NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - # 4

[docwho3]

Can someone please answer my aforementioned question:

It has been established that the tracking dogs lost Maura's scent about
300 yards from the accident site. Doesn't that clearly and undoubtedly
indicate that Maura got into a car at that point? (Either willingly or by force)

Also, is there ANY possibility that she might have had someone "helping" her
to disappear??

I think the distance was about 100 yards or 300 feet but I am not certain of that without going back and rereading the numbers in the news report. I have theorized about a possible helper and have posted about it more than once but I hesitated to answer your question for that very reason. In my opinion it is certainly possible that she had a helper but I can't prove that she had one other than she disappeared in the manner she did and because she said she had already called AAA when she had not really done so. To me that says she had already arranged someone to follow her route in case her unreliable car broke down.

 

[czechmate7]

I did miss bits and pieces of the special, but I don't remember seeing anyone else from Maura's family interviewed except for her father. I know her mother is very ill, but doesn't she have several (3-4) siblings? Aunts? Uncles? I found that odd.....

 

[docwho3]

I did miss bits and pieces of the special, but I don't remember seeing anyone else from Maura's family interviewed except for her father. I know her mother is very ill, but doesn't she have several (3-4) siblings? Aunts? Uncles? I found that odd.....

You raise a good question. I wonder though if the show's time constraints had anything to do with limiting the family numbers shown on TV?

 

[czechmate7]

You raise a good question. I wonder though if the show's time constraints had anything to do with limiting the family numbers shown on TV?

Well if that is the case, maybe they should have had a couple of Maura's relatives instead of Sharon Rausch...they dedicated quite a bit of time to her.

I noticed Lt Rausch didn't say much; IMO it seemed like he may have been "over" the situation, ready to move on....but that's just my opinion.

 

[Tristan]

Yes, I meant the dogs lost her scent at 300 feet. But whether it was 100 feet or 500 feet, they did, in fact, lose her scent, so she must have gotten into a car.

If someone gave her a ride somewhere, WHY would they be reluctant to come forward? (if they didn't harm her.)

DocWho: I have asked a few people about this case, and all of them have said that there is a definite chance she had someone she knew helping her.

Now, what about this theory: (which I haven't heard mentiioned anywhere, but forgive me if it has been discussed.)

What if Maura got a ride from someone and they took her 5, 10, 20 miles or more from the crash site....and once there, she committed suicide??
LE would not know to look in that location and there are places where a body would never be found.

Just hypothesizing.

 

[czechmate7]

If someone gave her a ride somewhere, WHY would they be reluctant to come forward? (if they didn't harm her.)

I think they would be reluctant to come forward for the same reason the SBD was probably sorry he came forward.

 

[docwho3]

Yes, I meant the dogs lost her scent at 300 feet. But whether it was 100 feet or 500 feet, they did, in fact, lose her scent, so she must have gotten into a car.

If someone gave her a ride somewhere, WHY would they be reluctant to come forward? (if they didn't harm her.)

DocWho: I have asked a few people about this case, and all of them have said that there is a definite chance she had someone she knew helping her.

Now, what about this theory: (which I haven't heard mentiioned anywhere, but forgive me if it has been discussed.)

What if Maura got a ride from someone and they took her 5, 10, 20 miles or more from the crash site....and once there, she committed suicide??
LE would not know to look in that location and there are places where a body would never be found.

Just hypothesizing.

It is certainly possible. The things she took with her when she left make me think suicide less likely than a runaway attempt but suicide remains a possibility until evidence surfaces to rule it out. I just think she went to extremes to set up a chance to runaway and to set up things to fool people into thinking she would return soon and thus buy herself the time to disappear into a new life. She would not have needed to do any of those things if she was only planning to do a suicide.

 

[Tristan]

docwho....I agree. If she were just planning to commit suicide, she wouldn't have e-mailed all of her professors and jobs to say she would be gone for a week or so. That actually does buy her time, so that no one would have been suspicious. Let's say she hadn't had the car accident....she would be
at her destination in VT or NH either alone or with someone she may have wanted to see. (maybe a guy she met??)

