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

[CyberLaw]

Peabody:

Well for starters you are assuming alot, which of course does not surprise me. When I first learned of a women going "missing" in NH it was on Crimenews2000.com.

They follow different stories. So when I went to that site on the morning of 2/10/04 all I had to do was click on the link which lead me to to the story. I remember the story because of the dog and the picture of the dog with snow falling. I don't know if this story was in print and/or only online. I only read it online. So you see Peabody......I do answer your questions. Sometimes.

At first it appeared "suspicious" until all of the details came out then of course it was "not suspicious" anymore.

Actually there is a 1-800 number for this newspaper and I am considering calling NH.

 

[Peabody]

Peabody:

Well for starters you are assuming alot, which of course does not surprise me. When I first learned of a women going "missing" in NH it was on Crimenews2000.com.

They follow different stories. So when I went to that site on the morning of 2/10/04 all I had to do was click on the link which lead me to to the story. I remember the story because of the dog and the picture of the dog with snow falling. I don't know if this story was in print and/or only online. I only read it online. So you see Peabody......I do answer your questions. Sometimes.

At first it appeared "suspicious" until all of the details came out then of course it was "not suspicious" anymore.

Actually there is a 1-800 number for this newspaper and I am considering calling NH.

I assumed nothing.

I asked you why you were reading a particular newspaper when by its own pronoucement it states that it publishes local news for a community with 11,000 subscribers.

I have followed Maura's case from the beginning. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of the family and friends (I have checked with them) the FIRST Media coverage was by Gary Lindsley on 2/13/04 in The Caledonian Record and also by Gary Lindsley on Greta Van Sustern of Fox Cable News on the evening of 2/13/04 (Fox News was not available in Canada in 2004 - I believe it has only been within the last 6 months that the Canadian govt has allowed it to be aired in your country).

As to you finding information regarding Maura at Crimenews2000.com on the morning of 2/10, I must point out that you are mistaken.

According to their archives, their first mention of Maura is on 2/17/04 and references Channel 9 WNNE out of NH as their source.
Link to www.Crimenews2000.com Archives re Maura Murray http://www.crimenews2000.com/cgi-bin/fetch/fetch2.pl
(Crimenews2000.com most recent mention of Maura was 1/29/06 regarding Fred Murray's law suit)

I also beg to differ with you that any media source knew on the morning of 2/10/04 that Maura was missing:

Granted the school bus driver, the Westmans (owners of the red barn and neighbors of SBD who also called 911), LE and possibly any person to whom those mentioned may have shared the knowledge of a young woman missing in NH, (excluding the media as we know there were no reports to them because the first press release was issued late evening on 2/11 by the Haverhill Police Dept) it is inconceiveagle that LE would have officially notified press that Maura Murray was missing, without notifying the owner of the "abandoned car".

Maura's family was notifed by Haverhill LE on the evening of 2/10 that Fred's car was found abandoned. They did not acknowledge that they knew a young woman was driving the car. This information was not released to them until they were in NH and were handed a press release stating that a witness had described a "young woman about 5'10" tall with dark hair".

I wonder how it is that you through any newspaper knew that Maura was missing when her family did not know/had not been contacted.

And it is not possible that you saw a story with a dog handler and a search on the morning of 2/10 because the first search was not until the morning of 2/11/04 with one scent dog.

The second search on 2/19 was with 1 cadaver dog and 2 scent dogs.

Both of these stories are in The Caledonian Record. The second search story is entitled Air and Ground Search Futile and is dated 2/20/04 - not sure about the date of the first story - seems that the info re this seach was just included in a general story of Maura's missing.

Also, I believe if you will check with online weather services, you will see that no snow fell AFTER 2/9/04 in the Havehill NH area for a few weeks - at least the family told me they were grateful that no snow fell druing the first two weeks of their concerted search and that the lack of new snow was such a help because it did not cover any existing footprints.

If I were you, I would certainly call the NH newspaper; once you do, perhaps we can all learn something from it.

But, perhaps you are simply mistaken and have Maura's case confused with another missing woman.

.

 

[Peabody]

My recent reply to Cyberlaw was not intended to be a personal argument, andI hope that you agree that this matter is not off topic.

When any of us discuss our theories and present our sources and supporting evidence regarding Maura's case (or any case for that matter), unless that source is reliable and the evidence is fact, at best it is of no use.

