Maura Murray

Sorry FrmLE, you aren't right about the WB curve.

The SAAG specifically states in court that "knowing where the last place we determined her to be could be valuable information to that person"

I'm sorry but saying that the accident scene was the last known place they determined her to be could be no way valuable to anyone.
You don't need to have a law degree from Harvard to figure out that much.

So unless your saying that the saag was lying to the court; committing perjury; then you have to be wrong.

Is that what you are saying?
Now the state's attorney is committing perjury?

Is it common practice for the state's attorney to lie in court to your knowledge?

That is a very unambiguous statement that her last known location could be "valuable information" to the poi.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that the saag is not in the business of comitting perjury; do you disagree with that statement?
In your vast experience was it common for you and the state's attorney to lie to the court?

Seriously, if the WB curve was the last place LE determined Maura to be then the saag should be brought up on perjury charges and prosecuted.
The WB curve is common knowledge, everyone who is familiar with the case already thinks that was the last place they determined maura to be. So there is absolutely no way that could be valuable information to any poi.

SnowyB wrote:

Poor marketing strategy, Jenks; bypass Topix and go for the bigger bang for your bucks. Put your money out there to spread your important ideas!
Hire a billboard to keep MM's name front and center. I'll volunteer to edit...grammar, spelling, punctuation. Or, it might be more eye-catching if The Jenks uses his own words. The "public" will be bound to notice. Really.

Huh?

What the hell does this post even mean snowy?

I really have no idea what your getting at with this one.

Seriously, wtf are you even talking about here?

The funniest thing about booobyjenkins is how he writes his own posts and then immediately judges himself multiple times, lol.

I swear to god it cracks me up, like clockwork whenever he posts these long asinine posts, sure as shit there will be a bunch of lightbulbs and such nonsense, lol.

Honestly, for the last month or so that has made me laugh more than anything else on this forum.

Please, booby, keep it up!

Hahhhahaa Ra-tard.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

I mean damn bill, with all 2,544 of your posts here in the last 4 years and you still haven't even been able to convince people that shack is the devil spawn you purport her to be.

Never had to convince anyone of that. Do you hear people answering her mutterings for the last six years? That wasn't my doing, it was hers. Virtually no one from that time-frame responded, or in any way conversed with her. Not my doing, hers. I just mention the things she did back then. The people she damaged and kept trying to damage, with no evidence of them doing anything wrong. Even after it was said that he was cleared. She still insisted that some in the area were guilty of wrongdoing by some. All anonymous, just a cloud over the area put there mostly by her. But using actual evidence doesn't seem to be you or her long suit anyway.

My suggestions to you are to keep asking her questions. I am sure you will be able to get any story out of her you want. With that information you will be able to weave any story you want to. It's going to make for some great entertainment, but you are here to solve the story of missing Maura Murray, aren't you? So bullshit, even her high quality bullshit, won't really help will it? It will be amusing though. I will say this though. She did put together a cogent paragraph a while back so I am glad to see that she hasn't wasted her time in those four years. At least it appears that they have been able to level her meds out. That's gotta count for something.

The more she writes, the less of a case I need to make.

Bill

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Huh?
What the hell does this post even mean snowy?
I really have no idea what your getting at with this one.
Seriously, wtf are you even talking about here?

I think someone spiked her prune juice

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Anyone can go back and read the posts and judge for themselves

That should be your biggest fear. It will be on the internet forever and people will be able to read what you have written. I sure as hell wouldn't want what you have written to be associated with me and I suspect that the name "BobJenkins" will be forever tainted because of it. Just as the name Shack has lived in infamy for these many years.

Bill

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Sorry FrmLE, you aren't right about the WB curve.
The SAAG specifically states in court that "knowing where the last place we determined her to be could be valuable information to that person"
I'm sorry but saying that the accident scene was the last known place they determined her to be could be no way valuable to anyone.
You don't need to have a law degree from Harvard to figure out that much.
So unless your saying that the saag was lying to the court; committing perjury; then you have to be wrong.
Is that what you are saying?
Now the state's attorney is committing perjury?
Is it common practice for the state's attorney to lie in court to your knowledge?
That is a very unambiguous statement that her last known location could be "valuable information" to the poi.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that the saag is not in the business of comitting perjury; do you disagree with that statement?
In your vast experience was it common for you and the state's attorney to lie to the court?
Seriously, if the WB curve was the last place LE determined Maura to be then the saag should be brought up on perjury charges and prosecuted.
The WB curve is common knowledge, everyone who is familiar with the case already thinks that was the last place they determined maura to be. So there is absolutely no way that could be valuable information to any poi.

FRMLE- how about responding to jenkins post here ? I agree with him on this and I know that many other posters do as well that the NHSP has knowledge of Mauras last known location and they are not talking about the crash site. The only thing that is more obvious is that you were never law enforcement. We all know you will give some lame excuse for not answering or you will continue to insult everyone. If you were a NH LE you sir are an embarrassment to the state of NH as well as what the NHSP stands for.

lol, yea I judge my own posts FrmLE; keep telling yourself that, does it make you feel better?