Since the police are not releasing any case information, perhaps they KNOW
that she had someone else involved. Anything is possible.

The point is: this girl wasn't abducted by aliens....she is somewhere

She took things with her that I cannot imagine anyone taking if their sole mission was to commit suicide.

However, if she did, in fact, do so....I'm fairly certain that she got a ride to another location where she would not be found.

This case is SO frustrating!!

 

[docwho3]

docwho....I agree. If she were just planning to commit suicide, she wouldn't have e-mailed all of her professors and jobs to say she would be gone for a week or so. That actually does buy her time, so that no one would have been suspicious. Let's say she hadn't had the car accident....she would be
at her destination in VT or NH either alone or with someone she may have wanted to see. (maybe a guy she met??)

Since the police are not releasing any case information, perhaps they KNOW
that she had someone else involved. Anything is possible.

The point is: this girl wasn't abducted by aliens....she is somewhere

She took things with her that I cannot imagine anyone taking if their sole mission was to commit suicide.

However, if she did, in fact, do so....I'm fairly certain that she got a ride to another location where she would not be found.

This case is SO frustrating!!

You make sense. I agree. I also agree about how frustrating this case is.

Many of the "facts" in this case are like the loose pegs on an old coffee cup rack and just when you try to hang something on one it tips and lets the cup fall on the floor.

For instance, the dog that allegedly lost the scent after 100 yards was allegedly not given a good scent to begin with because the glove used to scent the dog was allegedly one that had only been worn a time or two, so then we aren't sure what scent the dog was following.

The small window of time for Maura to disappear certainly fits with the way the dog seems to have lost the scent on the road about 100 yards back the way Maura came from as she did not have time to do much else in the few minutes before police arrived, but that glove raises questions in the minds of some.

 

[gatetrekker44]

the case of Amie Riley- who had also been listed as being "voluntarily missing/runaway" by NHLE-and who it was later discovered was brutally murdered and her body dumped in a pond. And the reason her killer was apprehended? Because the killer had defrauded the state of welfare benefits in the 10,000.00 range-and in the course of THAT investigation the circumstances of Amie Riley's demise came to light.

So MAYBE if Maura was accused of another crime the NHLE felt warranted their attention, then MAYBE they would actually do some "real" investigating and stumble over the truth about what really happened to Maura. Someone may very well have picked her up-but I believe that person's silence has more to do with them causing Maura harm rather then simply not wanting to get involved.

And CL, if you are SOOO adamant that Maura is missing voluntarily, as LE seems to be, then WHAT is the rationale for not allowing their info to be turned over to the family-especially since a lot of the info LE has CAME FROM THE FAMILIES EFFORTS-NOT LE'S!!! :doh:

 

[docwho3]

Doc,

Are you saying that you have knowledge that the judge has ruled on Fred Murray's appeal to the Supreme Court of NH regarding the release of the recording?

I have not had word from any family member, nor have I seen any media release information regarding this ruling. I am most interested to know when "a judge has heard the arguments on both sides more than once now and has, each time, decided to not allow the records of the maura murray case to be released."

By the way, the Governor did not refuse to release the case files. Also, in NH, the Governor has very little power and does not have the authority to order the files released EVEN if he wanted.

Please note and consider: The main reason cited by the judge of the Superior Court of Grafton Co NH for not releasing Maura's case files was that to do so might jeopardize a future prosecution of a criminal IF she has been harmed.


.

I was under the impression from news reports I had read that this last time the judge ruled was the second time a court had ruled on the case (Maybe I just remember reading of 2 reports, 1 when he filed and 2 when the ruling came down) but if you say it was only once I won't argue the point (unless I find the news report again that spoke of it.) and once is enough to make the point even if I would prefer it was twice just to be thorough.