If the inaccurate information was simply set aside because it is "of no use", there would be no need to address it. But, a far more serious situation results from the inaccurate "evidence" remaing uncorrected because it misleads others to believe that it is "fact".

I am not related to Maura. However, I make no secret that her case has a special place in my heart (and I know that many of you feel the same). I have chosen to be her advocate. I am not an advocate for her family.

I have made it a priority to insure that the information posted regarding Maura's case is factual. I may say I disagree with a theory, but I will not debate/quarrel one's theory.......that is one's own personal opinion. Sadly, because there are no leads in Maura's missing, the number of theories are limited only by one's imagination. However, fact is fact and I hope that when I refute any piece of information that it is always obvious that I am only interested in everyone knowing the truth and not being deceived (I know too that often one posts inaccurate info unintentionally - I have been guilty - and very much appreciated being corrected for the very reasons I have stated.)

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

I don't go there very often, just sometimes, but, the other day I was checking the Courttv message board and looked for a thread on Maura's case. And found none. I looked around somemore today and still can't find it. Does anyone know if there is one and maybe have the link? Seems odd as they seem to discuss most cases.

 

[CyberLaw]

Like I said before, I have yet to ever see this story again, it is not in any "historical" context.

So......I am going to phone the Caledonian Record to find out and speak to the Web Master.

Trust me when I say: I am 100% correct that I saw this story.

There was no press release....just a reporter showing up at a scene of an accident that the "driver" had fled from. No one knew who the driver was......so again if you searched the "history" of the Caledonian Record it would not show up under a search for Maura Murray. This story was online.

I do hope that clarifies my position in this matter........

On an additional note: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11059110/

Fred Murray claims police, the attorney general and the governor violated state and federal public information laws by not releasing the investigative files. He went before a judge last week to ask for access to those files.

The state argued that a missing person investigation has the potential to become a criminal case, so details that could compromise the investigation can't be made public.

But Fred Murray still wants those files.........this does not make "logical" sense to me, not at all.

But even though Fred Murray STILL believes that Maura is a victim of foul play, he still wants the files, even though the release of those files could severly jeaopardize the investigation if it ever did "turn" out that "the case did have the potential to have "criminal overtones." This is not logical in light of the position of the Murray family that Maura is a "victim" of foul play and not a "voluntary" missing person.

We're meeting with them and we're also trying to make them(the Murray family) understand what the police cannot tell them and why," Healy said. Healy is the private investigator.......

Oh by the way - the video of Maura "buying" booze is one of the "pieces" of evidence that Fred Murray wanted to "have access to". That would be called evidence. LE knows what "evidence" they have, and that is not "confined" to personal belongings that Maura had in her car.

The files that Fred Murray wants access to is 2, 500 pages in length. That conflicts with the "image" some have of "LE" just sitting around and doing nothing or not doing enough.

Until anything at all turns up to the contrary, this is still being treated and classified as a "voluntary" missing person case, as in "the scope and nature of the investigation."

May I also bring to your attention: Amaraan post that is fairly recent.

The temperature was 12º and there are reports that it was snowing lightly,

That would the the "light falling snow" that Cyberlaw saw in the picture with the dog.

Also there was a full moon that night, so again, when the CW said that he saw Maura, it was not "pitch" black as some had assumed. Plus headlight are great for seeing in the dark, especially a women running along side a road and trying to "hide" from approaching lights, probably not wanting to take the chance that the car was LE.

Why else would someone "want to hide" from an approaching car especially if that person as some had assumed "was in need of assistance" and had to "be rescued". Obviously if Maura felt that she was in danger or needed assistance she would not have hidden from "an approaching" vehicle.

So please don't assume Maura needed to be "rescued" that night, because obviously Maura did not feel the same way, as she "passed" up the chance to "be rescued". It was not like there were several cars passing her in rural New Hampshire in the evening and that this area "was busy".

 

[mocity]

Maybe it appeared she didn't want to be rescued only because she was scared to open her door to strangers. I had a flat tire one time and several people stopped to help but I didn't open the door to them. I was too scared of who might stop and act like they want to help and what could possibly happen. I told them the same thing.......thanks but I am just going to call Triple A.

 

[CyberLaw]

But, she fled in the night, knowing that LE was on the way. Now LE would certainly help her.......

She also fled into the night.....knowing that cars would be few and far between in that neck of the woods.

