Maura Murray

OT but still interesting as it relates to the abilities of cadaver dogs:
http://www.news.com.au/national/this-dog-has-...

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>You have stated 8 male fireman and 2 female fireman in your previous posting. But in this posting you are stating eight fireman/women. My paper work shows differently from what you are stating. Where did you get your info from?I also had the opportunity to talk with several whom responded to the scene that night whom gave me paper work confirming as to who responded to the scene.

the info i have came from Woodsville Ambulance.

There were 13 people total

2 from the ambulance company

8 total firemen/women (6 males, 2 females).

Those were the 10 on the list.

The other three were the two responding officers (Smith, monaghan) and the tow truck driver from Lavoie's.

Considering the fact that the rag was mentioned in the newspaper on both feb 11th and 14th it's pretty clear that LE never really made any attempt at keeping I private.
If they were trying to keep it private they did a truly horrible job considering it was in the paper 2 days later.

Knowing that the rag was mentioned in the media really makes that statement by the Murray family member regarding the rag make absolutely no sense.
Of course the rag was common knowledge, it was in the damn paper

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Wowzer Iam family and have never been told that the info concerning the rag in tailpipe cannot be released. It has been common knowledge early on concerning the disappearance of Maura.

I agree. It's always been common knowledge. It's been hashed over on these forums for years.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
For the 12th time,
re-read the post on the previous page where I DIRECTLY QUOTE a Murray family spokesperson about the rag in the tailpipe.

Orko citigirl is family and has been directly involved from the very beginning. While we haven't always agreed I would take her word before the word of some unnamed "Murray family source.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I just posted a few posts back a direct quote from a family spokesperson concerning the issue. Please re-read. this person had access to family and the goings on of what took place around Feb 11, when fred was first briefed by police.

Yes I saw your post. Is this spokesperson a close family member, a friend an acquaintance? How are they the only one that has heard this?

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I saw your post. Is this spokesperson a close family member, a friend an acquaintance? How are they the only one that has heard this?

they are not the only one.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
For the 12th time,
re-read the post on the previous page where I DIRECTLY QUOTE a Murray family spokesperson about the rag in the tailpipe.

Orko - I don't think all information that is found in the media reports is accurate in this case. Your not going to be able to make any real headway in this case reading the media reports because they all vary a little.

More quotes from the Murray family spokesperson. these are direct quotes, not ad-libbed by me in any way.

"The information recently came out on Maura's website www.mauramurray.com because a poster who is a resident of the Haverhill area made mention of it.

Because Maura's family knew the information to be true and because they were being told by Haverhill citizens that some believed this supported Scarinza's theory that Maura was suicidal, they, with approval of their pi's decided to post a confirmation of the information after it was presented on their site.

The information is common knowledge in the Haverhill area and has been for some time. Because the Murrays never released the information, one must wonder how/why this info was leaked to the local residents and by whom ????"

and from a different murray family source:

This one is a relative.

"Over the past year, this (rag in tailpipe info) has in fact been taken off the site ( www.mauramurray.com ) more than once, and posters were contacted privately.

We have also heard it from posters who did not post it on the website....and as xxxx explained the people who have the ability to delete a post cannot monitor it 24/7 and it becomes more difficult if there have been responses.

Family members (including one who is a former police officer) have run tests and done research, based on what we can determine, the rag would not have stayed in the tailpipe for very long, so we do not feel that there is any way it was placed there in Amherst.

We have no idea when it was placed there or by whom. We believe, again based on research, that it would have caused the vehicle to stall and quite possibly have left Maura with less ability to control the vehicle in terms of steering and brakes if it had been placed there prior to Maura hitting the snowbank."

and this once again from a spokesperson to the murray family.

"From what I have learned, the person(s) who *leaked* the information were at the scene of the accident the night of Maura's missing and could not understand why (just as you cannot understand) the info was not being made public; they felt (like you) that this COULD/MIGHT be *evidence* of foul play and therefore they began to talk - not to the media, but to their neighbors, co-workers, peers, etc.- one of whom posted it on Maura's site."