I edited the post to strike the words "more than once" from the sentence.

As to the request to the governor for help in obtaining the records:
Note:I added the bolding.

. . .Fred Murray went to Concord, N.H., Wednesday morning to meet with Gov. John Lynch to get help in finding his daughter, Maura Murray.

He also asked the governor for help in obtaining the state police report on his daughter and any other investigative records to assist him in his own investigation.
. . .

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/top_news/story/afa10e18b

 

[Peabody]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peabody
Doc,

Are you saying that you have knowledge that the judge has ruled on Fred Murray's appeal to the Supreme Court of NH regarding the release of the recording?

I have not had word from any family member, nor have I seen any media release information regarding this ruling. I am most interested to know when "a judge has heard the arguments on both sides more than once now and has, each time, decided to not allow the records of the maura murray case to be released."

By the way, the Governor did not refuse to release the case files. Also, in NH, the Governor has very little power and does not have the authority to order the files released EVEN if he wanted.

Please note and consider: The main reason cited by the judge of the Superior Court of Grafton Co NH for not releasing Maura's case files was that to do so might jeopardize a future prosecution of a criminal IF she has been harmed.

.

I was under the impression from news reports I had read that this last time the judge ruled was the second time a court had ruled on the case (Maybe I just remember reading of 2 reports, 1 when he filed and 2 when the ruling came down) but if you say it was only once I won't argue the point (unless I find the news report again that spoke of it.) and once is enough to make the point even if I would prefer it was twice just to be thorough.

My main point was that the reason the files were not released was because the the judge of the Superior Court of Grafton Co NH ruled that to release Maura's case files was that to do so might jeopardize a future prosecution of a criminal IF she has been harmed.
According to my reading of the ruling, the denial had nothing to do with privacy for Maura......and I do have a copy of the complete ruling......just currently not the time to type it in its' entirety.

 

[Peabody]

maybe only one court ruling but 2 news reports

Yes, Doc there were at least Two News Reports, and I believe there were actually Three:

The first news report was of the filing of the Injunction to obtain the case files. This was late December or early January......going by memory instead of notes.


The second news report was of the denial of the case files by the Superior Court of Grafton County NH. This denial would have come mid to late February.


The third news report was of Fred Murray's Appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of NH for the case files.

.........this ruling on this Appeal has not yet been announced.

 

[docwho3]

.

My main point was that the reason the files were not released was because the the judge of the Superior Court of Grafton Co NH ruled that to release Maura's case files was that to do so might jeopardize a future prosecution of a criminal IF she has been harmed.
According to my reading of the ruling, the denial had nothing to do with privacy for Maura......and I do have a copy of the complete ruling......just currently not the time to type it in its' entirety.

It was me that mentioned privacy rights of runaways and yes they do have those rights whether or not the courts refusal to release the records to Mr. Murray was, or was not, based on that consideration.

You seem to think I was giving that as the reason the courts turned him down but I was only pointing out that the runaways have a right to privacy.

I also pointed out that intelligent educated men whose business it is to know the law had argued the matter and a judge had weighed the matter and had decided not to release the records to Mr. Murray and these men knew how important it was to Mr. Murray to get those records. The governor had known too. And yet the the decision went against him. I say that maybe we should respect their knowledge of the case records and the laws about them instead of rushing to judgement in believing them to be heartless or stupid. That's the easy and cheap salve to hurt feelings when you (the generic "you") lose a case but it isn't always correct.

 

[Peabody]

I say that maybe we should respect their knowledge of the case records and the laws about them instead of rushing to judgement in believing them to be heartless or stupid. That's the easy and cheap salve to hurt feelings when you (the generic "you") lose a case but it isn't always correct.

Honestly Doc, I don't know where you are coming from.

Perhaps my memory is not what it should be, but I have no recall of anyone saying the judge or the ruling was "heartless or stupid".

For certain, ****I know**** that I never said that, implied that or alluded to that.

