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

[docwho3]

. . .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. . .

Ok, I have posted my opinion and thoughts on the L.E. posts and whether they really are relevant to Maura's case and you have responded.

For other readers:
I take a moment to note that neither of us has called the other names in this exchange and neither of us has threatened the other. I often disagree with points Peabody makes (although not on all points) but I respect that Peabody often uses restraint in choosing whether to respond and if responding, how to respond.

 

[Peabody]

[/color][/b]
Ok, I have posted my opinion and thoughts on the L.E. posts and whether they really are relevant to Maura's case and you have responded.

For other readers:
I take a moment to note that neither of us has called the other names in this exchange and neither of us has threatened the other. I often disagree with points Peabody makes (although not on all points) but I respect that Peabody often uses restraint in choosing whether to respond and if responding, how to respond.

Differing opinions discussed and examined are the cause for most advancements in the world - be it the resolution of a case on Websleuths, or IF the world is flat

It is important to discuss varying theories and while doing so, to set aside bias and emotion, especially anger.

I thank you for your compliment and am most humbled.:blushing:

 

[czechmate7]

Peabody~
I know you have ties to the family.. Are they open at all to the idea that Maura could be missing on her own accord or are they dead set that foul play is involved? I'm just curious on their thoughts about all the known facts (lying to professor, withdrawing money, etc...)
Thanks

 

[Peabody]

Peabody~
I know you have ties to the family.. Are they open at all to the idea that Maura could be missing on her own accord or are they dead set that foul play is involved? I'm just curious on their thoughts about all the known facts (lying to professor, withdrawing money, etc...)
Thanks

They are "open ...to the idea" and they hope with all of their heart that she is a runaway.

However, they, along with her fiance and friends are in accord that MOST LIKELY some harm has befallen her, either due to the weather or at the hand of someone evil.

 

[nnglas]

Has anyone heard anything about the 20/20 special? Or have I missed it?

 

[hydemi]

I have been wondering for several weeks about what seemed to me a big change in language and tone in the response of NH authorities in the recent Grafton County case filed by Mr. Murray to obtain records etc.

An assistant AG used the phrase "criminal overtones" and the judge's ruling seemed to hint at a possible criminal investigation in what is still listed as a missing person case.

And of course the Major Crimes Unit of NHSP has technically been in charge of the investigation since June/July 2004--not Lt Scarinza or local police--a change at the time that seemed to me related to the more decisive steps taken by Vermont State Police in re-classifying the Brianna Maitland investigation.

I can think of three possible scenarios to call this a criminal investigation.

1) There is a suspect or suspects, whether among locals or witnesses or unknown persons (unknown in the media), believed either to have harmed Maura or to have wrongfully concealed information.

2) There is a possible police coverup of the initial screwups in this case, which is now being investigated, which would be viewed criminally.

3) Somehow Maura herself is regarded as a fugitive from justice for some possible offense (I am just supposing here to complete the loop).

I presume this last scenario is a zero possibility so one of the first two has to be the reason for regarding the ongoing investigation as having "criminal overtones" and is viewed as justification for denying Mr. Murray again.

How long will the legal appeal of Judge Vaughan's decision be in the chain of court procedure before it goes to the next higher court? I believe Mr. Murray and his attorney have said they are appealing this ruling.

 

[Peabody]

I have been wondering for several weeks about what seemed to me a big change in language and tone in the response of NH authorities in the recent Grafton County case filed by Mr. Murray to obtain records etc.

An assistant AG used the phrase "criminal overtones" and the judge's ruling seemed to hint at a possible criminal investigation in what is still listed as a missing person case.

And of course the Major Crimes Unit of NHSP has technically been in charge of the investigation since June/July 2004--not Lt Scarinza or local police--a change at the time that seemed to me related to the more decisive steps taken by Vermont State Police in re-classifying the Brianna Maitland investigation.

I can think of three possible scenarios to call this a criminal investigation.

1) There is a suspect or suspects, whether among locals or witnesses or unknown persons (unknown in the media), believed either to have harmed Maura or to have wrongfully concealed information.

2) There is a possible police coverup of the initial screwups in this case, which is now being investigated, which would be viewed criminally.

3) Somehow Maura herself is regarded as a fugitive from justice for some possible offense (I am just supposing here to complete the loop).

I presume this last scenario is a zero possibility so one of the first two has to be the reason for regarding the ongoing investigation as having "criminal overtones" and is viewed as justification for denying Mr. Murray again.

How long will the legal appeal of Judge Vaughan's decision be in the chain of court procedure before it goes to the next higher court? I believe Mr. Murray and his attorney have said they are appealing this ruling.[/QUOTE]

Just read the following post by Sharon (Cpt. Rausch's Mom - Maura's fiance) at www.mauramurray.com

"Spoke with Fred last night.

He said that the appeal regarding the ruling of the NH Superior Court was filed yesterday, February 16 in NH Supreme Court.No word on when the hearing will be."

 

[KatherineQ]

I saw the post when it was first posted, and read it several times.