"Yes, Maura's family can control the site, but the info was released and they do not have a member sitting to observe every post the minute it is made. Because it was posted publicly, they decided to confirm it."

Orko Kringer wrote:

and this once again from a spokesperson to the murray family.
"From what I have learned, the person(s) who *leaked* the information were at the scene of the accident the night of Maura's missing and could not understand why (just as you cannot understand) the info was not being made public; they felt (like you) that this COULD/MIGHT be *evidence* of foul play and therefore they began to talk - not to the media, but to their neighbors, co-workers, peers, etc.- one of whom posted it on Maura's site."
"Yes, Maura's family can control the site, but the info was released and they do not have a member sitting to observe every post the minute it is made. Because it was posted publicly, they decided to confirm it."

The information was never leaked. It was open public knowledge from the start and continues today. You're quoting things that just aren't true.

Orko Kringer wrote:

and this once again from a spokesperson to the murray family.
"From what I have learned, the person(s) who *leaked* the information were at the scene of the accident the night of Maura's missing and could not understand why (just as you cannot understand) the info was not being made public; they felt (like you) that this COULD/MIGHT be *evidence* of foul play and therefore they began to talk - not to the media, but to their neighbors, co-workers, peers, etc.- one of whom posted it on Maura's site."
"Yes, Maura's family can control the site, but the info was released and they do not have a member sitting to observe every post the minute it is made. Because it was posted publicly, they decided to confirm it."

Are you getting this info from other forums or did you personally speak to this family member?

and after reviewing old information I have come to the conclusion (opinion based on looking at facts) that the person who is responsible for introducing the suicide theory is none other than Fred Murray himself.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you getting this info from other forums or did you personally speak to this family member?

my evidence comes in all forms.

But these are pulled quotes from an internet forum.

These are direct quotes and not interpretations of quotes made.

And these posters which I have pulled quotes from have been confirmed to be who they say they are.

Wonder where the rag ended up...still in the car or sent for forensics testing...?
Don't expect any answer...just wondering outloud.

Those quotes actually make zero sense, it's really weird.

The rag was mentioned in the media on the 11th, that means that the rag was common knowledge right from the start.
So then what the hell was this family member talking about then?
Why Would they want the info off the forum if it was already public knowledge from day 2. That's just weird. That family member was obviously way off.
Come to think about it, way back in te beginning of the forum in '04 the rag was being openly discussed and it didn't appear like anybody was ever making any attempt at hiding the existence of the rag

Good question shack, did they keep it as evidence?
Did it get trashed like other potentially important evidence that was held by the sp? Her car for example.
Troop F should be ashamed of themselves, they saved the Saturn for evidence of a crime(their words, not mine) & somehow the car has been damaged much more by just sitting in the field outside troop F barracks. Worst part about it is that for some reason all the new damage that has been done while at the barracks just happens to be right where the old damage was, thereby completely ruining any and all evidentiary value that the car might have held.

My question: Is it common for evidence being held at the troop F barracks to be destroyed?
Is it common for cars that are Held as evidence to get more damaged while just sitting at the barrack?
Was it someone else who came on the property and vandalized the car or did le do it themselves and why? If it was someone else is it commOn for people to go to the sp barracks and vandalize vehicles being held as evidence?

Shouldn't this be a much bigger deal than it is?? We got cops who say they are holding a car as evidence and somehow, while in their possession, the car gets much more damage to it...on top of that all the new damage sustained is exactly in the spot where the real evidence got destroyed.
Is that just a coincidence?
How often does troop F allow evidence they are holding to be completely ruined?

WHi would they allow anything that's being held for evidence to be damaged? That is strictly against any and all protocols that are in place.
I wanna give them the benefit of the doubt here but there's just something that's really not right about that whole situation.