So if she did need assistance, all she had to do was wait for LE to arrive.

So a person in the dead of night, in rural NH, would rather risk running somewhere anywhere, rather then stay for help.........

Then that very same person "hides" when she sees a vehicle........especially when they left the scene when help is on the way.

Gee I wonder why.........she was fleeing LE, she did not know if the car was LE or not. So the best thing to do, given the "situation" that you were already fleeing LE, is to hide at the approach of a vehicle, because you don't know if it is LE or not, so why take the chance.

Also I recall that somewhere on this post - I don't remember the source. But it was "posted" that AMW "declined" to profile the case because LE did not share info with AMW. I do recall someone "blaming" LE for Maura not being featured on AMW.

But the truth of the matter is: www.caledonian record - April 8, 2004

I know about the case," Cohen said. "I have been aware of it since it happened. Unfortunately, we can't do many missing cases at all."

He says the show devotes most of its missing people air time to cases involving children.

"As for adults," Cohen said, "we only do it when there is clear evidence of a crime."

Unless it's clear to the show's producers a crime has been committed, a case won't be aired.

"It's been our experience when we can't tell our viewers what to look for, we don't get a response," he said. "We save our space on our show (for a case) only if it would be successful. Unfortunately, we turn down a lot of cases."

 

[mocity]

Maybe she hit her head during the car accident and wasn't thinking clearly. Who knows. Maybe she got out of the car to try to figure out what to do and met with foul play.... possibly someone that offered her assistance. There are many reasons those shows decline certain situations. They want it to be "entertaining" and if they don't have enough information they won't air it. Even if they belive a crime did take place and Maura met with foul play they would turn it down unless LE would give them details they could air.

 

[CyberLaw]

But you seem to miss a fact. Maura was already out of the car when the BD arrived. He offered to call LE. She told him she had already called AAA.

He knew she lied and no help was on the way. He told her he was going to call LE and went home and told his wife what had happened.

Then knowing that the very same people who were on the way to help her, she fled into the night. Then when she is running along country roads, she "hides" from a passing vehicle, because of course she knows LE would be in the area, knows that the BD saw her with the car and she had no idea if this car was "just a passerby" or LE, so instead of taking a chance that it was LE she hid. She did not want any LE help, nor did she want to be found.

Now does that sound like a women who is not making conscious choices. A women who was injured and confused.....no that sound like someone who knows that they may be in trouble if found by LE or "thinks" because of the ivolvement of booze when driving would be in trouble.

BTW - did someone not post that the reason that AMW declined to profile this case on their show was because LE would not release the info. I recall reading that somewhere that once again it is all of LE's fault...........

 

[mocity]

I am not argueing with you... just discussing the case. Maybe she didn't want LE involved because she was perhaps drinking. Maybe she hid because of that reason and met with foul play trying to get out of area so she didn't get in trouble. I have no idea if someone posted the actual reason the show was turned down. I just know that most of the time they turn them down because they aren't supplied with enough details to make the "story" interesting. They need the details and LE can't or won't provide them. I am not bashing LE. They have been superb in my sisters murder (although it occured in 1990 and is still unsolved). I am merely stating that cases are turned down because LE can't provide them with enough details. I understand they can't or won't because it might jeopordize the investigation. There is a good reason for not spilling the details.

 

[hydemi]

I too will be interested if there is a 2/10/04 story on Maura's disappearance.

Posted above in the exchanges is a reference to a 2/12 story which I found in my printed out files and sent to the moderator recently.

It was from the www.thewmurchannel.com dated 2/12/04 at 5.50pm and I found it posted on the child seek network under ezboard.com.

The link does not work now.

WMUR is the online and radio for the Manchester Union Leader in Manchester NH.

The story is based evidently on a bulletin from Haverhill police dept as referenced above by Peabody, and includes several quotations from Chief Williams, Winnie Matteson (the Stagecoach store), and Kathleen Murray.

It would be worth knowing the earliest stories and news articles if there are any earlier ones, as some of the initial mistaken info and items in this case could then be more clearly identified as well as the initial impressions and statements which are most likely correct and were fresh at the time.

 

[Peabody]

Posted above in the exchanges is a reference to a 2/12 story which I found in my printed out files and sent to the moderator recently.

what story on 2/12 are you referring to.

Have you posted it here as well as sending to the mods?