It does seem a bit harsh.

On the other hand, my understanding is that Cyberlaw is a strong advocate for adults who want to be free of family trappings, and Cyberlaw speaks out loud for their right to leave and not be investigated and found if they want to leave.

I think Websleuths would suffer a great loss if that opinion wasn't allowed to be voiced by him/her. Virtually all of the posters on Websleuths advocate sparing no expense to find missing people, and the other side needs to be heard - that adults also have the right to leave and not be persued if evidence points in the direction that that's their intent.

And it is arguable that that was Maura's intent.

 

[Tricia]

Sorry it took so long. I was out of town.

I have read Cyberlaw's post several times. In my personal opinion it is very sarcastic. It is over the top. It's one thing to disagree. It's another thing to be mean. I feel that Cyberlaw could have easily made her/his point without be this sarcastic.

Cyberlaw, I do enjoy your posts most of the time and you have been very helpful too. Please understand this is my opinion and I am doing what I think is best for the forum.

Take care,
Tricia

 

[Animal04216]

These are some posts that inadvertently got left out after our review.



docwho3
Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 787

moving along

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority has spoken. . . . . .so moving right along . . . ., aside from the heavy sarcasm, a point was raised about verifiable alibis and I have not heard much of that and quite frankly hated to ask for fear of facing the firestorm. In some cases the police sometimes say if they think they have been able to rule out certain family members as suspects, although not always. Does anyone know if L.E. have made any such pronouncements to news media in this case?
The questions almost had to be asked sooner or later, especially in light of the wording of the last judgement, as reported in news reports, against releasing the records to the Murray family. (No offense meant to the family.) It is unreasonable for the questions to not eventually be asked in light of the apparent air of hostility which seems to exist between L.E. and the Murray faction. This appears to be upheld also by the judges concerns that turning over records to the murrays could result in the destruction of evidence and the stopping of confidential witnesses flow of information.

hydemi
Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 70

back to the question

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was my question about Judge Vaughan's opinion, the change in language by NH authorities, followed by Peabody's helpful reference to the filing of the appeal by Mr. Murray on 2/16 which led to this firestorm.

Likewise it would be helpful if Cyberlaw would tell us what can be turned over to families by authorities in "missing" cases--and likewise whether the Murrays could ever expect anything to be turned over to them if this really and truly is a "criminal" case not just vaguely a case with "criminal overtones."

If the answers are nothing-zip-nada-zilch in either classification, missing or criminal, the Murrays still have every right to pursue legal recourse.

This seems to be an evolving (not fixed in stone) area of case law.


#298 02-19-2006, 10:11 AM
docwho3
Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 787

no info?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" . . .a point was raised about verifiable alibis and I have not heard much of that. . ." Still no info?

Ok, I will keep that point in mind.



murraydwyer
Registered User Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 143

Since those of you who bring up the question of 'alibis' also appear to be the strongest supporters of LE in this case, I can't even imagine why you would question this aspect. Family members are routinely looked at first by most law enforcement agencies, and it seems reasonable that NHSP would certainly have done so. If you reread all the of available news articles, there has never been any hint of family involvement...in fact most of what police say allude to suicide...until they stopped talking to the media in June of 2004 when some aspect of the case changed and they retrieved all of Maura's previously released belongings including the car.

As to the runaway theory. When Maura first disappeared, the family with the help of Sharon Rauch went to any media outlet that would talk to them in the hopes that someone would see Maura's picture and say...oh, I gave her a ride to the bus depot.... Recently, the family, with the help of the Molly Bish Foundation's contacts have appeared on more than one National TV show in the hopes of getting Maura's picture out there. Maura's family spent quite a bit of time giving interviews to 20/20. They have attempted to follow up on any and every siting every accusation either themselves or by contacting the police and now passing the information along to the detectives. Whatever any of you believe, from his actions, Maura's father does not believe that Maura ran away....but his actions also show that if there is a chance that Maura is alive...any chance...he will follow whatever lead there is. I understand that not all of what has happened over the past two years is in the press. We have gotten tips of sitings, we have had people point fingers at others...all of this information has been passed along to the police....

Maura's father has routinely asked for more investigation, has repeatedly asked the FBI to come into the case and has gratefully accepted the help of a rather large group of detectives, most of whom are former police with extensive training and experience. Insinuating family involvement defies logic when you consider the family's cries for help.
__________________
To be clear...I have never met Maura Murray...since she disappeared, I have come to know a couple of members of her family..."The world is dangerous to live in not because of the people who do evil things, but because of the people who know about it but do nothing to stop it."


Peabody
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 514

Quote:
Originally Posted by docwho3
" . . .a point was raised about verifiable alibis and I have not heard much of that. . ." Still no info?

Ok, I will keep that point in mind.

To my knowledge there is no info in print.

If you want to trust me - [think about it - because I have gotten to know family and friends of Maura's ,ya know I may be in cohoots with the family member that is responsible for Maura's missing (do I have to say I am being sarcastic here?) ] I can assure you that all family members, the fiance and some friends were investigated into the possible involvement in Maura's missing.

