the road is narrow, dark, and very windy....although, I am not a drinker, I know the difference between drinking and intoxication - also, while I do not know the alcohol content required to be cited for DUI in NH, I do know that in some states it is so low that one is not intoxicated as defined by the medical field.

But that aside, Maura may have been afraid if she had had anything to drink and/or just the fact that she had the alcohol with her. Regardless, it does not make sense to me that she would take all of the alcohol and leave the wine behind. Even if the wine was spilled on the road, I would think she could have tossed the container so that it was not so conspicious.

Because of known inconsistenciences in the police reports to Sharon Rausch, how can we really know that Maura is the one responsible for the missing alcohol???

It has been reported in the newspapers that a NH SP was on the scene when Cecil Smith and Butch Atwood returned from their drive looking for Maura.

It has been reported by a local that when she drove home from work *before* 7:30 that she saw Maura's car at the site she was last scene along the edge of the road and a SUV cruiser marked #1 parked in front of it; locals have also reported that the entire volunteer fire department went to the scene as they were having their monthly meeting; it is also known that Maura's car was towed; this means that in spite of inital accounts that the only LE or other officials at the scene were Cecil Smith and Monahan (sp) NH SP, numerous others were indeed present.

Now, I don't know IF Maura took the alcohol, but it would seem possible that someone else MAY HAVE. It seems odd to me that she would load up BOTTLES of alcohol in her backpack (which could break easily) instead of throwing them into the trees. As a runner, Maura was very strong in her upper body - I don't doubt that she could have thrown them far out of sight. And the possibility that threw the alcohol into the woods is remote because the area was searched by LE on Wed AM 2/11 *before* her family arrived.

One other point to ponder: although LE said that "witnesses" said Maura appeared to be intoxicated, the only known witness that has admitted to speaking to Maura is Butch Atwood.....how reliable his reports are remain questionable, but he told the family and Gary Lindsley of the Caledonian Record that Maura DID NOT APPEAR TO BE INTOXICTED.

So, we are left with questions even when we deal with the facts at hand.


.

 

[nnglas]

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 . . .

I don't think that he would have been hiding, I think he would have already gone for help.

 

[Peabody]

I don't think that he would have been hiding, I think he would have already gone for help.

Sorry, but This idea doesn't feel right to me.

Any male that I have ever known would not leave his female companion alone in the middle of nowhere on a dark road in the cold while he went for help. Unless he was going to one of the nearby homes, which according to the residents, no one came to their doors.

Therefore, I would ask, If he did, where did he go for help and Where is he now?


What do others think?

.

 

[docwho3]

. . .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. . .

Edited to add "Hi to hydemi, warm smile to you."

Yes I did, & do, think it possible she had a helper that followed the same route (although a little later - not immediately right behind)in his own vehicle along the same route according to prearranged plan. It might explain why Maura headed back the way she came from on the road for a little ways (if that is what she in fact did.) Was this some hired helper who was just going the same way to visit family or party or was he just a paid flunky? I don't know, but it does offer a way for Maura to have left the scene without having needed to use a cell phone that had no coverage in that area anyway and it offers a way to explain her remark about already having called AAA. She had already made provision for another person to follow the same route in case her car (which she had very little confidence in according to reports) should break down. That does not mean she would not try to contact him by cell though after the wreck & having been unable (which attempt might account for the red cell phone light that some people think was seen), possibly have just walked towards the oncoming helper and then been picked up.) That does not say what happened after that. And, as Hydemi pointed out, I can't prove that's what happened. "I cant prove the sun came up every day for the past month but the plants outside have grown and they need sunlight."

The circumstances themselves indicate something like that but I can't prove it.

There is another similar angle also that I am considering, other than the one below, but it has even less to indicate it so I don't want to mention the details yet.

