To think/believe/suggest that only Fred Murray might destroy evidence or intimidated witnesses is, in my opinion, takiing a very narrow view of what the judge is saying. My take is that any person that reviewed the released records might by these actions jeopardize the case.
But not "any person" is before the courts making the application for the release of the records. Fred Murray is........ no one else is asking for access to the requested information, Fred Murray is. Now if a Newspaper or other news organization or even a "citizen" organization made the application, then I would agree with you. But Fred Murray and only Fred Murray is making the application.........on behalf of Fred Murray for the sole purpose of Fred Murray.
The Plantiff wants "unfettered" access to all "work product" and evidence which NH has "obtained" during the last two years. Fred Murray wants everything. He has stated his "speculative" case to the Judge for the release of all information that he wants access to. He could not factually state his case because his case is not based in law and on fact. He could only state assumptions and speculation based on what he feels and thinks. The court does not "entertain" what a person "thinks" and feels which was the entire "evidence" of the Plaintiff in this case.
The "other side" contends, which is much more of a compelling case:
The state) maintain(s) that release of the records(to the person who is the Plaintiff and before the courts) 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.
Now who wants those records released - Fred Murray, who is the MOST interested in obtaining the records ......Fred Murray, who is before the courts and has made an application in the form of a Civil Suit to get what he wants, Fred Murray. Even IF the judge did rule in favour of Fred Murray, I (not familiar with the law of NH )would assume there would be some constraints or provision made.
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. '
If the Judge granted the application by FRED MURRAY(which even if you take this to the Supreme Court it is still not going to be granted)then this could jeopardize the case(which no court is going to do ) and lead to, among other things, destruction of evidence(the chain of the evidence will be "broken") and there would be no further integrity of any documents or evidence.
Fred Murray seems "uninterested" that his application(if it was successful) would do more harm then good in the opinion of the Judge. All Fred Murray sees is that the requested information "may" help him and his interests in finding Maura comes before the "jeopardy" of the case concerning Maura or any "future" harm to others. The Court has to act in the best interest of the "others" as no witness is before the court saying: No, don't tell him my name, what I said, where I live.....I don't want him to know. That is a given..........and the courts know this. They are protecting the privacy of people.
Intimidation - is the act of making others do what one wants through fear.
Fred Murray will know who said what, in what context, if their "statements" support Fred Murray "myth of foul play". If they are "flattering" to Fred Murray or not. What Maura may have told her school friends, etc. A person has an expectation of privacy when dealing with LE.
In other words, what the witness says to LE stays with LE. Unless of course that person is required to give testimony in court. They did not give statments to LE with the "understanding" that everything they said to LE in confidence will be provided to Fred Murray, specifically in response to an application made by Fred Murray.
A witness must have the ability to provide LE with relevant and factual information without any resulting consequences. They must feel free to "be candid, forthright" and honest in providing any information to LE. They would not do this if LE was acting in concert with Fred Murray.
I would "assume" that if anyone is co-operating with LE or furnishing LE with information, they would not do so in the future, if Fred Murray was successful.
Why would they, everything they say or said would be "made" available to Fred Murray who is not in any way, shape, or form associated with LE.
Fred Murray "could" want to "visit" this person to "review" and "interrogate" them as to what information they provided to LE. What other reason would there be...... Or to see what else they may know........or "influence" what information they provided to LE that conflicts with Fred Murrays assumption that "Maura is a victim of foul play".
These people co-operated with LE, if they wanted to "provide" information to Fred Murray specifically then they could have choosen to do that.
Loss of communication with entities providing confidential information - well the word entities and confidential says it all. LE has a "relationship" with an entity and that "relationship" will be "damaged" if not harmed completly if this information was released. Fred Murray would knows what confidential information is supplied and by whom. Confidential is the key word........
When a Judge makes a ruling in a case he makes that ruling with the case at bar and the Plaintiff and Defendent before him. That is why when a Judge makes a ruling it is "specifically" in context with the parties before him.
The "wants" of one does not outweigh the legal "rights" or undue and "avoidable" "harm" to others and an investigation.
So the Judge does not say hummm. any person that reviewed the released records might by these actions jeopardize the case. No other person is before the courts making the application, except Fred Murray. He is the one person that the Judge is most concerned with when he makes the ruling.....not some "other person" whom is not before the courts. That would not even enter into his thoughts when he makes the ruling as again he makes the ruling in context to the Plaintiff request.
He looks at the case and says:: Release of the records(as requested by Fred Murray) 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.