According to my source, NH SP confirmed the following:

Fred's alibi was confirmed that he was in CT on a contracted employment position.

Lt. Julie Murray's alibi was confirmed that she was in Fort Bragg NC on duty.

Other family's alibis were confirmed that they were "home".

The fiance's alibi was confirmed that he was in Fort Sill OK on duty

Many friends' alibis from home, UMass and WP's were confirmed as well.

Also, the family was told that the school bus driver was "cleared"..........I have no knowledge of that ever being released to the media and HE was considered a person of interest. Therefore, it is not odd that there has been no mention of alibis for those closest to Maura since none of them were ever considered to be persons of interest: their alibis were checked at the insistence of the Murrays and Rausches, who pleaded from the beginning to Haverhill, NH SP and the FBI (who was the only LE organization willing to investigate, but because Maura's case did not meet certain criteria, needed an invite from NH authorities and it was never extended) for even the most basic and fundamental investigation.

 

[Animal04216]

docwho3
Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 787

sounds like a fair question to me

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by murraydwyer
Since those of you who bring up the question of 'alibis' also appear to be the strongest supporters of LE in this case, I can't even imagine why you would question this aspect. Family members are routinely looked at first by most law enforcement agencies, and it seems reasonable that NHSP would certainly have done so. . .

The school bus driver and others also would, as a normal course of L.E. routine, have been looked into and yet many people have posted questions about their actions and whereabouts at given times in the case on this and other forums so why should this "family alibi" aspect of the case be any different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by murraydwyer
. . .If you reread all the of available news articles, there has never been any hint of family involvement...

I have been rereading those articles and continue to do so. However, so far I see a decidely cold relationship between L.E. and Maura's family being depicted by the family statements as quoted in news reports. This, to me, makes it sound almost as if L.E. were treating them as POI or suspects. (Is that a hint such as you spoke of?) You might want to remember that I am one of those that has theorized that Maura left on her own and that it may be possible that no crime occured but the family/supporters have continually cried "foul play". So once you say foul play must have occured I,and anyone looking at this case, have to start looking at everyones alibis and we all know that family alibis are always looked at in these cases. And then there is the recent judges ruling which is quoted in news reports as saying:
Quote:
. . .(The state) maintain(s) that release of the records could result in the destruction of evidence, chilling and intimidation of witnesses. . .

http://www.unionleader.com/article....ec-4d23727040df

Evidently the state believes evidence might be destroyed and that witnesses might be chilled or intimidated if the info was released to Fred Murray.
(Is that a hint?) Does this mean I am accusing anyone?-"No." I am merely showing that there is reason to ask questions so there is no need to act as if asking the question is somehow out of line and uncalled for or that the questions would not also be asked in other similar cases.

I would think that these questions would be a welcome thing since it gives family a chance to establish truth and attempt put to rest any doubts so that once all questions have been satisfied people can move on to other aspects of the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by murraydwyer
. . .As to the runaway theory. When Maura first disappeared, the family with the help of Sharon Rauch went to any media outlet that would talk to them in the hopes that someone would see Maura's picture and say...oh, I gave her a ride to the bus depot....

Maura disappeared on Feb 9th 2004. Seven days later, on Feb 16th 2004, this quote was posted:
Quote:

POSTED: 4:34 pm EST February 16, 2004
UPDATED: 5:08 pm EST February 16, 2004
"I think she accepted a ride at the scene of the accident, which would enable her to get closer to public transportation, and she got out by bus," Fred Murray said. . .

http://www.truckingboards.com/truck...read.php?t=7022

And yet on 3 days later on Feb 19th 2004 something had already changed family view. What was it?:
Quote:
. . .But he did say, although there were no new developments yesterday, he was not ready just yet to go along with the fears of family members that Maura Murray has been the victim of foul play. . .

http://www.vnews.com/02192004/1598142.htm
Quote:
. . .I understand that not all of what has happened over the past two years is in the press. We have gotten tips of sitings, we have had people point fingers at others...all of this information has been passed along to the police....

I hope the problem gets resolved in the best possible way.

Added Note:I just opened another window and looked at the thread before posting this because it took so long to compose this reply, and I saw that Peabody has posted some info. Good. Info is a welcome thing.


Peabody
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 514

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWHO3


I have been rereading those articles and continue to do so. However, so far I see a decidely cold relationship between L.E. and Maura's family being depicted by the family statements as quoted in news reports. This, to me, makes it sound almost as if L.E. were treating them as POI or suspects. (Is that a hint such as you spoke of?) You might want to remember that I am one of those that has theorized that Maura left on her own and that it may be possible that no crime occured but the family/supporters have continually cried "foul play". So once you say foul play must have occured I,and anyone looking at this case, have to start looking at everyones alibis and we all know that family alibis are always looked at in these cases. And then there is the recent judges ruling which is quoted in news reports as saying:
http://www.unionleader.com/article....ec-4d23727040df



DocWho3,

I pride myself in being cooperative, understanding, easy to anger and most forgiving.