Thanks

 

[CyberLaw]

I read the article......

 

[nhjane]

I can think of another obvious reason Maura ran from the accident and tried to avoid CW ... After being spooked by the bus driver (by his own admition and the concurence of his wife saying she could understand why the personal stature of her husband might be very inmposing to a young girl) Maura was reported to be outside the car alone. No witness has any idea what happened next, but the SBD reported seeing 4 or 5 cars pass by his house which is 100 or so feet away. I suggest that it is entirely possible that a person or persons in one of those cars threatened or scared Maura in some way and she felt she had to run. It could have been a real threat or a perceived threat given Maura's already jangled nerves.
Just a thought ....

 

[docwho3]

Notable discrepancies and points to ponder:You will need to be familiar with the case for some of these points to make sense:

The time of Maura's allegedly upsetting Thursday call was reported to have been at 10 pm
on thursday but according to an early poster in the part one thread, and some family supporters who PM'd me, the security supervisor said that Maura was still at her work station at 1 am (an hour past her normal shift time according to the UMass job description posted on the web site which was quoted in a websleuths post as stating that the shift for student workers doing her job is from 8pm to midnight on weekdays) and that she had
her upsetting call at the 1 am time.

Two or three things stand out to me about this discrepancy:
1. The police never announced that this 1 am time was verified, so far as I am aware, and in fact
the call was later determined by police to have taken place at about 10pm if I remember correctly, according to news reports. Unfortunately, the link I had to a webpage reporting the alleged phone call time of about 10 pm has been moved or deleted since the time in october 2005 when I looked at it. (According to news reports the call was traced and it was reported that Maura's sister Kathleen was on the other end of that call.)
2. If the supervisor lied to the family about the time then I would say that is a huge red flag that says he may know a lot more than anyone first thought about Maura's disappearance.
3. If the supervisor was telling the truth then :
A. Either Maura stayed an hour past her end of shift time which sort of would suggest she was palling around with someone at that time. And if the supervisor was telling the truth then why didn't the police speak of this 2nd call?
B. Or What if she was staying past her shift end time and then telling family she was "working"?
That opens up more possibilities.
*************************
I noticed that in at least one news report online that even when the upsetting call was mentioned, Kathleen did not tell of knowing that she had spoken to Maura by phone on the day the upsetting call was alleged to have taken place and only admitted knowledge of being connected to the call after police traced the call (at least thats how news reports made it appear to me.) Does this mean anything Kathleen was up to anything sinister? Not necessarily. I myself think she was an innocent victem of maura's death-in-the-family excuse and that the reaction to the phone call was just acting that Kathleen might have been unaware was happening. Still, it is one of those little things that raise a flag when you read about it in a news report of a case.
********************
After Maura's disappearance,another phone call that was reportedly only about a one minute call with odd sounds (either sniffling or humming, depending on whether you listen to family or L.E.) to Maura's boyfriend's phone (and which was reported to have been recorded in voicemail) was, according to news reports, traced to a red cross calling card. I make note that Red Cross often does blood drives in colleges and so I wonder if one of those doing a blood drive either at West Point or Umass might have had such a card and would Maura then have been able to get access to one?
********************
Some say Maura had been drinking and some say she had not been drinking when she had her wreck and disappeared on Feb 9th/2004. I have seen news reports that say she appeared intoxicated and some that say not. I note that one report even went so far as to say an open bottle of alcohol was found in the car. Did some news stories get it right and some other news stories get it wrong or did someones story change depending on when he/she talked and who he/she spoke to? I don't know. I personally don't care whether Maura was or was not drinking that day when she disappeared. It is just one of those odd things to read such opposite accounts in the news reports.

. . .A witness who offered Murray help after she crashed her car told police she appeared to be intoxicated, officials said. An open bottle of alcohol was found in the car, Rausch said. . .

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/21/map_clue_spurs_search_for_student_in_vermont?mode=PF
*****************************

. . ."Hopefully, by the close of [today] we will have talked to everyone at least twice within a reasonable radius of the area. We're talking 5 miles, give or take," he continued. "There's no evidence of a struggle near or around the car. No witness says there was an altercation. No evidence that any criminal offense has happened to her. . .