So again, the ruling is in direct response to the application by Fred Murray.
The "family" of Maura wants to find her "at all cost" and do "anything" and "everything" to find her. If that means harming the "investigation", harming others, putting others at risk, trampling on the "rights" of others when it comes to privacy, then of course they would justify it as "the ends" justify the means. As long as they get what they want........
Remember early in the case, that the Murray family et al, were parking and "entering" private property without the consent or knowledge of the property owners.
They did not even ask permission of the "property owners". They just did whatever they wanted to do "in the quest" to find Maura. They had no respect for the property owners or the rights of the propety owners. They did not even ask, because of course that would give the property owner the "ability" to choose what they wanted, not what Fred Murray has already decided for them.
Fred Murray just "assumed" that what he wants is what every one else wants and that no one would mind him trampling on his/her/their property because after all it is for the Fred Murrays cause and "mission' to find Maura.
By entering their property, you take away consent, you take away the "property" owners choice. Even LE cannot enter a person property without a warrant or consent. A warrant is issued by a Judge............with probable cause and supporting affidavits.
This spoke VOLUMES in regards to character........
It is not like Fred Murray is going to "put the interests and rights" of others above his own "interests" in doing what ever it takes to find Maura. That is very evident in the "application" before the courts and the ruling.
He does not even know if anything in the requested files may or may not help him. He does not even know what is in the files, but is willing to "risk" the entire investigation because of what "he thinks".
His application is akin to a "fishing" expedition.
Of course Fred Murray knows better......then the courts, government, LE, laws and the Judge. The Judge's mandate is not to act in the "interests" of Fred Murray, but the legal interest of all concerned and the "protection" of all concerned.
Especially when Fred Murray does not have a legal "right" to anything requested.
Let me repeat that - even as the Father of an adult that is "missing" whom you "think" is a victim of foul play, does not mean you have a "legal right" to whatever you want and whatever you feel may help you to find her. Just because you want access to it, does not mean you will get access to it all because you want to.
BTW - if I recall correctly, I read a story(with a picture of a dog, in the snow, with their handler, at night) and that story was in the online edition of the Caledonian -Record) probably the next morning (2/10/04)that "reported" about LE arriving at the scene and the "speculation" of LE that the "driver" fled to avoid criminal responsibility as "booze" was found at the scene of the "accident".
LE wanted to ensure that the driver did not run into the forest, that is why they had the dog. This was the night of the accident, not days later. It was an "immediate" situation as if the "driver" fled into the forest to avoid criminal responsibility then she could get lost and die in the forest.
It was "ascertained" that evening that the "driver" did not go into the forest, as the person may not be able to make it out and not be "visible" to any member of the public nor have access to shelter. The person would be isolated, lost, away from public view in a forest with no member of the general public or any other person available to help. This was an "emergency" response the night of the accident..........
Away from the view of the general public with no access to shelter, no ability to find their way out of the forest if lost, is a hint by the way as to why LE did not "hunt" Maura down along the roads that night.
All LE knew is that a "driver" fled the scene to "avoid" criminal responsibility and if they did come across Maura that night and if she did not hide at the approach of headlight, then again, LE COULD NOT have "detained" Maura for any reason, none what so ever. So why look for her ......they could not detain her even if they did find her...........LE knows this. She made the choice to flee to avoid criminal responsibility and then you fully expect LE to "hunt" her down when she successfully fled specifically to avoid LE.
Does not make sense.........
Can anyone in "those" neck of the woods, provide a link to that story.....it seems to "conflict" with LE did nothing for days.
I have yet to see that story again.......which of course is in the favour of LE.
Again, unless I have information that is factual to the contrary, I believe 100% that Maura ran away and started a new life. There again is NOTHING to contradict this, nothing at all.
I am very sorry to say this, but the day your child turns 18 they are an adult and they can pack their bags and say: See you Mom, see you Dad, I am going to live in a commune(travel the world, surf in Hawaii, climb the mountains of Switzerland) and I will call you someday.
Or they can move out with their boyfriend, or quit school and work a 'dead end" job, or do what ever they decide to do with their life. They don't have to inform you nor consult you, nor seek permission. They can be gone for 2 days or 2 years or 20 years. It is again the choice of the adult.
If the child does "voluntarly" go missing, they are under no legal obligation to inform their parents or "ask permission" or inform them if they want to "disappear" and start a new life somewhere else.