BUT, based on the actions of LE in Maura's case what person would be able to maintain a working relationship with LE:

to name a few:

not doing more than a drive up and down the road and failing to issue a BOL

Not notifying the owner of the car - Fred Murray

not beginning to organize a search for her until the family insisted and failing to do a line search for her until July 2004

not accepting the invitation of the FBI

not accepting the invitation from MA SP to use some sort of specialized computer data base to compile and subsequently cross reference info -- no, you will not find this in the media, but it is true - Lt. Scarinza initially accepted the offer and later refused.

continually issuing insinuations and/or false statements that leads the public to believe that LE *knew* Maura was suicidal

failing to check some very simple and basic leads such as her cell phone calls

issuing statements to the press instead of any family member about searches or statements that ruled out a deceased as being Maura and the family learns of it when the media calls for their comment.

.........the list grows too long

Now, I don't know about you, bu if you are a missing person's family member, and you have been working behind the scenes to have a working relationship and to remedy somoe of these mistakes (were they mistakes?) and LE is making disparaging remarks about your loved one, how long are you going to maintain a WARM relationship?

Somewhere I read or heard Sharon Rausch say that while they were in NH looking for Maura and LE would not cooperate that she wanted to go at NH LE with their guns ablazing (not real guns!) and Fred Murray reminded everyone daily that LE was their only hope and of the importance in develping a good relationship, not an adversarial one. I just wonder how much of this "cold" relationship is the doing of LE and not just the Murray Family???

In spite of people not being comfortable with police bashing ( to say nothing of those who are uncomfortable with bashing of any sort ) if this were your loved one ( your wife or daughter ), do you suppose that you might be "guilty" of the same behavior as Fred Murray?


Regardless of why Maura is missing, I have problems with anyone who denies that her case was mishandled from the beginning. And there have been many professional members of LE who have told the family that they agree with my assessment.


docwho3
Registered User Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 787

communication is often difficult

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peabody
DocWho3,

I pride myself in being cooperative, understanding, easy to anger and most forgiving. . .

I know, I know, it was probably a typo but it made me smile, and a smile makes the day seem brighter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peabody
. . .BUT, based on the actions of LE in Maura's case what person would be able to maintain a working relationship with LE: . . .

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said, "However, so far I see a decidely cold relationship between L.E. and Maura's family being depicted by the family statements as quoted in news reports. This, to me, makes it sound almost as if L.E. were treating them as POI or suspects." I was not commenting that the family acted coldly towards L.E. but that their statments told of L.E. acting coldly towards the family. Family has been quoted as complaining about lack of information and lack of willingness to communicate from L.E. towards family.


Peabody
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 514

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peabody
DocWho3,

I pride myself in being cooperative, understanding, easy to anger and most forgiving.


Quote:
Originally Posted by docwho3
I know, I know, it was probably a typo but it made me smile, and a smile makes the day seem brighter.

I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said, "However, so far I see a decidely cold relationship between L.E. and Maura's family being depicted by the family statements as quoted in news reports. This, to me, makes it sound almost as if L.E. were treating them as POI or suspects." I was not commenting that the family acted coldly towards L.E. but that their statments told of L.E. acting coldly towards the family. Family has been quoted as complaining about lack of information and lack of willingness to communicate from L.E. towards family.

I too laughed DocWho3 - much needed might add.

I am quite certain that my anger is showing

I meant to say that I am slow to anger - but as the Bible says "Hell knows no fury like the scorn of a woman" and I am angry

...........thanks for your sense of humor and pointing it out to me
__________________

Peabody
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 514

This post was edited by Animal to remove quote of removed post and discussion of it. Animal04216
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWho3


I have been rereading those articles and continue to do so. However, so far I see a decidely cold relationship between L.E. and Maura's family being depicted by the family statements as quoted in news reports. This, to me, makes it sound almost as if L.E. were treating them as POI or suspects. (Is that a hint such as you spoke of?) You might want to remember that I am one of those that has theorized that Maura left on her own and that it may be possible that no crime occured but the family/supporters have continually cried "foul play". So once you say foul play must have occured I,and anyone looking at this case, have to start looking at everyones alibis and we all know that family alibis are always looked at in these cases. And then there is the recent judges ruling which is quoted in news reports as saying:
http://www.unionleader.com/article....ec-4d23727040df

Evidently the state believes evidence might be destroyed and that witnesses might be chilled or intimidated if the info was released to Fred Murray.
(Is that a hint?) Does this mean I am accusing anyone?-"No." I am merely showing that there is reason to ask questions so there is no need to act as if asking the question is somehow out of line and uncalled for or that the questions would not also be asked in other similar cases.


If Fred Murray wins his law suit against NH LE and authorities, not ony will the information be released to him, but also to the public. Usually, it is the media that files one of these lawsuits.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWho3
I would think that these questions would be a welcome thing since it gives family a chance to establish truth and attempt put to rest any doubts so that once all questions have been satisfied people can move on to other aspects of the case.