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2004/02/20/with_no_new_leads_fbi_joins_search_for_missing_student/
*********************
On the night that maura wrecked her dads car (not mauras saturn which was wrecked within the next 2 days) she had been drinking at a friends dorm room with some friends and then after 2:30 am suddenly decided she needed to go to her dads hotel. Yes, it was her dads car but why decide at that late hour that she need to return it after she had been drinking? One friend had passed out (according to a news report) and her other friend tried to talk her out of going anywhere until the next day but she evidently considered it very important to go to that hotel anyway? Why? Just to return the car? Or was there something important she wanted to discuss? Since she wrecked his car that night we may never know.

 

[murraydwyer]

To answer some of the points made above:

The following is taken directly from an email dated May 24, 2005, sent by a person then at UMASS who also worked security--not Maura's supervisor:

If the night in question was Sun-Wed, then she would have been expected to work until 11:45 am and therefore 1 would be a completely off time. Thurs nights she was expected to work until 1:45am. Frid-Sat nights she was expected to work until 2:45 am.

As to the phone call itself, the following excerpt is taken from a journal kept and provided by Sharon Rausch who was in NH after Maura disappeared:

We have been told by the police that Maura received or made a phone call on her cell phone at 1:00 AM on Friday, February 6th while she was on duty at her security job on the first floor of her dorm (The police and subsequently the media refer to this call as the “Thursday night” call that upset Maura). This was the Friday before Maura disappeared. It was reported to us that this call upset Maura to the point that she was crying hysterically and had to be assisted to her dorm room by her supervisor. ........ Kathleen always insisted that she never talked to Maura at that time. The NH police emphatically told Kathleen they knew better and told the media that the family was withholding information. In fact, when Maura’s cell phone bill arrived, it showed the last call during the time in question to be Thursday, February 5th at approximately10:00 PM for 20 minutes to Kathleen. Kathleen concurred that she and Maura had talked at this time. But she insists that Maura was not crying, upset or speaking of any problem.

I can't imagine how scared and upset Kathleen must have been sitting there being questioned by the police, her sister has vanished in a very remote area...I sat with Kathleen and discussed this call many months later...I watched her still, then trying to remember anything she said that may have upset Maura...whatever Maura was upset about (regardless of what she told the supervisor) I don't believe it was that call at 10:00 p.m. I can't find the article that mentions the time of the call, either, but can verify from Maura's cell phone records that Kathleen did not call her cell after the earlier call. What was always curious to me was why it took police so long to verify the call and so little to verify the Maura/Red Cross call. I know that police were given all of the information about Maura's cell phone within the first couple of days.

As to the following.........good point.....there are many discrepancies in reports. One of the most important is the actual time of the crash...which to my mind is still unresolved and very important:

Did some news stories get it right and some other news stories get it wrong or did someones story change depending on when he/she talked and who he/she spoke to?

The following quote is from a paper dated February 20, 2004...eleven (11) days after Maura disappeared....while a five mile radius sounds like a lot of people, the is a very sparsely populated area, especially to the east.

."Hopefully, by the close of [today] we will have talked to everyone at least twice within a reasonable radius of the area. We're talking 5 miles, give or take," he continued. "There's no evidence of a struggle near or around the car. No witness says there was an altercation. No evidence that any criminal offense has happened to her. . .

Yes, it was her dads car but why decide at that late hour that she need to return it after she had been drinking? One friend had passed out (according to a news report) and her other friend tried to talk her out of going anywhere until the next day but she evidently considered it very important to go to that hotel anyway? Why? Just to return the car? Or was there something important she wanted to discuss? Since she wrecked his car that night we may never know.

This is a good question...unfortunately we don't have an answer...As to the car, her dad still drives it...there was considerable monetary damage as the police so thoughtfully told the media, but it was a new car and from what I have been told Maura slid into a guard rail...body work would have been very expensive on a new car, particularly if it involved more than one area of the car.... As to Maura having been drinking...we don't know how much she actually drank, but it would appear she was not obviously drinking or drunk since she wasn't cited.

 

[docwho3]

Those weren't the only discrepancies and points to ponder that I have noted.

There were others such as the condition of the saturn car before and after the wreck. I just didn't want to make that post longer than it needed to be. Maybe I will post a few more things later. I don't have a preference on how people view those points I just posted them for people to post input.



Also I have a question or two: When did Maura first begin wearing her hair up all the time?