I'm tryin to find one innocent reason or way that the car could have been damaged further while on custody of the sp. if anybody can think of a reason I would love to hear it. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt but it just seems wicked sketchy to me, it looks like someone wanted to destroy the evidence. I'm not saying that's what happened here but It sure does look like it.

I guess that can just be chalked up to another really strange thing about this case that makes absolutely no sense

Jenkins wrote:

Good question shack, did they keep it as evidence?
Did it get trashed like other potentially important evidence that was held by the sp? Her car for example.
Troop F should be ashamed of themselves, they saved the Saturn for evidence of a crime(their words, not mine) & somehow the car has been damaged much more by just sitting in the field outside troop F barracks. Worst part about it is that for some reason all the new damage that has been done while at the barracks just happens to be right where the old damage was, thereby completely ruining any and all evidentiary value that the car might have held.
My question: Is it common for evidence being held at the troop F barracks to be destroyed?
Is it common for cars that are Held as evidence to get more damaged while just sitting at the barrack?
Was it someone else who came on the property and vandalized the car or did le do it themselves and why? If it was someone else is it commOn for people to go to the sp barracks and vandalize vehicles being held as evidence?
Shouldn't this be a much bigger deal than it is?? We got cops who say they are holding a car as evidence and somehow, while in their possession, the car gets much more damage to it...on top of that all the new damage sustained is exactly in the spot where the real evidence got destroyed.
Is that just a coincidence?
How often does troop F allow evidence they are holding to be completely ruined?
WHi would they allow anything that's being held for evidence to be damaged? That is strictly against any and all protocols that are in place.
I wanna give them the benefit of the doubt here but there's just something that's really not right about that whole situation.
I'm tryin to find one innocent reason or way that the car could have been damaged further while on custody of the sp. if anybody can think of a reason I would love to hear it. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt but it just seems wicked sketchy to me, it looks like someone wanted to destroy the evidence. I'm not saying that's what happened here but It sure does look like it.
I guess that can just be chalked up to another really strange thing about this case that makes absolutely no sense

I haven't had time to read all previous posts from the past week or two so if this has been discussed, my apologies.
Silky mentioned that there was additional damage to Maura's car while it was at Lavoie's. I believe she also mentioned the damage happened first night it was towed, and the car was moved around in the lot and crashed into some of the other cars that were at Lavoie's.

Jenkins wrote:

Those quotes actually make zero sense, it's really weird.
The rag was mentioned in the media on the 11th, that means that the rag was common knowledge right from the start.
So then what the hell was this family member talking about then?
Why Would they want the info off the forum if it was already public knowledge from day 2. That's just weird. That family member was obviously way off.
Come to think about it, way back in te beginning of the forum in '04 the rag was being openly discussed and it didn't appear like anybody was ever making any attempt at hiding the existence of the rag

I would definitey say the quote is accurate and made by one murray relative and one family spokesperson, so in those terms, they are legit quotes and legit information.

I haven't found a story that mentions the rag on Feb 11.

But nonetheless, it is possible.

The rag was discovered on Feb 9. At the time there was no investigation underway at all. They had an abandoned car with a possible DUI flee and as long as they got the info of who the car belonged to, the police were content.(and no one that responded to the scene of the accident would've been under any muzzle orders to not talk, because there was nothing unusual at that point.

A day and a half later when Fred gets to the area is when the "DUI flee abandoned car" scenario changes.

Fred had called ahead and noted that he had some very important information to tell police about his daughter which is odd (IMO) because it should be the other way around.

On arrival to the scene of the accident, fred was briefed on what police discovered (what witnesses saw, rag in tailpipe etc). Fred parlayed information to police about his daugther and that is when it turned into an investigation and police requested to the family that they not say anything about the rag.

But those responders to the accident scene on Feb 9, could've already been talking about the rag and the oddity of the wreck and police would've had no control over stopping them at that point.