***************
Another thought:
Some, in the past, have said she may have been going on a last fling with an unknown Johnny-come-lately guy before getting married and that was what all the planning and sneaking around was about with the death-in-the-family excuse. I suppose that isn't an impossible idea but it doesn't explain why take the Saturn on a 2 1/2 hour trip when it was so unreliable that she always had others drive her where she needed to go even in her local college town. I originally theorized that she took the car to leave at the destination so it wouldn't be found right away when she left, as that would mess up her few days off excuse, raising the alarm too early. If she had been just going on a fling she could have ridden in her dates car rather than risk another car problem after the already embarrassing wreck of her dads toyota after late night drinking with her friends. However, when I recently replied to a post in which I said I would, & have, asked someone to follow my route if I needed to take my car to have it worked on and I was worried it might not make all the way to the repair shop, it jogged me into another thought. So is it possible that she was having a last fling and the guy was also able to fix a Saturn up for her or told her he could if only she brought the car along to his umm relatives or friends that had the tools needed, only they lived a long way from the college? That might account for her taking the car on the long trip. Only she had a wreck and freaked out because of the alchohol involvement and thinking how her dad might react. So her mechanically inclined friend picks her up and the rest is up to imagination. Maybe he would have wanted something in trade for all his work/help more than Maura was prepared to give.

See, you can weave a story that comes close but it leaves out another coincidence, that in general they were traveling towards an area Maura was familiar with, even if the route there was different than normal.

In conclusion, I could theorize slightly different scenarios than I originally did and I always look for other possibilities but so far I have not found a different one, beyond the original, that covers all the known facts. . . .Still looking for the sunlight.

 

[Peabody]

KatherineQ,

<snip>
It has been reported in the newspapers that a NH SP was on the scene when Cecil Smith and Butch Atwood returned from their drive looking for Maura.

It has been reported by a local that when she drove home from work *before* 7:30 that she saw Maura's car at the site she was last scene along the edge of the road and a SUV cruiser marked #1 parked in front of it; locals have also reported that the entire volunteer fire department went to the scene as they were having their monthly meeting; it is also known that Maura's car was towed; this means that in spite of inital accounts that the only LE or other officials at the scene were Cecil Smith and Monahan (sp) NH SP, numerous others were indeed present.

<snip>

One other point to ponder: although LE said that "witnesses" said Maura appeared to be intoxicated, the only known witness that has admitted to speaking to Maura is Butch Atwood.....how reliable his reports are remain questionable, but he told the family and Gary Lindsley of the Caledonian Record that Maura DID NOT APPEAR TO BE INTOXICTED.

So, we are left with questions even when we deal with the facts at hand.


.

I failed to make clear some very most important aspects of the information I provided to you in an earlier post. The items to which I am referring are now in bold print. (I should learn not to ppost so late at night)

Here goes:

FACT:
Trooper Monahan (sp) was the NH SP Trooper at the scene when ****Cecil Smith and Butch Atwood returned from their drives up and down 112 looking for Maura***

FACT:
That a NH State Trooper was at the scene was not told to the family; they learned it much later from a newspaper account and were able to confirm it. In fact, Scarinza told the family that they( NH SP ) did not learn of the accident/Maura missing until the morning of 2/11 when the search was begun by NH Fish and Game. You should be able to do an online search to confirm.

FACT:
Cecil Smith was not driving a Police SUV. He was driving a cruiser. Therefore the driver of the SUV was not Smith. Haverhill Police did own a Ford Explorer SUV with the identifying #1. However, to date, the Murrays have been able to determine who was driving the SUV or if it was the one owned by the Haverhill Police Department. Also, if one does a search of the Haverhill Town Meetings, you can see that the SUV has been sold.

.

 

[docwho3]

. . .FACT:
Cecil Smith was not driving a Police SUV. He was driving a cruiser. Therefore the driver of the SUV was not Smith. Haverhill Police did own a Ford Explorer SUV with the identifying #1. However, to date, the Murrays have been able to determine who was driving the SUV or if it was the one owned by the Haverhill Police Department. Also, if one does a search of the Haverhill Town Meetings, you can see that the SUV has been sold. . .

I find that info and some of your other points about more people having been on the scene than one might first think to be very interesting and helpful points.

 

[Peabody]

FACT:
Cecil Smith was not driving a Police SUV. He was driving a cruiser. Therefore the driver of the SUV was not Smith. Haverhill Police did own a Ford Explorer SUV with the identifying #1. However, to date, the Murrays have been able to determine who was driving the SUV or if it was the one owned by the Haverhill Police Department. Also, if one does a search of the Haverhill Town Meetings, you can see that the SUV has been sold.

see bold and caps below to correct original post -

FACT:
Cecil Smith was not driving a Police SUV. He was driving a cruiser. Therefore the driver of the SUV was not Smith. Haverhill Police did own a Ford Explorer SUV with the identifying #1. However, to date, the Murrays have been UNable to determine who was driving the SUV or if it was the one owned by the Haverhill Police Department. Also, if one does a search of the Haverhill Town Meetings, you can see that the SUV has been sold.