90% of the time I'm posting from my phone where you can't even see the ratings people give & you don't have a judge it button. Until about a month ago I had absolutely no idea what you guys were even talking about when you said peanuts and lightbulbs.

Try again.

LOL, you guys come up with the cheesiest shit!
Its hilarious to watch how desperate you guy are.

It must really suck to be you, anyone who feels the need to go online and try to make people look stupid must really have a shitty life; this much we know for sure. Serious insecurity issues anyone?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
That should be your biggest fear. It will be on the internet forever and people will be able to read what you have written. I sure as hell wouldn't want what you have written to be associated with me and I suspect that the name "BobJenkins" will be forever tainted because of it. Just as the name Shack has lived in infamy for these many years.
Bill

Trust me, I have absolutely no fear of people going back and reading the old posts. lol

Why do you think I'm constantly inviting people to do just that? Because I'm scared? I dont think so.

Anyone can go back and read the old posts and I invite them to do so.
Make their minds up for themselves.

And while they're at it they should read FrmLE's old posts and they'll quickly realize that his story about being in the NHSP has changed many many times. Maybe he was NHSP, maybe he wasn't; but if he was he is clearly lying about a lot of stuff, like a real lot.

Honestly, it really doesn't suck to be me. Most days it is pretty interesting and very satisfying.

Let's see, I served my Country for 7 years as a Soldier, then spent 22 years as a Police Officer in the great State of New Hampshire. I had a career I am very proud of, achieved all of my goals and then some, solved many interesting crimes and above all I made a significant positive difference in the lives of more people than I can remember.

I have mostly grown children now who are pretty succesful in their own right and make me proud. I now run my own business in a very interesting and lucrative field, make my own hours and really enjoy my job.

So yeah, my life really doesn't suck that bad, all things considered. It's actually pretty decent for where I am. But hey, thanks for thinking about me and my life!

Douchebag, lol.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Trust me, I have absolutely no fear of people going back and reading the old posts. lol
Why do you think I'm constantly inviting people to do just that? Because I'm scared? I dont think so.
Anyone can go back and read the old posts and I invite them to do so.

Ignorance is bliss? lol

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
And while they're at it they should read FrmLE's old posts and they'll quickly realize that his story about being in the NHSP has changed many many times. Maybe he was NHSP, maybe he wasn't; but if he was he is clearly lying about a lot of stuff, like a real lot.

My story has never changed, however I admit I have been vague and ambiguous at times about specific details. The reasoning behind this should be pretty clear to most, I have said many times I have no intention of convincing anyone of anything they don't wish to believe.

You really think I am going to tell you who I am or even give you enough information to figure out who I am? Not likely retard, you don't warrant my time.

Perhaps you too should be less specific about who you are? I mean jesus christ, you have given so much info I found out exactly who you are so long ago it's not even funny.

I know that because you are such a tough guy you will say, "I don't care, come and get me!!" lol, but are you really so tough? From your time in the Military? or Maybe your time working the streets, walking a beat on the job? Yes?

lol, so funny?

The thing I love most about these asshole's shtick is the fact that are wicked hypocrites. Like as big of a hypocrite as you can possibly be.

They sit there and complain about people making assumptions and basing their whole theory of of wrong assumptions. Well I propose that is exactly what these guys are doing.

Their whole entire "she's lost in the woods" theory is based on the ASSUMPTION that she was drunk and trying to run away from the cops.

That is clearly an assumption and it doesn't seem to match the witness statements in the slightest.

First of all no witnesses report her as being drunk. We have evidence that she drank at least one drink on the way up, the empty coke bottle. Well it seems maura drank a lot, sharon said she would put bailey's in her morning coffee and have a hard lemonade with lunch. So one or 2 drinks clearly isn't going to make her intoxicated.

She spoke fine to the SBD and he said she did not appear intoxicated. The other witnesses who were watching from their homes describe her as walking just fine. She certainly wasn't staggering or off balance in the slightest; those are the kind of things you would expect from someone who is intoxicated.

So she wasn't slurring her speech, she wasn't off balance or staggering in any way.
Where are you basing this assumption that she was drunk?
It is clearly an assumption and a pretty poor one at that considering the fact that it doesn't fit in with any witness statements.

We also have the statement from the wmans stating that she was sitting in the car, with the passenger door open for a few minutes "leisurely smoking a cigarette" Whether she was smoking or using her phone is really irrelevant, the key word there is "leisurely"

Who the hell sits there with their door open liesurely doing anything if they are so worried about the cops that they are about to walk miles into the woods to their death to avoid them? That makes absolutely no sense.
Those witness statements also directly contradict the ASSUMPTION that she was hopped up on adrenaline. Again, who the hell sits there leisurely doing anything when they're hopped up on adrenaline? Not only hopped up on adrenaline; so hopped up on adrenaline that they are about to walk miles into the woods through 2'+ of snow with no boots gloves and wearing jeans?

