Maura Murray

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
That was not the question that was asked to talk about.Once again you skate around the issue. Forget it Bill thought you might actually try to answer the question that was originally posted to FRMLE. You would make a great politician.

I guess you will have to do better than that. I responded SPECIFICALLY to the the questions you posted and asked me to answer. I have no need to skate around anything. You may want to craft the questions you ask more narrowly if you want to get a specific answer that helps you. You will need to be more specific because I answered the questions that you posted.

Either you don't know what you asked, or you aren't bright enough to understand the answer.

That is something that you need to work out.

Bill

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not interested in what you have to say as my question was directed to Bill. FRMLE already skated around the question like he was Nancy Kerrigan and now you jump in when I directed it to Bill.
I know it is difficult to admit when one is wrong and we understand why FRMLE and WTH won't answer the question or give an opinion on it. After all this is a guy who thinks you needed a passport to get into Canada in 2004.

There is too much volume to dissect statements by The Jenkins and The Others; that's just piddling around, JWB. IMO, her disappearance and/or reappearance will play out according to the greater powers that be....God will bring resolution. There is no hurrying the process.

Bumping for Maura wrote:

Hello all,
No wonder we increasingly rarely hear from hannah_b, amy researches and a good many other, fairly regular posters here anymore.
Trying to get back to discussing the subject of this Topix board seems more or less an impossible effort these days, while everyone is busy hitting each other with verbal abuse of varying ferocity.
This so called discussion board has gone to the pits lately, and in my opinion both "camps" here are equally responsible for that.
Verbal power-plays are only so much fun...
I´m off!

Nothing new revealed in your observations. It's always been the way; the nature of forums like these. It does take two to tango.

Bumping for Maura wrote:

Hello all,
No wonder we increasingly rarely hear from hannah_b, amy researches and a good many other, fairly regular posters here anymore.
Trying to get back to discussing the subject of this Topix board seems more or less an impossible effort these days, while everyone is busy hitting each other with verbal abuse of varying ferocity.
This so called discussion board has gone to the pits lately, and in my opinion both "camps" here are equally responsible for that.
Verbal power-plays are only so much fun...
I´m off!

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Really. There is discussion and then there is windmilling. How many times can people go over the same five pieces of evidence in this case and then bitch about the fact that there is nothing to talk about, so they start making stuff up?

Even Shack has stayed away for four years before popping her nose back in. Hey Shack, guess what? Still no one has come forward to add any new information from the area that you laid waste to. You did an excellent job salting the earth in that area so if there was anyone who knew or saw anything. You made certain that they would never mention it. Wonder how much of that has to do with your good work? No worries, a quick smack on the nose with a newspaper and she will scurry away for another four years. Would be interesting to know if there is anyone out there who had anything to contribute. We may never know now, eh Shack?

Reggie

FrmLE wrote:

LOL, is that really the most you have to try to discredit me? The ole passport drama?
I have alread y said several times, I was a Police Detective, a Criminal Investigator, NOT a border patrol agent. I never conducted any U/C Narcotics operations in another country, as I had no jurisdiction in the Great WHite North. I don't know anyone other cops who worked in Canada either, FWIW.
Is this really the entire basis for your assertion that I was never a cop? That's it? If so, then you got me. Let me come clean right now.
I never worked a heated toll booth on the US/Canada Border!
Whew, feels so good!
lol

So you were no kid when you joined the police, obviously. And 22 years of military experience under you belt you had much more world experience then Bob does even now and that was 22 years ago.

Too bad we weren't doing border patrol in the military on the Canadian border. I guess then you would have known about that passport thing. My border duties were mostly on the Czech border, during the cold war. Well inside of the one kilometer exclusion zone and sometime less than 50 meters.

What was your MOS and years of service? You can email or message me if you want. Hope you don't me prying, I am curious. I actually do believe that you are a FrmLE. I can hear it, some of the same experiences and prior military. There is an attitude that other military can usually spot. For reasons, that others can't understand.