.

 

[docwho3]

see bold and caps below to correct original post -

FACT:
Cecil Smith was not driving a Police SUV. He was driving a cruiser. Therefore the driver of the SUV was not Smith. Haverhill Police did own a Ford Explorer SUV with the identifying #1. However, to date, the Murrays have been UNable to determine who was driving the SUV or if it was the one owned by the Haverhill Police Department. Also, if one does a search of the Haverhill Town Meetings, you can see that the SUV has been sold.


.

I thought you meant "unable" but even so it is helpful info.

 

[gatetrekker44]

Just to clarify for some, I have been very active in posting in regards to Maura's disappearance from the very beginning. As has been alluded to in previous posts, I have serious issues in regards to the so-called "investigation" that has been conducted. But without being able to access possible critical info in possession of LE, at this point I am at a standstill as to how to proceed insofar as to get ANY type of lead for Fred Murray and the PI's who have volunteered to take an unbiased look at this case.


And for any of you who wonder WHY I seem so hard on the NH LE, I am re-posting a link to a story that was originally posted on the initial "Maura" thread but was lost. Any of you who are not familiar with it should find it interesting reading.

http://www.dowmurders.com/pages/CurrentDay/moz1.html

 

[armywife210]

Just to clarify for some, I have been very active in posting in regards to Maura's disappearance from the very beginning. As has been alluded to in previous posts, I have serious issues in regards to the so-called "investigation" that has been conducted. But without being able to access possible critical info in possession of LE, at this point I am at a standstill as to how to proceed insofar as to get ANY type of lead for Fred Murray and the PI's who have volunteered to take an unbiased look at this case.


And for any of you who wonder WHY I seem so hard on the NH LE, I am re-posting a link to a story that was originally posted on the initial "Maura" thread but was lost. Any of you who are not familiar with it should find it interesting reading.

http://www.dowmurders.com/pages/CurrentDay/moz1.html

I find this information very interesting as well... and it's not hard to figure why there is lost trust with this kind of thing happening

 

[docwho3]

Just to clarify for some, I have been very active in posting in regards to Maura's disappearance from the very beginning. As has been alluded to in previous posts, I have serious issues in regards to the so-called "investigation" that has been conducted. But without being able to access possible critical info in possession of LE, at this point I am at a standstill as to how to proceed insofar as to get ANY type of lead for Fred Murray and the PI's who have volunteered to take an unbiased look at this case.

And for any of you who wonder WHY I seem so hard on the NH LE, I am re-posting a link to a story that was originally posted on the initial "Maura" thread but was lost. Any of you who are not familiar with it should find it interesting reading.

http://www.dowmurders.com/pages/CurrentDay/moz1.html

I am sorry but a cursory read of the main page of that website sounds like a rant against L.E. with evidently not enough substantiated info to bring charges since none were brought so far as that first page read. Not enough info revealed to actually cause anyone not to get promoted except one person not promoted to colonel, and no one even fired, again according to first page summary.

So what it appears to be is another case of ranting against L.E. by someone who took the time to put together a website to do the ranting.
And this is posted as absolute proof of rampant wrongdoing by L.E. in New Hampshire state police? From what I could tell upon further reading, this person made complaints that authorities found to be without real merit in that they decided not to grant the relief sought by this person which seems to have angered this person even more.

I don't think this helps your case and I don't see that it helps find Maura and posting it is pretty much an attack on those who actually are out there protecting New Hampshire residents and visitors.

Now, if you had been able to point to some convictions for murder and other sundry convictions of law breaking by that L.E. then you could truthfully say a real problem existed but I see no such proof so far in what was presented. Instead of convictions people were promoted. This L.E. bashing asks me to believe in such a widespread conspiracy of only pure evil with no real goal other than evil in its sights and this conspiracy is alleged to be too large to be able to be covered up except within the pages of a fiction novel. In my opinion this does not serve to bring credibility to those who have been so critical of the investigation of Maura's whereabouts.

 

[hydemi]

I confess that it is more than a stretch for me to see how the Dowmurders thread relating to corruption and decades of legal issues with NHSP relates directly to Maura's case.

I was hoping the new PI team might get better cooperation from NHSP.

I am more worried, however, if the comment from GateTrekker on a "standstill" as to new leads to follow in the investigation means that the new PI team has reviewed everything there is to review and not been able to rule in/out various theories and issues and facts in the case of Maura missing.