The whole thing makes absolutely no sense at all.
Going strictly from the witness statements it sounds like she wasn't very drunk or hopped up on adrenaline at all, sounds like she calmly sat there trying to get a cell signal and when she realized she couldn't she methodically got together her belongings that she would need for the night. This does not sound like someone who is drunk and hopped up on adrenaline, not at all.

So what are you basing that assumption on? I see no evidence to support that assertion. Maybe your basing it on the fact that she didn't want the SBD to call LE? Well even that doesn't mean she was drunk and trying to run. Whether your sober or drunk who the hell wants to deal with the cops if you don't have to?

You guys have based your whole entire theory on these assumptions that clearly match no witness statements at all. Its so ridiculous that you guys, of all people, can accuse anyone of basing their theory on false assumptions; You guys are clearly the last people who should be accusing anyone of doing that as that's exactly waht you guys have done.

Screw every witness statement out there, screw what LE says, screw everything; She's lost in the woods dammit!!

Why won't anyone believe me?!?!?! waaa

I love it, everyone is lying and stupid, including the witnesses, LE and even the SAAG to the court, everyone is wrong except you few people.

The question I have is: do you guys actually believe the crap that you write or are you just so stuck on your theory that you have to stick with it after all this time?

Have you read back and found out how I know about this case yet? or have you instead spent your time hamemring out more whiny, rambling senseless posts trying to convince anyone you are right?

Just wondering.

And I absolutely LOVE how you analyze the 'witness statements' and draw conclusions based on your extensive experience in Law Enforcement and conducting criminal investigations.

I love how you use your training, years and years of training, and your knowledge of the Law and standard investigative procedures to assess the (non-existent) case file and then make sound theories based on your experience, and training.

Oh wait, you have no experience! You have no training! What do you do for work again? How many years did you spend on the job? What Police Academy did you attend?

Oh, thats right.......

Sorry

lol, wow FrmLE your really grasping at straws here huh?

Since when do you need to go to the police academy to understand that absolutely no witness reported her being drunk?
How does police training have anything to do with this?

Are you saying that your training in LE means that you can now incorrectly assert things that the witnesses didn't say?

Let me just get this straight, your saying that the SAAG was lying to the court when she said "knowing where the last place we determined her wherabouts to be would be valuable information"

In your vast experience in LE was it common for the saag to lie to the court?
Is it common for LE to lie in court?

and if she wasn't lying can you please explain to all of us idiots how saying that the WB curve, which is commone knowledge, could possibly be "valuable information" to a poi?

Seriously, wth are you talking about?

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Seriously, wth are you talking about?

I am pretty sure I am talking about your complete lack of any training, background or experience with which to properly assess the facts and circumstances regarding any criminal investigation.

I am talking about the obvious fact that you have never read court transcripts or case files and you consistantly misinterpret and misunderstand the snippets that you pull from these files and then when you base your theories and opinions on these misinterpreted snippets, you make yourself look like a complete and absolute idiot.

That's what I am talking about.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
I am pretty sure I am talking about your complete lack of any training, background or experience with which to properly assess the facts and circumstances regarding any criminal investigation.
I am talking about the obvious fact that you have never read court transcripts or case files and you consistantly misinterpret and misunderstand the snippets that you pull from these files and then when you base your theories and opinions on these misinterpreted snippets, you make yourself look like a complete and absolute idiot.
That's what I am talking about.

Maybe you can show us your wisdon for a brief moment and explain your interpretation of what nancy Smith is saying here.

Nancy Smith AAG quote:
"We do have information that we are pursuing that this may involve a crime.

Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person.

This is very much an active case."

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Trust me, I have absolutely no fear of people going back and reading the old posts. lol
Why do you think I'm constantly inviting people to do just that? Because I'm scared? I dont think so.
Anyone can go back and read the old posts and I invite them to do so.
Make their minds up for themselves.

Oh, please...I trust you with no one and nothing....and reading your posts once is enough. A formal invitation is completely unnecessary. But thanks anyway.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe you can show us your wisdon for a brief moment and explain your interpretation of what nancy Smith is saying here.
Nancy Smith AAG quote:
"We do have information that we are pursuing that this may involve a crime.
Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person.
This is very much an active case."

Not for you, I don't do requests.

Post the entire, complete quote in the future, don't cherry pick parts and pieces as context matters.

It makes you look uneducated, which you probably are.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it strange? Really, is it? Based on your experience conducting criminal investigations, it's strange that he won't speak to the media or family?
Let me help you out. Not only is it not strange, it is in fact State Police Policy to NOT COMMENT on active criminal investigations unless you are the lead investigator and you have been given the go ahead by your chain of command.
The Trooper was specifically instructed to not speak to the media or the family, as we have all been instructed many many times. It is in out SOP's. If we violate this directive we are subject to diciplinary action.
Don't believe me? Do some research, ask any Trooper.
Again, just one more example of how little you know about what cops do and how things work. This is why I continue to say that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and your theories and opinions are baseless and absurd.

JKM SP trooper was at the scene that night Maura disappeared.Why is it that Scarinza knew nothing about her disappearance or another state trooper being on the scene? Scarinza has stated that HPD contacted him at 6am Wednesday accordind to what he said?