I am interpreting this to mean that "questions" concerning the alibis of the family were posed here and the family found them to be upsetting. Prior to your query about ablibis, I did not see any questions posed in a fashion that indicated real anwers were being sought - as I usually try to answer qustions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocWho3

Added Note:I just opened another window and looked at the thread before posting this because it took so long to compose this reply, and I saw that Peabody has posted some info. Good. Info is a welcome thing.


I do my best to provide factual information.

 

[Animal04216]

hydemi
Registered User Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 70

we are back on track

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the exchange between Peabody and Doc today was extremely constructive from my point of view--especially the parts about family/Atwood being "cleared" early on during the initial investigation and Peabody's list of police goofs.

Goofs is polite.

Specifically officer Cecil Smith was told by Atwood that a girl around 20 was missing when he arrived at the scene, checked Maura's car, and went over to the schoolbus where Atwood was filling out paperwork.

Yet there was no bulletin that night to local towns, just a cursory search, no second search the next day (imagine if a dog the next day had been given her running clothes for scent instead of two days later being given a new glove she had barely worn).Then on Wed nite officer Smith tells the family that he thought the car belonged to Fred Murray, not acknowledging that he had been told by Atwood that a young girl was the driver, now missing.

Chief Williams is clearly the source of the suicidal stories in the press, as he was when the family met with him Wed nite at the Haverhill PD building.

It is unclear who mistakenly attributed the phone call to Lt (Cpt) Rausch's cellphone to Red Cross in Ohio--see Sharon's posts on maura site--but police are responsible for this gaffe. Just saying it was unidentified was all that was necessary, instead of dismissing it.

Lastly Lt Scarinza's several references to a suicide note on Maura's packed boxes back in her dorm room (there were only letters from Lt R) was a source of confusion for months, until Sgt Bruno of NHSP (I believe) acknowledged that this was a mistake.

My leaning toward the runaway theory has not been due to believing that LE did all the right things especially in the early days of this case--clearly there were major errors and just plain negligence.

I cannot imagine my own reactions as a parent if faced with this melange of jurisdictional squabbles, local insularity, obvious goofs, presumptive assertions, etc etc when trying to find a missing son or daughter whatever their ages.



Medusa
Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 21

I have been following this case since Feb 04 when I first learned of the case, I suppose on this board. I am a long time lurker, many times I have a comment or two, but, then in reading the other posts, I see someone has already said that. But, anyway, I have some thoughts on this case.

One - I lean toward the running away/voluntary missing. Several reasons - one is I suppose I just have a feeling and one can buy that or not, I just feel an alive vibe when looking at Maura's pictures that I seldom feel at looking at other missing person cases. Another, is that she wanted to leave the University and was opposed to SBD calling police. I think she realized he was calling and she left. Now, how did she leave? Running or hitching a ride, I suppose could happen. But, I think someone was following her who was going with her, they were taking both vehicles. I have never seen anyone say anything about who was in the red pickup that was apparently seen at a store nearby if I remember correctly. I think she knew her companion was coming soon behind her and she left with him/her. Perhaps when the person saw the accident and she told them that someone said they would call the police, they told her don't worry about the stuff in the car, it could be replaced later or something.

People have commented that she wouldn't have been planning to leave forever if she took her textbooks - that they feel that would mean she was returning. I believe I have seen people mention maybe she was going to sell them, and the replies I recall was she would have done that at the school to get more money. Maybe not - maybe she planned on selling them online or on ebay - I have never seen this option mentioned and I think it is at least one explanation.

Second - maybe she took the jewelry with her to either sell (but because of the police coming she just left it) or to make up a box and return it to boyfriend (and again just leaving it with police coming).

I have read that she left all cards and letters from her boyfriend on her bed in dorm. To me that speaks volumes.

Can't LE get the phone records of calls made to any land line at the desk Maura was working and determine exactly who made the call that upset her. If this was done can anyone point me to the article as I can't find it.

Mention was made at one time that another student "knew something:" but refused to say as she "didn't want to get Maura in trouble". Has this person ever talked to anyone? I think it is possible he/she didn't talk to family, but, does anyone know they haven't talked to authorities?

I have read that police checked accomodations in Vermont, but, they showed picture of Maura. If she was with someone, they may have been the one to check in and in many cases the companion is never seen by the desk. Another thought.

Another thing that has always bugged me - was it ever determined why Maura was going to her father's hotel at 2 or 3 am when she had the first accident? Am I correct with that - that was when the first accident happened? And therefore she didn't see him as planned? Just curious, as I said, it has always struck me as a bit odd. Or was it the day after the first accident. Even so, would she normally have done that?

Someone, I think DocWho, posted not long ago that if someone was missing voluntarily it would cost a great deal to hire private detectives to find. It would also be harder to get publicity. And that their opinion was the reason the family kept crying foul play was to keep cops and attention on it, and I really feel that makes sense. I am sure that when a family member is missing, no matter the reason, the family left behind wants to find them, but, as has been noted, when voluntary missing is involved it is another kiind of hard.