It does seem to me that the portions quoted from Judge Vaughan's five page opinion made it sound as if there was a real ongoing investigation with "criminal overtones" which could be jeopardized by releasing files and returning items of Maura's.

Maybe not--one could say that Vaughan's ruling is just more sticking together and stonewalling the family & Fred on the part of NH authorities.

 

[Peabody]

I confess that it is more than a stretch for me to see how the Dowmurders thread relating to corruption and decades of legal issues with NHSP relates directly to Maura's case.

I was hoping the new PI team might get better cooperation from NHSP.

I am more worried, however, if the comment from GateTrekker on a "standstill" as to new leads to follow in the investigation means that the new PI team has reviewed everything there is to review and not been able to rule in/out various theories and issues and facts in the case of Maura missing.

It does seem to me that the portions quoted from Judge Vaughan's five page opinion made it sound as if there was a real ongoing investigation with "criminal overtones" which could be jeopardized by releasing files and returning items of Maura's.

Maybe not--one could say that Vaughan's ruling is just more sticking together and stonewalling the family & Fred on the part of NH authorities.

Regarding your "worry" that the new PI's are at a standstill:

My take is that gatetrekker is interested in providing leads, and without the case files he/she is at a standstill.

Although there are some that disagree with me, I am not sure that NH LE have properly investigated Maura's case, and I am having faith and confidence in the new team to unearth some lead as the reinterview EVERY one.

Originally Posted by gatetrekker44
Just to clarify for some, I have been very active in posting in regards to Maura's disappearance from the very beginning. As has been alluded to in previous posts, I have serious issues in regards to the so-called "investigation" that has been conducted. But without being able to access possible critical info in possession of LE, at this point I am at a standstill as to how to proceed insofar as to get ANY type of lead for Fred Murray and the PI's who have volunteered to take an unbiased look at this case.

And for any of you who wonder WHY I seem so hard on the NH LE, I am re-posting a link to a story that was originally posted on the initial "Maura" thread but was lost. Any of you who are not familiar with it should find it interesting reading.

http://www.dowmurders.com/pages/CurrentDay/moz1.html

gatetrekker, would you care to elaborate?


.

 

[gatetrekker44]

Yes I was referring to myself being at a standstill as to where else to look,who to contact, etc. as far as Maura's case is concerned.

My reason for posting the Dow murder link is that this is the SAME Troop F that has been "investigating" Maura's disappearance. And while the players may have changed-it is possible that the mentality to "protect one of their own" is still alive and well. After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder prosecution-but even after the investigation proved that the Dows were killed and didn't die in an accident, to this day the main suspect, a former member of Troop F-has yet to be indicted-or even brought before a grand jury.

I personally believe one of the main reasons the records are being withheld from Fred Murray are so that the many missteps of troop F will not come to light-and an independent examination by a group of dispassionate professionals may turn up the possibility that the SUV formerly used by the Haverhill PD may have much more involvement than anyone realizes-except, perhaps, NH LE!

 

[Peabody]

Yes I was referring to myself being at a standstill as to where else to look,who to contact, etc. as far as Maura's case is concerned.

My reason for posting the Dow murder link is that this is the SAME Troop F that has been "investigating" Maura's disappearance. And while the players may have changed-it is possible that the mentality to "protect one of their own" is still alive and well. After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder prosecution-but even after the investigation proved that the Dows were killed and didn't die in an accident, to this day the main suspect, a former member of Troop F-has yet to be indicted-or even brought before a grand jury.

I personally believe one of the main reasons the records are being withheld from Fred Murray are so that the many missteps of troop F will not come to light-and an independent examination by a group of dispassionate professionals may turn up the possibility that the SUV formerly used by the Haverhill PD may have much more involvement than anyone realizes-except, perhaps, NH LE!

It is difficult to believe that it is a coincidence that a police imposter would be driving a black SUV marked with a police logo and the #1 when the Haverhill Police Dept owned a vehicle with the same description (the SUV was sold at acution in the last year).

Yet, IF a Haverhill officer driving Vehicle #1 arrived 30-45 minutes BEFORE Sgt Smith and sent the call turning around EMS, one has to wonder why they did not tell the family.