Again though. It is about the doers. People who go out and do things, make contributions, self sacrifice. The thing that really kills me is as young as Bob is, he doesn't seem to understand what can be accomplished in twenty years, thirty years. He thinks that the things we talk about are beyond the realm of what people can do in their lives. I know that not all his generation are like that. I have meet many young men not tied 24/7 to their computer. People who work full time and then still volunteer in the fire service. Men I have meet in the military. Young people out in the world making a difference in their community. Some of them like the Explorers groups. Kids not even out of High School but actively volunteering, learning how to help people and actually doing it every day. But you and I know that takes courage, putting oneself at risk, both physically and it wears on one emotionally as well. Some do it and others just throw stones at people who do while hiding behind a computer. I wonder if that is why some people think we have an "attitude"?

The world is a funny place, but some of the shit on here is hysterical, highly entertaining.

Bill

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
hey dumbass you don't have to work the border to know that a passport wasn't needed to cross into Canada in 2004. you say you were undercover in a state that borders Canada and you don't even know the passport regulations ha ha what a joke.This is just one of a growing list of statements that you make that discredit you.

Well then you got me, cause I have never been to Canada. That discredits me? Really?

May I ask, how do you know so much about what cops should and shouldn't know? Based on YOUR experience in Law Enforcement? Based on the years YOU spent working the street?

lol, sure you got me. I am not and never was Border Patrol.

Listen to your argument, this is what you have to discredit me, passport knowledge?

Ridiculous

Bill,

I was an 11B1P when I entered, and an 18B when I left the Army. I was at Ft. Bragg.

The military bonding is all well and good, but it doesn't take rank to figure out that people have stuck their noses where they don't belong; in others' business. I guess everyone here has had a shot at contributing their worth...mostly opinions and ideas. At some point, there is no return on the value of that input, and that was reached some time ago.
Just waiting around for any future development or news re: MM. Doing nothing harmful is often the hardest thing to do.

FrmLE wrote:

Bill,
I was an 11B1P when I entered, and an 18B when I left the Army. I was at Ft. Bragg.

I was old school 11D20. The military later changed it to 19D20. I think that when they changed my MOS to 19D they made 11D a SAW gunner but now I don't see it listed at all anymore.

Pleasure to meet you and thank you for your service. SF. Bobby, you don't have a clue who you are talking to. Being a scout in the infantry I meet several guys who were airborne and SF but for whatever reason they were in our unit. Learned a lot from them from some of those guys. Also knew several guys that were excellent soldiers and like me they received a letter inviting us to try out for SFOD-D. This was when they started after the Iran accident. I knew many outstanding soldiers that tried and couldn't make the cut. Tough group to get in to even test for, let alone actually make the cut, but you know that.

Bill

They won't believe it anyway Bill, lol, it's all rather ridiculous, though VERY entertaining!

Thats why I'm here, same reason you go to the Zoo, to laugh at the Monkeys.

FrmLE wrote:

They won't believe it anyway Bill, lol

Talk about funny. Half of them insist that I am writing these comments to myself, because you and I are the same person.

Now that is some funny stuff.

Bill

I read through your old posts frmLE and u gotta say, your story is constantly changing.

A couple months ago you explained that while you did work patrics case you "never personally worked maura's case". But you were granted access to the case file on at least one occasion and from that is where you are drawing your conclusions.
But wait, you used to say that you "worked maura's case cold uears later" so what is it you worked it or you didnt work it?
Yesterday u said that u didn hear about maura's case or at least a week.
Well you previously said that "I wasn't on the road right then so I dent hear about it when it happened; I heard about it much, much later"
So what is it? U heard about it after a week or 2 or much, much later?

On patrics thread u said that you've worked "hundreds of cases"; u go On to explain about 1 case a wk for several years is hundreds of cases, ok that's believable.
But you say earlier on this thread that you've "worked thousands of cases" so what is it hundreds or thousands? Big difference, seems to me If you were being truthful your story would stay the same.

You also states that you've been provided "new identitites by the federal gov't several times"
You then changed it to you got fake id's, big difference, what is it new identities or new id?