I was talking to a friend in LE and their comment was that unless a body is found (and then you have the investigation into death/crime/etc) or the person turns up, it is an open case. And the file can't be turned over to the family or public. I know if I was a witness to anything in this case, I would not want the info made public, having seen the "conviction by forum:" (not necessarily here, but others online) of the SBD and CW. People are even tracking the SBD down in his new home - if I were him I would be talking to an attorney. This man did, IMO, what a samaritan should and now I have been seeing people castigating the man for not making sure she didn't leave. My goodness, who in the world would have thought any accident victim would have left in circumstances like that.

Another question I can't find the answer to - apparently one can get a social security number changed - if claiming stalking or abuse - does anyone know how hard this really is. My local SSA office didn't know and I got tired of hanging out on hold while they tried to find someone who did. If someone does succeed in doing so, would the original SS record simply show someone stopped using it or would it show that there was a change?

Just my opinions/thoughts and some questions.

 

[hydemi]

I am glad to see this thread back up again. I believe that most of us posting here have no axe to grind and genuinely want to solve the riddle of what happened to Maura Murray two years ago.

Medusa's long summary of questions is pretty thorough--one answer I can provide to one of the questions that has long bothered me.

There is no complete answer about Thursday night 2/5/04 and then after midnight as to Maura being so upset by a phone call at her campus security desk that she had to leave work and go back to her dorm room.

I believe a family member eventually talked to a supervisor who said that a student co-worker had verified that Maura was at her desk and that Maura was upset but not why.

This reported episode is the only hint that something else was bothering and upsetting Maura at UMA before she had the accident with her Dad's car on Sunday 2/8, and then took off to NH in her old car on Monday 2/9.

Police initially tried to tie in a phone call between Maura and her sister Kathleen as the source of the upsetting call, but they talked according to Maura's cell records between 10pm to 10.20pm not two-three hours later.

 

[docwho3]

. . .According to my source, NH SP confirmed the following:

Fred's alibi was confirmed that he was in CT on a contracted employment position.

Lt. Julie Murray's alibi was confirmed that she was in Fort Bragg NC on duty.

Other family's alibis were confirmed that they were "home".

The fiance's alibi was confirmed that he was in Fort Sill OK on duty

Many friends' alibis from home, UMass and WP's were confirmed as well.

Also, the family was told that the school bus driver was "cleared"..........

So the night before Maura disappeared her dad was in a hotel not too far away from her dorm and the next evening he was how far away in drive time, and during the hours of 5pm to 9 pm, on the night of her disapearance, people were with him and can verify his whereabouts during those hours?

. . .If you want to trust me - [think about it - because I have gotten to know family and friends of Maura's ,ya know I may be in cohoots with the family member that is responsible for Maura's missing (do I have to say I am being sarcastic here?) ]. . .

Your sarcasm aside, you do raise the valid point, to my mind, that the word of a person directly involved in a case and saying that they were "confirmed" cleared, cannot be taken as gospel whether or not that word is relayed second hand. I really need a pronouncement from L.E. in a news release to that effect or a news report stating that witness were with Fred or other family during the hours when Maura went missing, and failing that I would need to at least ask more detailed questions to hopefully elicit such info.
For instance, suppose you could tell me that Fred was dining with coworkers during the hours that Maura went missing. That might do more to convince me he was really cleared and it is something that once in post would be able to be verified by any L.E. who might lurk around and they might take note of any discrepancy in stories for future reference. That would in itself cause me to feel more confident in the reply received.

So far your just saying they were "cleared" in the generic sense is not really enough to go on.

Maybe I don't think the family had anything do do with the disappearance but I still think a thorough look into any case has to ask the tough detailed questions or fail at the task at hand. So, do you have more detailed alibis (accounts of time spent during the hours maura went missing) and will you share those details?

 

[docwho3]

. . .If Fred Murray wins his law suit against NH LE and authorities, not ony will the information be released to him, but also to the public. Usually, it is the media that files one of these lawsuits.

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. . .

Your point is well said and I only posted the quote of the judges words to show that it could have been read in that sense and thus the questions whose answers might help to dispel doubts are relevant.

 

[mocity]

It seems suprising that they would release the documents. It is my understanding that in most cases they will not release the documents because it might jeopardize the investigation. My sister was murdered in 1990 and there are many details my family is not privy to. They need the details to be "virtually" unknown to the public so if they ever do find the monsters that did this there will be no questions.

 

[Peabody]

So the night before Maura disappeared her dad was in a hotel not too far away from her dorm and the next evening he was how far away in drive time, and during the hours of 5pm to 9 pm, on the night of her disapearance, people were with him and can verify his whereabouts during those hours?

No, the night before Maura disappeared, 2/8, after having spent the day with Maura, Fred returned to Shelton CT where he was staying due to a contracted temp postion at a hospital in his field of nulcear medicine. Fred had accepted this position under the terms of a quarterly renewable contract sometime around 11/03 and remained there in renewing contracts until sometime summer 2005.

The day that Maura vanished - 2/9, Fred worked his 8AM-5PM shift at the hospital in/near Shelton.