Also, because of the conflicting reports about the time of the calls - one time being 7:00 and the other being 7:30, it may explain why the Attorney General does not want PUBLIC RECORDS of times for the 911 calls and polcie respond times released. Could it be that the driver of #1 Vehicle is a "person of interest" in Maura's missing?

I, for one, do not think this possiblity can be discounted IF the NH Attorney General's Offfice is investigating Maura's missing.


FYI - I have been told that in NH, the State Attorney General is the office that investigates murders on all levels. If I am wrong, please correct me.


>

 

[docwho3]

. . .My reason for posting the Dow murder link is that this is the SAME Troop F that has been "investigating" Maura's disappearance. And while the players may have changed-it is possible that the mentality to "protect one of their own" is still alive and well. After all, there is no statute of limitations on murder prosecution-but even after the investigation proved that the Dows were killed and didn't die in an accident, to this day the main suspect, a former member of Troop F-has yet to be indicted-or even brought before a grand jury. . .

. . .and an independent examination by a group of dispassionate professionals may turn up the possibility that the SUV formerly used by the Haverhill PD may have much more involvement than anyone realizes-except, perhaps, NH LE!

So let me see if I understand the point of these posts about L.E. allegedly being criminals.

We are supposed to accept that a website put up by someone which accuses L.E. people of murder (not a thing to do lightly) and massive cover up is factual when no charges have been brought in court of law and no grand jury indictment made and, so far as I am aware, no civil case was won in which L.E. was accused by the website owner? We are supposed to accept that the accused Law Enforcement people really did such criminal wrongdoing even though no information of such wrong doing was sufficient to even get anyone dismissed from their job?

And having blindly accepted these, so far, unproven allegations of criminal wrongdoing we are supposed to then also believe that is sufficient reason to start accusing/strongly suspecting L.E. of criminal invovement of Maura's disappearance?

If that's the case you would have about as much success of that as of convincing me that Elvis entered into an evil pact with aliens from space to kidnap people and that the evidence is buried in the X-Files department of some secret Federal spy group since neither allegation has been proven in court. In my opinion, I just do not see how building case theories in the Maura Murray dissapearance that are based on such wild and unproven allegations helps us get anywhere. Honestly, it sounds like there are some people with huge grudges against Law Enforcement that are using case threads and websites to pursue those grudges whether or not it muddies the waters in the case at hand.

Sure, people want answers but constantly trying to tar and feather Law Enforcement isn't going to get us those true answers.

And before anyone points it out, I know that not all L.E. are perfect law abiding people but neither are they usually murdering monsters and to accuse a whole State Police department over and over again without anything having been proven in a court of Law is something that just wastes our time.

 

[mocity]

That is why this is a discussion forum... so everyone can posts their ideas and thoughts. Everyone should be able to posts their thoughts without being shot down each time.

 

[Peabody]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/member.php?u=8192

docwho3
The tar and feathers department is down the hall

From http://www.dowmurders.com/pages/CurrentDay/mccaffrey.html :
"A New Hampshire Legislative Bill was authored as pertaining to the official response to these murders in 1997. The result of that Bill was legislators strongly urging the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office to place this case before an Investigative Grand Jury. A new legislative bill to examine the official conduct employed is currently being written."



As noted in the snippet from the above link, NH legislators PASSED a bill authorizing the investigation into the deaths of Janet and Steven Dow. There was an investigation resulting from the legislation - the problem the case could not be proved: no evidence because there were No bodies - they had been cremated; no car - it had been destroyed - not just burned, but sent to wherever totaled cars are sent - and other evidence was missing. The judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence of the murders and any subsequent wrong doing by Troop F officials. However, the deaths were deemed suspicious and entered into the FBI crime data. (I just do not have the time to locate on the internet the links that provide this information. I am presenting it from "recall" from a time I investigated many months ago.)

IF this is "tar and feathers", why would this woman accuse the ENTIRE TROOP, and not just her husband? I can't imagine why anyone, especially a woman separarated from the man that she is accusing, would make these accusations, knowing that she is jeopardizing her life and possibly her childrens' lives based on the suposition that he killed twice before. This woman wrote to VP Gore and Gen McGaffey.....not exactly the typical officials that one reaches out to.

And most telling of all, she was able to convince the NH legislator to pass a bill requiring an investigation. Would a state legislative body do as much to satisfy a woman on a witch hunt? Of course not, they believed there was enough evidence to warrant an investigation. In this day of politics, that carries the most weight with me.