Ok an when you were working these "thousands of cases" when did you fin the time to go undercover? No just undercover but so deep cover that you required several new identities provided by the Feds.
You dont need to be a narco to understand that any case that required such a drastic action as getting a new identity would take a Long time, likely years for you to use your new identity to gain the trust of an organized crime ring. But you've done this several times?

And what were you anyways? Were you a narc or where you a murder police? Those are 2 entirely different things.
Until 2009 when the ccu was started maura's case was handled by the homicide unit of major crimes. So that means you mist have been a member of the homicide unit correct?
Since when does a narcotics officer also investigate murders?
Even the crap you were talking about fake ids makes no sense, other than one time "you never spoke to a ci without at least 2 different id's on you" that's total bullshit; why would you need a fake id to talk to a ci?? They already know your a cop, either you or someone you know arrested them. Also an uc would NEVER carry more than one id on them, what if they searched your pockets and found more than one id? You'd be fucked. This is why most uc officers actually Carry NO ID. So nobody can prove who they are or aren't; it's all based off your word, which is how things are based on tw black market. If your trying to say that people check ids during drug deals your crazier than even I thought.

I can go on and on here but I think I made my point, your story has constantly changed to the point where it makes absolutely no sense. Anybody who believes you is a straight up moron, which is obviously what you think of everyone here for trying to tell such ridiculous stories.

You sir are full of shit, maybe you were a cop. The only thin that make me think that u might have been is your asshole attitude that only scumbag cops possess. Soaybe you were, but you are clearly Lying about a lot of shit.

So, I don't check in here for a few days and I see nothing has changed, still lots of information being posted as fact. I'll just address one for the moment.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
WTH - Anything to add to the conversation about Maura or is all about you and bulling others? How about adding your insight to the statement by Nancy Smith. I'll even post the whole thing from Renners Blog.I know its not entertaining, but it is a forum about Maura Murray so why not give it a whirl.
" While we don't in any way suggest it's the case here, what we are being asked to do in this case would open up the state of New Hampshire and law enforcement investigatory files at a pre indictment phase to the suspected perpetrator as well as everyone else in the world.
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."
WTH care to enlighten us all with your take on the following?
"Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person."
Does it sound to you that she is talking about the secret crash site at the WB curve?

See, this is how misinformation becomes "facts." One person posts something online, which others pick up and repost all over the internet as if what was written is fact, without checking it to see if it is indeed fact. They then base entire scenarios around their interpretation of their "facts."

Just to be clear, JWB's "statement by Nancy Smith" was lifted directly from Renner's blog. JWB apparently didn't bother to read Renner's sentence preceding Smith's remarks which said "Here's some highlights:" That sentence was then followed by four statements separated by approximately four spaces each, meant to indicate that the sentences were not connected to each other, and were, in fact, edited from the source material and were "highlights," not verbatim statements.

Seeing how the statement "knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was" is now being bandied about here as absolute proof and fact that law enforcement knows Maura was seen after the crash at the WB, I think it might be worthwhile to have the actual quote of what Nancy Smith said in the courtroom. Since I had previously watched the videos of the entire Appeals Court hearing when they were posted on Renner's blog and knew the quotes were taken out of context, I took a few minutes to find that part of the hearing and transcribed EXACTLY what Nancy Smith said in response to a question from one of the judges. Here it is, word for word, um for um. I've included the info on the video itself where you can watch, listen and read at the same time:

YouTube uploader name: bagelfriedrice

Video Title: "Fred Murray's appeal for records in front of the NH Supreme Court (pt.2)"

Quote begins at 6:47 minutes into the video:

Judge: "How would the disclosure of maps and diagrams interfere with the investigation?"

Smith: "Um ... her car was found ... ah ah ... I, I have not reviewed the specific map and diagram, but I'm assuming, um, that it involves the area in which the disappearance occurred ... um, there were searches done, uh, there may have been maps done of the area searched and what they found or the point to which they could trace her, cause as I understand they, the dogs did trace her scent, uh, for about a hundred yards, um, and that information as far as the specific spot in which she disappeared, if they have a suspect if there is foul play involved, knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was uh could be valulable info to that person."