On 2/10, after the same 8-5 PM Shift, he received word from his son Freddie (on same date 2/10 had just been contacted by Haverhill police and told "your car has been found") that Maura's car had been found in Haverhill NH, but that she was missing. i.e. a determination made by Freddie because he knew that she should be with her car.......also, after learning of the car being in NH, Freddie had unsuccessfully attempted to reach Maura by phone in her dorm and on her cell, through her fiance and many friends - all reported they had not spoken with Maura since weekend.

According to the timeline at www.mauramurray.com Fred called HPD at 5:44 PM on 2/10 and the family called UMass Amherst LE at 6:46 PM on 2/10 to report Maura missing. [According to Freddie, (you will have to take my word on this "hearsay") he attempted to report Maura missing to Sgt Cecil Smith who told him that Maura could not be reported missing in Haverhill because she did not live there. Freddie then called his home town LE who advised that since she wasn't "living" at home, he would have to call LE in her college town.] Link to this info and other time line info is at http://www.mauramurray.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=163

As to the possibility of Fred being at the site of the accident on 2/9, from Shelton Ct, where he was staying to the accident scene, Fred was approximately 240 miles and 4 hours south.

According to www.mapquest.com the drive from Shelton CT through Wells River VT to Swiftwater NH (the small hamlet only 1-2 miles west of Maura's accident on Route 112) (which timewise appears to be the only route Maura could have taken because it took her up I91 in Vt instead of the less traveled roads in NH that would have required a longer drive time) would place Fred at the spot that Maura was last seen in NH at 9:03 PM at the earliest.

START : Shelton, CT US
END: Wells River, VT US
Total Est. Time: 3 hours, 51 minutes Total Est. Distance: 232.65 miles


START: Wells River, VT US
END: Swiftwater, NH US
Total Est. Time: 11 minutes Total Est. Distance: 6.63 miles

Your sarcasm aside, you do raise the valid point, to my mind, that the word of a person directly involved in a case and saying that they were "confirmed" cleared, cannot be taken as gospel whether or not that word is relayed second hand. I really need a pronouncement from L.E. in a news release to that effect or a news report.

It is not so that a person's word cannot be taken as gospel if they are directly involved in a case. What is fact is that many find the word of any person connected to a case "suspect". I acknowledge as much and such was to whom my sarcasm was directed. My purpose on this forum is not to defend the Murrays - IF they had any part in Maura's missing, I would be among the first to want them brought to justice. My purpose is to find Maura....."spin", lies, and rumors - not by me - not by anyone - will ever aid in resoving Maura's case.

and saying that they were "confirmed" cleared, cannot be taken as gospel whether or not that word is relayed second hand.<snip>I really need a pronouncement from L.E. in a news release to that effect or a news report.

There has been no pronoucement or news release from LE that confirms that the school bus driver has been cleared by NH LE, yet you did not question me regarding him.

I find that most interesting. You only questioned me about Fred's whereabouts. Any particular reason?

In addtion, LE has never made ONE INSINUATION that anyone known to Maura, especially any of her family or her fiance, is involved in her missing. If you had seen the media reports or the special in which Lt. Scarinza spoke, he *always* insinuated that Maura was either a runaway or a sucide - his emphasis was always on the suicide aspect.....guess you'll just have to take my word for that too (sarcasm with a wink!)

For instance, suppose you could tell me that Fred was dining with coworkers during the hours that Maura went missing.

No, I don't know what Fred Murray was doing during the hours that Maura went missing, and I will not ask the contacts I have made to make inquiry. I would think it enough to know that he was four hours from the location of her missing.

That might do more to convince me he was really cleared and it is something that once in post would be able to be verified by any L.E. who might lurk around and they might take note of any discrepancy in stories for future reference. That would in itself cause me to feel more confident in the reply received.

It is strange to me that I can convince you that Fred is "cleared" by providing you with more details about his whereabouts 2/9. It is even more strange to me that you are confident that something I would post would be able to be verified by LE "who might lurk around" (although I am sure they do their lurking here and at www.mauramurray.com - and from my perspective they are most welcome - maybe they will learn something!) If LE has not checked up on Fred and all those known to Maura, then shame on them! To me, that would just be more evidence that they have failed Maura in this case.

So far your just saying they were "cleared" in the generic sense is not really enough to go on.

Sorry, that is all I have - on both the Murrays, fiance and School Bus Driver - from my contact who said this is information from NH LE.

Maybe I don't think the family had anything do do with the disappearance but I still think a thorough look into any case has to ask the tough detailed questions or fail at the task at hand. So, do you have more detailed alibis (accounts of time spent during the hours maura went missing) and will you share those details?

Certainly, the tough questions have to be asked. I think Fred Murray has been asking lots of tough questions. He (family and loved ones included here) wants answers more than any of us.



.

 

[docwho3]

. . .As to the possibility of Fred being at the site of the accident on 2/9, from Shelton Ct, where he was staying to the accident scene, Fred was approximately 240 miles and 4 hours south. . .