Reputation is worth its weight in gold. It is most unfortunate for Troop F that theirs is under such a cloud of suspicion. Surely, there are some very good LE there; but no doubt there is a possibity there are some shady characters there as well.

Corruption in any work place taints those who are trying to do their job, but it should always be investigated by an uninterested party.

 

[docwho3]

From http://www.dowmurders.com/pages/CurrentDay/mccaffrey.html :
"A New Hampshire Legislative Bill was authored as pertaining to the official response to these murders in 1997. The result of that Bill was legislators strongly urging the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office to place this case before an Investigative Grand Jury. A new legislative bill to examine the official conduct employed is currently being written."



As noted in the snippet from the above link, NH legislators PASSED a bill authorizing the investigation into the deaths of Janet and Steven Dow. There was an investigation resulting from the legislation - the problem the case could not be proved: . . .

". . .Could not be proved" . .Exactly.

. . .

And most telling of all, she was able to convince the NH legislator to pass a bill requiring an investigation. Would a state legislative body do as much to satisfy a woman on a witch hunt? Of course not, they believed there was enough evidence to warrant an investigation. In this day of politics, that carries the most weight with me. . .

So you are impressed by politics? OK that's fine with me. But after authorizing all that investigating and earning points with people by passing a law we still don't have any indictments even, so how much merit was there to that case in the first place? And why prematurely attempt use it to to prove a case for showing that N.H. State Police are evil?

. . .

Reputation is worth its weight in gold . . .

And with people posting stuff like these unproven allegations on case threads theirs doesn't stand too tall right now. I wonder why?

. . .

It is most unfortunate for Troop F that theirs is under such a cloud of suspicion. Surely, there are some very good LE there; but no doubt there is a possibity there are some shady characters there as well.

Corruption in any work place taints those who are trying to do their job, but it should always be investigated by an uninterested party. . .

Maybe someone needs to open a thread for discussing how bad they think L.E. is. I still say that this amounts to L.E. bashing but at least then it might not be constantly muddying the waters in case discussion threads.

 

[Peabody]

[/font]
". . .Could not be proved" . .Exactly.

I don't mean to be sarcastic, but failure to prove based on missing evidence does not make it less factual



So you are impressed by politics? OK that's fine with me. But after authorizing all that investigating and earning points with people by passing a law we still don't have any indictments even, so how much merit was there to that case in the first place? And why prematurely attempt use it to to prove a case for showing that N.H. State Police are evil?

No, I am not impressed with polictics. On the contrary,
What I was saying is that it is UNLIKE politicians to pass legislation requiring an investigation into one of their OWN institutions.



And with people posting stuff like these unproven allegations on case threads theirs doesn't stand too tall right now. I wonder why?

While not everyone agrees, there are many, including locals in NH, who believe that the police have not been forthright in the Maura Murray Case. IF it is true that there are other cases that involved coverups, it stands to reason that based on their opinion, they would post whatever information they have that supports a *****possibility***** of corurption.


Maybe someone needs to open a thread for discussing how bad they think L.E. is. I still say that this amounts to L.E. bashing but at least then it might not be constantly muddying the waters in case discussion threads.

DocWho, I have a nephew in LE. As an employee in an attorney;s office, I have worked with some outstanding LE officials. During my 20+ years in this field, I have also seen corruption exposed. It is most naive to believe that there is no ******possibility***** of corruption.

I have no proof, but I want it checked out and I am not Maura's family. I am sure they want the possibility of any corruption checked.

Discussion cannot be muddied - it can be affected by one's bias or emotions; basically, with Maura's case all we can do is present our theories.

I for one, do not believe the possible involvement of LE in some way should be discounted. Why, you say? I know that Lt. Scarinza told the family that NH SP was not aware of Maura's case until Wed 2/11 when they were asked to assist NH Fish and Game in a Search. Yet, the family and one reporter has confirmed that a NH SP Trooper by the name of Monahan (sp) was at the scene the evening of 2/9. Also, there are now confirmed reports of a Police SUV with the #1 on it being at the scene BEFORE Sgt Smith. The police need to explain this.

How can they say the release/ explanation of their actions jeopardizes prosecution IF one of their own is not involved?

For emphasis: I accuse NO ONE individual or group of individuals; it is just that I know for an investigation to be complete, it must INCLUDE EVERY indivdual. And unfortunately, for Troop F, their behavior seems to cast doubt for many.