It would be the choice of the adult child, not the adult parents if they want to "initiate" contact with their parents or loved one. There is zero, nada, zip legal obligation to do so. Everyone concerned is an adult..........
But not "any person" is before the courts making the application for the release of the records. Fred Murray is........ no one else is asking for access to the requested information, Fred Murray is. Now if a Newspaper or other news organization or even a "citizen" organization made the application, then I would agree with you. But Fred Murray and only Fred Murray is making the application.........on behalf of Fred Murray for the sole purpose of Fred Murray.
The Plantiff wants "unfettered" access to all "work product" and evidence which NH has "obtained" during the last two years. Fred Murray wants everything. He has stated his "speculative" case to the Judge for the release of all information that he wants access to. He could not factually state his case because his case is not based in law and on fact. He could only state assumptions and speculation based on what he feels and thinks. The court does not "entertain" what a person "thinks" and feels which was the entire "evidence" of the Plaintiff in this case.
The "other side" contends, which is much more of a compelling case:
The state) maintain(s) that release of the records(to the person who is the Plaintiff and before the courts) 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.
Now who wants those records released - Fred Murray, who is the MOST interested in obtaining the records ......Fred Murray, who is before the courts and has made an application in the form of a Civil Suit to get what he wants, Fred Murray. Even IF the judge did rule in favour of Fred Murray, I (not familiar with the law of NH )would assume there would be some constraints or provision made.
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. '
If the Judge granted the application by FRED MURRAY(which even if you take this to the Supreme Court it is still not going to be granted)then this could jeopardize the case(which no court is going to do ) and lead to, among other things, destruction of evidence(the chain of the evidence will be "broken") and there would be no further integrity of any documents or evidence.
Fred Murray seems "uninterested" that his application(if it was successful) would do more harm then good in the opinion of the Judge. All Fred Murray sees is that the requested information "may" help him and his interests in finding Maura comes before the "jeopardy" of the case concerning Maura or any "future" harm to others. The Court has to act in the best interest of the "others" as no witness is before the court saying: No, don't tell him my name, what I said, where I live.....I don't want him to know. That is a given..........and the courts know this. They are protecting the privacy of people.
Intimidation - is the act of making others do what one wants through fear.
Fred Murray will know who said what, in what context, if their "statements" support Fred Murray "myth of foul play". If they are "flattering" to Fred Murray or not. What Maura may have told her school friends, etc. A person has an expectation of privacy when dealing with LE.
In other words, what the witness says to LE stays with LE. Unless of course that person is required to give testimony in court. They did not give statments to LE with the "understanding" that everything they said to LE in confidence will be provided to Fred Murray, specifically in response to an application made by Fred Murray.
A witness must have the ability to provide LE with relevant and factual information without any resulting consequences. They must feel free to "be candid, forthright" and honest in providing any information to LE. They would not do this if LE was acting in concert with Fred Murray.
I would "assume" that if anyone is co-operating with LE or furnishing LE with information, they would not do so in the future, if Fred Murray was successful.
Why would they, everything they say or said would be "made" available to Fred Murray who is not in any way, shape, or form associated with LE.
Fred Murray "could" want to "visit" this person to "review" and "interrogate" them as to what information they provided to LE. What other reason would there be...... Or to see what else they may know........or "influence" what information they provided to LE that conflicts with Fred Murrays assumption that "Maura is a victim of foul play".
These people co-operated with LE, if they wanted to "provide" information to Fred Murray specifically then they could have choosen to do that.
Loss of communication with entities providing confidential information - well the word entities and confidential says it all. LE has a "relationship" with an entity and that "relationship" will be "damaged" if not harmed completly if this information was released. Fred Murray would knows what confidential information is supplied and by whom. Confidential is the key word........
When a Judge makes a ruling in a case he makes that ruling with the case at bar and the Plaintiff and Defendent before him. That is why when a Judge makes a ruling it is "specifically" in context with the parties before him.
The "wants" of one does not outweigh the legal "rights" or undue and "avoidable" "harm" to others and an investigation.
So the Judge does not say hummm. any person that reviewed the released records might by these actions jeopardize the case. No other person is before the courts making the application, except Fred Murray. He is the one person that the Judge is most concerned with when he makes the ruling.....not some "other person" whom is not before the courts. That would not even enter into his thoughts when he makes the ruling as again he makes the ruling in context to the Plaintiff request.
He looks at the case and says:: Release of the records(as requested by Fred Murray) 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.
So again, the ruling is in direct response to the application by Fred Murray.