I don't think it wise to accuse someone of taking an easy and cheap salve to hurt feelings when no one has taken this position.

I do recall reading the discussion of "WHY" the records were being withheld and of many having the opinion they should be released.

My personal opinion is that the letter of the law should be followed, whatever that may be as held in the constitution and bylaws of the state of NH - that and nothing more, nothing less.

I, for one, IF Maura has been harmed, DO NOT want her murderer/abductor to get off on a technicality IF the records are released.

I do have a problem with the LE withholding information about the time(s) the various 911 calls were received and the nature of what was reported........It is my understanding that this information along with accident reports is PUBLIC INFORMATION.

If you think on it, there have been MANY cases while in court where the public has listened to 911 calls on tv news reports - I

It puzzles me why this information is being withheld.........and I know that the family asked for this information as early as 2/17/04 and were denied.

 

[docwho3]

Honestly Doc, I don't know where you are coming from.

Perhaps my memory is not what it should be, but I have no recall of anyone saying the judge or the ruling was "heartless or stupid". . . .

Let me try to put this in perspective for you. The original post I made about the court decision and a runaways right to privacy and not rushing to think badly of the judges was just a post to the general readership of the thread and I accused no one in that post. I have read many remarks posted in more than one forum which seemed to be implying that something immoral or even illegal was done in denying those records requested by Mr. Murray. I responded as I did in that original post. I was airing my general views on the subject.

Afterwards you chose to respond with a post of your own and we have now exchanged a few posts about the number of court rulings and what those rulings may or may not have been based upon. In one of my last posts to you I again restated my first post but I paraphrased the part of not rushing to judgement about the governor and later the judge ruling against Mr. Murray. I was only restating my original points and not accusing you yourself of anything. I tried to point this out by saying (the generic "you" )so you would not take it personally. If you have further problems with feeling this was a personal attack maybe you should PM me about it.

 

[Peabody]

Let me try to put this in perspective for you. The original post I made about the court decision and a runaways right to privacy and not rushing to think badly of the judges was just a post to the general readership of the thread and I accused no one in that post. I have read many remarks posted in more than one forum which seemed to be implying that something immoral or even illegal was done in denying those records requested by Mr. Murray. I responded as I did in that original post. I was airing my general views on the subject.

Afterwards you chose to respond with a post of your own and we have now exchanged a few posts about the number of court rulings and what those rulings may or may not have been based upon. In one of my last posts to you I again restated my first post but I paraphrased the part of not rushing to judgement about the governor and later the judge ruling against Mr. Murray. I was only restating my original points and not accusing you yourself of anything. I tried to point this out by saying (the generic "you" )so you would not take it personally. If you have further problems with feeling this was a personal attack maybe you should PM me about it.

I did not take it personal.


Seems you follow MORE forums than I: only <modsnip - no longer a working website> and websleuths for me......with no knowledge of any reference to the judge's ruling being "heartless and stupid" on either of these forums.

As I stated earlier, I know some have questioned the ruling as seemingly unfair or of them not understanding the ruling, but I still have no recall of anyone saying or implying that the ruling was "heartless and stupid" as you stated in your earlier post.

We are all entitled to our ***opinions**** but I sincerely believe it behooves us to be very careful that when we post, we separate our *opinions* from the *facts*.......I was pointing out that ***to my knowledge*** no one had stated the "heartless and stupid" ****opinion***** of the ruling. IF this is the case on other forums, then that discussion should remain there. We cannot be expected to have any insight on what is presented elsewhere, even on the forum at <modsnip - no longer a working website>


.

 

[docwho3]

I did not take it personal.


Seems you follow MORE forums than I: only <modsnip - no longer a working website> and websleuths for me......with no knowledge of any reference to the judge's ruling being "heartless and stupid" on either of these forums.

As I stated earlier, I know some have questioned the ruling as seemingly unfair or of them not understanding the ruling, but I still have no recall of anyone saying or implying that the ruling was "heartless and stupid" as you stated in your earlier post.