See how things get distorted when taken out of context? There is no additional info that LE has about any spot other than the accident site. Can you all please move on and drop this angle? It is a waste of all of our time.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

I read through your old posts frmLE and u gotta say, your story is constantly changing.
A couple months ago you explained that while you did work patrics case you "never personally worked maura's case". But you were granted access to the case file on at least one occasion and from that is where you are drawing your conclusions.
But wait, you used to say that you "worked maura's case cold uears later" so what is it you worked it or you didnt work it?

.
.
That is correct, I was involved in Patric's case as early as the day he went missing.

I did not work Maura's case until much later when it was cold. You can say I worked it, reviewed it, had access to it, whatever you wish it is all the same.

If you think you will be succesful playing the 'word game' with me regarding the word "work", please think again. Nothing I said contradicts the facts, you are being quite silly.
.
.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Yesterday u said that u didn hear about maura's case or at least a week. Well you previously said that "I wasn't on the road right then so I dent hear about it when it happened; I heard about it much, much later"
So what is it? U heard about it after a week or 2 or much, much later?

Yes, lol, that is correct. It was much later that I heard about it, at least a week, maybe more than a week, maybe several weeks?

This was in 2004 and I was in a very different role then, so I don't remember when the case came to my attention, it was not immediately, it was much later. lol, maybe a week? Maybe several weeks?

Again, if you think you will gain anything playing the word game with me, forget it. You just make yourself look stupid.
.
.
.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

You also states that you've been provided "new identitites by the federal gov't several times"
You then changed it to you got fake id's, big difference, what is it new identities or new id?.

Yes, this is correct. I have had many different ID's, some were simple Drivers license's, some were more thorough with credit cards and supporting documents, and YES, I have had several ID's provided by the Federal Government, IE: the DEA.

Sometimes you can work with a light cover, sometimes you need good ID, sometimes you need a complete cover. I have done all of those things, numerous times.

Yep, thats all true. Just because you don't have the first clue about how real cops do their job does not mean that's not how it really works, in the real world, with real cops.
.
.
.
.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Ok an when you were working these "thousands of cases" when did you fin the time to go undercover? No just undercover but so deep cover that you required several new identities provided by the Feds.
You dont need to be a narco to understand that any case that required such a drastic action as getting a new identity would take a Long time, likely years for you to use your new identity to gain the trust of an organized crime ring. But you've done this several times?.

Yes, this is also true. I spent about 1/3 of my career in some capacity working narcotics. During that time I was in all manners of cover, light cover, case officer, and yes, a full cover narcotics officer.

Yep, that is all true. Thats how it works.

This Maura Murray discussion thread has become a joke... It's like a dysfunctional family that needs 24/7 bickering in order to feel good about itself. I used to post on here until it got taken over by trolls; now I check back periodically to see if the trolls have gone, and unfortunately they haven't.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
.
.
That is correct, I was involved in Patric's case as early as the day he went missing.
I did not work Maura's case until much later when it was cold. You can say I worked it, reviewed it, had access to it, whatever you wish it is all the same.
If you think you will be succesful playing the 'word game' with me regarding the word "work", please think again. Nothing I said contradicts the facts, you are being quite silly.
.
.
<quoted text>
Yes, lol, that is correct. It was much later that I heard about it, at least a week, maybe more than a week, maybe several weeks?
This was in 2004 and I was in a very different role then, so I don't remember when the case came to my attention, it was not immediately, it was much later. lol, maybe a week? Maybe several weeks?

FmrLE, you are such a liar... If you used to work in law enforcement, then I used to be a porn star.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Bill, the whole "shacks name lives in infamy" thing has to be one of the stupidest things you've ever written.
How exactly does her name "live in infamy"? Lol
You can't be serious, you are literally the only person I see who even makes posts about her. Her moniker clearly doesn't "live in infamy"; except maybe in your wharves mind. What you say about her is so ridiculous, it's just plain asinine. Maybe she says something stupid every now and again like everyone does, but at least she cares, at least she gives a shit about someone besides a few locals, who aren't even mentioned by name no less, who are criminals and wife beaters; that's a whole lot than you can say for yourself. What's your deal you don't care about anyone but yourself and your family or what?