Oh and Murraydwyer, On the shift times you posted about: Did you get those times from Maura/family or from college officials? I don't ask to be argumentative but to be very sure I understand the source of that info.
Any college age student could tell their family they had to work certain hours when they actually did something else with their time but if the schedule came from official sources then that is a different thing altogether.

Since evidently L.E. felt so strongly about the phone calls, was Kathleen ever poly'd about the phone calls? It would seem to be one way to quickly clear up a point even if a painful thing for family.

 

[KatherineQ]

Not that it matters, but the first ending time of her shift, 11:45 a.m. , can't be correct. It must be 11:45 p.m.

 

[murraydwyer]

Those weren't the only discrepancies and points to ponder that I have noted.

I'm well aware of that, I was trying to address points you raised about which I had information not generally available. I have no reason to believe that this person lied, I have no reason to believe that Maura's supervisor also lied and can't imagine why they would have lied well over a year later...while they were acquaintences of Maura's I have no knowledge that would lead me to believe that they were closely enough conected to Maura to have any reason in the world to lie. As to UMASS "officials"...when issues have been raised with them, family members have been referred to the NHSP, which is one of the reasons it took us so long to locate the two mentioned above...

Also I have a question or two: When did Maura first begin wearing her hair up all the time?

The only answer I have to that is that I have seen family photo albums and other pictures and have only found one or two where Maura's hair was down from about the age 15 or 16. And I was specifically looking for pictures with her hair down. As I say in my signature, I have never met Maura.

Oh and Murraydwyer, On the shift times you posted about: Did you get those times from Maura/family or from college officials? I don't ask to be argumentative but to be very sure I understand the source of that info.
Any college age student could tell their family they had to work certain hours when they actually did something else with their time but if the schedule came from official sources then that is a different thing altogether.

The times as stated in my post came from and email sent by somebody who also worked security at UMASS. This person is not a family member.

Since evidently L.E. felt so strongly about the phone calls, was Kathleen ever poly'd about the phone calls? It would seem to be one way to quickly clear up a point even if a painful thing for family.

To my knowledge, Kathleen was never asked to take a polygraph...I am not sure I would agree that L.E. felt all that strongly about phone calls...it would seem to me that if that were the case her phone called for the day she disappeared would have been checked into. As to the repeated questions to Kathleen, I suspect it was a questioning technique used by law enforcement.

 

[Peabody]

Since evidently L.E. felt so strongly about the phone calls, was Kathleen ever poly'd about the phone calls? It would seem to be one way to quickly clear up a point even if a painful thing for family.

I am not sure I would agree that L.E. felt all that strongly about phone calls...it would seem to me that if that were the case her phone called for the day she disappeared would have been checked into.

I have to agree with murraydwyer regarding LE's interest in her phone calls.

Per my research on the case:

Although LE was provided a copy of both her cell phone statement and the phone records of her fiance by the fiance himself, NH LE NEVER checked upon those calls until Nov 2004 - 9 months after Maura went missing.

The fact that LE never checked upon those calls was discovered in Oct 2004 when Sharon, mother of the fiance, decided that she would call every number on the cell phone statement that had been given to LE by her son and ask the party what they knew/recalled about the last time they talked to Maura.

Sharon learned that Maura had contacted a family by the name of Salamone who owned (still owns) a condo unit in the same association in which Maura was accustomed to staying near Bartlett NH. Salamone could not recall the conversation as many people call about the rental - it is advertised online -but she felt sure she would have told Maura that it was not possible to rent because of their policy of having rent paid up front and then mailing the renter the key.

Salamone went public to say that the police never contacted them UNTIL several weeks AFTER Sharon and Fred had spoken with her......(my guess is the newspaper reports prompted their call to her) Salamone reported that LE told her they had tried to reach her in the beginning, but her "line was busy"..........don't know if I can confirm the "your phone was busy" statement per a media link. I recall being told it by a family member and don't have time to do a search. (If you attempt to search I suggest you use "Linda Salamone")

Regardless, 8 months is an awfully long time for LE to take to check up on phone calls (including a busy line) even if you have to go through legal channels to obtain phone records (remember they were given a copy of the phone records to assist in their investigation.....(fyi: I am not LE and I have on two occasions been able to get an operator to break through on a "busy" line when a family member was in ER having a heart attack.)

in oct/nov 2004 there were numerous onlink links to stories about the un-investigated phone calls.......hope they are still available for your review.