We are all entitled to our ***opinions**** but I sincerely believe it behooves us to be very careful that when we post, we separate our *opinions* from the *facts*.......I was pointing out that ***to my knowledge*** no one had stated the "heartless and stupid" ****opinion***** of the ruling. IF this is the case on other forums, then that discussion should remain there. We cannot be expected to have any insight on what is presented elsewhere, even on the forum at <modsnip - no longer a working website>


.

One can warn that it might be unwise to rush to judgement about a court ruling without being considered accusing and without it being unfactual. For instance, I could say that because a teacher gave a bad grade that we should not rush to say that all teachers are bad or mean, but that would not mean I had accused anyone of saying exactly that. Perhaps you should read carefully and think about what is being said. The judge or the governor does not have to be considered heartless or stupid or crazy or immoral for denying a case and I think it is wiser not to rush to that or any similar conclusion so I said so and in saying so I accused no one, but you choose to see it that way. I think I have the right to say that opinion and you not liking my post does not make it a wrong one. Furthermore I spoke the truth about the right to privacy and the fact that a judge had ruled on the matter of the records. You seem to be spoiling for an argument tonight. Was it bothering you so much that we earlier were discussing the case and some of us were discussing that Maura might indeed be a runaway?

As to you not seeing anyone question why the judge ruled the way he did or posts questioning why the records aren't released to Mauras family or posts about it not being right to refuse to release those records to the family . . well, all I can think of to respond to that is based on a post elsewhere in another thread . . . ."clop clop clop clop".

 

[Tristan]

May I jump in here and ask a question?

I believe I read somewhere that Maura had packed up all or most of her belongings in her dorm room.
If this is true, then that is a big red flag that she may have been contemplating suicide.
Suicidal people often "clean up" their surroundings, so that their
loved ones don't have to do it when they are already suffering from their
loss.
Coupled with the fact that she brought some very sentimental items with her on her trip, like her favorite stuffed animal from her boyfriend, jewelry etc, and the fact that she bought alcohol (liquid courage).

Also, if you factor in the (alleged) phone call to her boyfriend with muffled sobs...that would lend even more credence to the suicide theory.

In addition, law enforcement seems to feel that she very well may have been suicidal...and they may have found something which indicated that and they are not sharing it with the public.


PLEASE do not flame me if Maura simply packed her things because she was
transferring schools in the next few days.

Once again, I am only trying to explore EVERY possible angle.

 

[nnglas]

May I jump in here and ask a question?

I believe I read somewhere that Maura had packed up all or most of her belongings in her dorm room.
If this is true, then that is a big red flag that she may have been contemplating suicide.
Suicidal people often "clean up" their surroundings, so that their
loved ones don't have to do it when they are already suffering from their
loss.
Coupled with the fact that she brought some very sentimental items with her on her trip, like her favorite stuffed animal from her boyfriend, jewelry etc, and the fact that she bought alcohol (liquid courage).

Also, if you factor in the (alleged) phone call to her boyfriend with muffled sobs...that would lend even more credence to the suicide theory.

In addition, law enforcement seems to feel that she very well may have been suicidal...and they may have found something which indicated that and they are not sharing it with the public.


PLEASE do not flame me if Maura simply packed her things because she was
transferring schools in the next few days.

Once again, I am only trying to explore EVERY possible angle.

Hey Tristan,
Just to try and answer your question.....There is actually contention on this supposed "fact", it seems that maybe the family, although I am not sure, thinks that the room wasn't unpacked. Which would mean that she didn't have time to unpack from sometime earlier. Although I'm not sure why they can't question someone, surely someone had been in her room. But then again maybe not, remember that it was reported that when she was upset at work when the supervisor tryed to walk her to her room she said her "roommate" would help her although she didn't have a roommate. So maybe she was hiding the fact that she had packed up her room.