There you go again, this one is truly amazing: "... besides a few locals, who aren't even mentioned by name no less..." Freaking unbelievable. After everything that I posted previously showing you that, indeed, a "local" had his real name outed on this forum, it is as if none of that happened and here you are again, this time leaving no doubt that you are nothing but a liar.

A while back, you posted this and whole lot of other shit:

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

I notice you edited my sentance to your liking; you cut the end off, which was important. But then the sentance wouldn't have fit in with what you were saying.
The real sentance read : "nobody has ever named this guy on any thread I've ever seen" You cut off the "I've ever seen"

After that, I re-posted your entire post with the post number, date and page (#20604, May 14th, page 1013) so that you and everybody else could see what you originally said, which did NOT include the words "I've ever seen"." Immediately after that, GrampaMo posted the applicable section of your quoted comment, and a few posts later Snowy reposted it. You never responded to any of those posts and ignored the entire thing. We proved you were a LIAR, over and over, and your only response was to ignore the evidence. And now, you have started the cycle all over, by stating: "... besides a few locals, who aren't even mentioned by name no less..."

It's bad enough that you spam this forum daily, that you continue to post misinformation and speculation as fact, now you're starting to regurgitate your lies.

And just FYI, the reason I edited your comments is because every single post you make uses up the allotted 4000 characters, and I cannot quote you and respond in the same post.

I've decided that you are truly insane, an incredible LIAR, no older than 15 or only have the intellect of a slow 15 year-old, are here more than anybody else to destroy any conversation about MM, and that you are directly responsible for so many people leaving this forum (along with WTH Bill). I also believe that you either post when you are drunk and/or stoned and/or on speed. You actually have only about five original posts, all the others are essentially duplicates of those five. I actually found this thread interesting until you started in with the constant spamming - now the interesting posters are gone and you are all that is left - what a shame.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

And what were you anyways? Were you a narc or where you a murder police? Those are 2 entirely different things..

.
.
.

That is correct, they are 2 different roles. I worked both at diffferent times in my career. It was a long career.
.
.
.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Until 2009 when the ccu was started maura's case was handled by the homicide unit of major crimes. So that means you mist have been a member of the homicide unit correct?.

.
.
That is not exactly correct, it was being handled by the Troop Detectives at Troop F.
.
.
.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Since when does a narcotics officer also investigate murders?.

.
.
When he does different jobs over the course of 22 years.
.
.
.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Even the crap you were talking about fake ids makes no sense, other than one time "you never spoke to a ci without at least 2 different id's on you" that's total bullshit; why would you need a fake id to talk to a ci?? They already know your a cop, either you or someone you know arrested them. Also an uc would NEVER carry more than one id on them, what if they searched your pockets and found more than one id? You'd be fucked. This is why most uc officers actually Carry NO ID.

.
.
This is actually my favorite part of your ridiculous rambling post.

Let me ask you, exactly how do you know about what a U/C Officer does and doesn't do? What he carries for ID and what he wouldn't carry? Where do you get this oh so enlightening information?

Because, it's such complete bullshit. You say an U/C would never carry ID? Because if they searched you?

lol, ok sure man, I never carried id, lo.

Look, I can't go through your absurd post and reply to every ridiculous, asinine point. The fact is you have absolutely NO IDEA how an U/C officer works, what we do, how things flow, none of it.

You are in absolutely no position to offer any opinion whatsoever, because you have never evn been a cop! You never did anything relevant, and frankly you sound absurd, just stop.

.
.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

I can go on and on here but I think I made my point,

I will agree with this, you definitely made your point.
The problem is, your point is asinine. I answered way more questions than a scumbag like you deserves, simply to show you up for the complete moron that you are.

Your "point" stands on it's own, I will let the readers decide who knows what they are talking about.

TeeJay wrote:

<quoted text>
FmrLE, you are such a liar... If you used to work in law enforcement, then I used to be a porn star.

Well then, since I was most definitely a cop, that must mean you were indeed a porn star.

I bet we can all guess the 'type' of movies you starred in. Was it "Brokeback Boys", or "Midget Lust"?

lol