That info along with the claim of being at work until 5 pm and being 4 hours drive time away satisfies me about Fred unless or until evidence to the contrary pops up.
And I might add that in providing the info you probably helped the family cause in this case, at least as far as making it easier for the public to feel better in trying to help. Unfortunately, there have been so many times when parents stand in front of a camera and cry for help in locating a lost son or daughter and then later news reports come on TV telling how the parent(s) had beaten the missing person to death. I think those times each make it a little harder to trust the next time.

. . .It is not so that a person's word cannot be taken as gospel if they are directly involved in a case. What is fact is that many find the word of any person connected to a case "suspect". . .

So if they get a suspect to talk to you would want people to just accept his word as gospel that he is innocent? oooooook.

. . .My purpose on this forum is not to defend the Murrays - IF they had any part in Maura's missing, I would be among the first to want them brought to justice. My purpose is to find Maura....."spin", lies, and rumors - not by me - not by anyone - will ever aid in resoving Maura's case. . .

That is a good attitude to have.

. . .There has been no pronoucement or news release from LE that confirms that the school bus driver has been cleared by NH LE, yet you did not question me regarding him. . .

I did not have to question you about the bus driver for various reasons: Online news reports accounted for his whereabouts during the time of Maura's disappearance. As to him having been "cleared" I did not need to ask what info led up to that as it could have been any of several bits of info. For instance if they accept the construction workers sighting then Maura was evidently alive after having contact with the bus driver. The bus driver could have been poly'd and I am sure one could imagine many other possible reasons to declare him to be cleared. The main point is that the bus drivers whereabouts were accounted for during the time Maura went missing.

. . .I find that most interesting. You only questioned me about Fred's whereabouts. Any particular reason? . .

See above. Also I have not questioned just about Fred but any other family members who may have anything to do with a crime. Mainly my interest in getting info about Freds whereabouts was that news reports had placed Maura having supper with her dad, I think it was the 8th (and she disappeared on the 9th- the next day) so we knew from news reports he was in close proximity to Maura not too many hours before she disappeared but I had no info on his whereabouts after that which might account for the time of Mauras disappearance until now.

. . .In addtion, LE has never made ONE INSINUATION that anyone known to Maura, especially any of her family or her fiance, is involved in her missing. . .

If you bothered reading my previous posts you know that I specifically took time to answer someone else about this when he said there was "no hint" of anyone even suspecting the family.
I responded that the family has complained of cold treatment from L.E. and lack of communication for some time now and that could be taken to mean that some family member was possibly a POI. Then there was the judges ruling which together with the cold treatment from L.E. could again signal, or as you put it, insinuate, that a family member might be a POI.

. . .If you had seen the media reports or the special in which Lt. Scarinza spoke, he *always* insinuated that Maura was either a runaway or a sucide - his emphasis was always on the suicide aspect.....

Well he often did say the case was being pursued as a missing person case. I suppose you could read that to mean willful missing person as opposed to an unwilling abduction/criminal event.

. . .guess you'll just have to take my word for that too (sarcasm with a wink!) . . .

Should I take it you are angry and this is your way of bashing me? A word comes to mind . . . . . Decaf.
Feel free to PM me as it might be better than stringing out this "sarcasm" in your posts.

. . .It is strange to me that I can convince you that Fred is "cleared" by providing you with more details about his whereabouts 2/9. . .

Nothing strange about that at all. It is the difference between someone saying "I am innocent." and someone saying, "I am innocent beacuse I was at Joes eating dinner with two witnesses when the crime was committed." You know that what I say is true so whats up with giving out all the flak over this? Again, feel free to PM me as it might be better than stringing this out in your posts.

. . .Certainly, the tough questions have to be asked. I think Fred Murray has been asking lots of tough questions. He (family and loved ones included here) wants answers more than any of us. . .

Giving out the info that clears him allows people to more easily focus on other aspects of the case. Putting out the info should have been done early and often. Instead it took an act of a moderator before anyone could even feel a little safe in posing the question. I can't say I want to know where Maura is if she left willingly but I do want to know if a crime was committed. I understand that her family wants to know what happened no matter what. I hope they get the best possible answer and not the worst.

 

[Peabody]

Should I take it you are angry and this is your way of bashing me? A word comes to mind . . . . . Decaf.
Feel free to PM me as it might be better than stringing out this "sarcasm" in your posts.

Honestly, I am not/was not angry.

I certainly did not mean to bash you.


As to any misunderstanding over my being angry or the perception that I was bashing you - there are no excuses if the misunderstanding is solely attributed to my recent post.

I have been dealing with many stress filled issues lately - sorry if you or others felt that I took it out on you - by all means I did not mean to - I did feel the need to make some points in my earlier post with sarcasm - it often is a very effective means of communication.

Truce :truce:

 

[mocity]

Peabody - I think your posts are very insightful and respectful at the same time. I appreciate the information you bring to the table about Maura. I don't think your posts are rude or "angry" in any way.

Maura and her family are in my prayers.