The "family" of Maura wants to find her "at all cost" and do "anything" and "everything" to find her. If that means harming the "investigation", harming others, putting others at risk, trampling on the "rights" of others when it comes to privacy, then of course they would justify it as "the ends" justify the means. As long as they get what they want........
Remember early in the case, that the Murray family et al, were parking and "entering" private property without the consent or knowledge of the property owners.
They did not even ask permission of the "property owners". They just did whatever they wanted to do "in the quest" to find Maura. They had no respect for the property owners or the rights of the propety owners. They did not even ask, because of course that would give the property owner the "ability" to choose what they wanted, not what Fred Murray has already decided for them.
Fred Murray just "assumed" that what he wants is what every one else wants and that no one would mind him trampling on his/her/their property because after all it is for the Fred Murrays cause and "mission' to find Maura.
By entering their property, you take away consent, you take away the "property" owners choice. Even LE cannot enter a person property without a warrant or consent. A warrant is issued by a Judge............with probable cause and supporting affidavits.
This spoke VOLUMES in regards to character........
It is not like Fred Murray is going to "put the interests and rights" of others above his own "interests" in doing what ever it takes to find Maura. That is very evident in the "application" before the courts and the ruling.
He does not even know if anything in the requested files may or may not help him. He does not even know what is in the files, but is willing to "risk" the entire investigation because of what "he thinks".
His application is akin to a "fishing" expedition.
Of course Fred Murray knows better......then the courts, government, LE, laws and the Judge. The Judge's mandate is not to act in the "interests" of Fred Murray, but the legal interest of all concerned and the "protection" of all concerned.
Especially when Fred Murray does not have a legal "right" to anything requested.
Let me repeat that - even as the Father of an adult that is "missing" whom you "think" is a victim of foul play, does not mean you have a "legal right" to whatever you want and whatever you feel may help you to find her. Just because you want access to it, does not mean you will get access to it all because you want to.
BTW - if I recall correctly, I read a story(with a picture of a dog, in the snow, with their handler, at night) and that story was in the online edition of the Caledonian -Record) probably the next morning (2/10/04)that "reported" about LE arriving at the scene and the "speculation" of LE that the "driver" fled to avoid criminal responsibility as "booze" was found at the scene of the "accident".
LE wanted to ensure that the driver did not run into the forest, that is why they had the dog. This was the night of the accident, not days later. It was an "immediate" situation as if the "driver" fled into the forest to avoid criminal responsibility then she could get lost and die in the forest.
It was "ascertained" that evening that the "driver" did not go into the forest, as the person may not be able to make it out and not be "visible" to any member of the public nor have access to shelter. The person would be isolated, lost, away from public view in a forest with no member of the general public or any other person available to help. This was an "emergency" response the night of the accident..........
Away from the view of the general public with no access to shelter, no ability to find their way out of the forest if lost, is a hint by the way as to why LE did not "hunt" Maura down along the roads that night.
All LE knew is that a "driver" fled the scene to "avoid" criminal responsibility and if they did come across Maura that night and if she did not hide at the approach of headlight, then again, LE COULD NOT have "detained" Maura for any reason, none what so ever. So why look for her ......they could not detain her even if they did find her...........LE knows this. She made the choice to flee to avoid criminal responsibility and then you fully expect LE to "hunt" her down when she successfully fled specifically to avoid LE.
Does not make sense.........
Can anyone in "those" neck of the woods, provide a link to that story.....it seems to "conflict" with LE did nothing for days.
I have yet to see that story again.......which of course is in the favour of LE.
Again, unless I have information that is factual to the contrary, I believe 100% that Maura ran away and started a new life. There again is NOTHING to contradict this, nothing at all.
I am very sorry to say this, but the day your child turns 18 they are an adult and they can pack their bags and say: See you Mom, see you Dad, I am going to live in a commune(travel the world, surf in Hawaii, climb the mountains of Switzerland) and I will call you someday.
Or they can move out with their boyfriend, or quit school and work a 'dead end" job, or do what ever they decide to do with their life. They don't have to inform you nor consult you, nor seek permission. They can be gone for 2 days or 2 years or 20 years. It is again the choice of the adult.
If the child does "voluntarly" go missing, they are under no legal obligation to inform their parents or "ask permission" or inform them if they want to "disappear" and start a new life somewhere else.
It would be the choice of the adult child, not the adult parents if they want to "initiate" contact with their parents or loved one. There is zero, nada, zip legal obligation to do so. Everyone concerned is an adult..........
