Maura Murray

Lighthouse- where are you gettin the info that Fred believes she took her own life? That is pretty much in direct contrast to everything he's ever said to the public on the matter.
To me it looks like he believes someone abducted his daughter, has he ever made a comment stating that he thinks she killed herself?

Jenkins wrote:

Lighthouse- where are you gettin the info that Fred believes she took her own life? That is pretty much in direct contrast to everything he's ever said to the public on the matter.
To me it looks like he believes someone abducted his daughter, has he ever made a comment stating that he thinks she killed herself?

Your right it is in direct contrast of what he says now, but 8.5 years ago when she first went missing he said she was doing a "squawwalk" which is Euphemism for suicide.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Your right it is in direct contrast of what he says now, but 8.5 years ago when she first went missing he said she was doing a "squawwalk" which is Euphemism for suicide.

Again, there's some debate over whether or not he even made that comment.
That is what the Haverhill chief told scarinza that he said and Fred denies making those comments.
I would hope that he must have said something implying suicide to the Haverhill cops but that in no way indicates how he feels now or has felt throughout most of the investigation.
In the very early days it looked like he though she was a runaway and he now believes she met up with foul play, just like pretty much the rest of the family does.
That may have been an initial knee-jerk reaction on his part.

I would like to know if anybody else in the family also initially thought suicide, because it appears they didn't. Did anybody else that knew Maura well say anything about suicide or was it just Fred?

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, there's some debate over whether or not he even made that comment.
That is what the Haverhill chief told scarinza that he said and Fred denies making those comments.
I would hope that he must have said something implying suicide to the Haverhill cops but that in no way indicates how he feels now or has felt throughout most of the investigation.
In the very early days it looked like he though she was a runaway and he now believes she met up with foul play, just like pretty much the rest of the family does.
That may have been an initial knee-jerk reaction on his part.
I would like to know if anybody else in the family also initially thought suicide, because it appears they didn't. Did anybody else that knew Maura well say anything about suicide or was it just Fred?

The rest of the family wasn't with MM the weekend before she decided to randomly leave school, and they weren't in the hotel room with FM and MM. I would think FM would be able to make a better judgement as to what was going through her mind.

here is an account of the first meeting between police and fred murray from Sharon Rausch, Maura's boyfriend's mother.

Nancy West
New Hampshire Union Leader
Oct , 2007

Early on, her father, Fred Murray, briefly considered Maura may have committed suicide.

When police assembled the Murray and Rausch families to brief them on the investigation, Maura's father "moaned and rubbed his head and said,�Oh, no,' " according to Sharon Rausch, the mother of Billy Rausch, Maura's then-boyfriend.

"I remember Fred said,�I always have told the kids when I got old and worthless I was going to climb my favorite mountain with a bottle of Jack Daniels and drink myself to death.' That was emotional. He thought what if there was something he didn't know about," Rausch said.

She said authorities thought the alcohol and Tylenol PM Maura brought may have been indications she was going to kill herself.

"That's what people do, they drink, take a bunch of pills and die peacefully," she said.

Sort of off topic

But I read where maura worked the very next day after her first wreck (her father's car) with the girl that held the get together in her dorm.

The two were good friends and while at work Maura didn't even mention to this friend that anything happened the night before. And the friend, once she learned that maura disappeared, always found that to be extremely odd.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>Again, there's some debate over whether or not he even made that comment.

That may have been an initial knee-jerk reaction on his part.

There has never been debate if he said it. Only, according to him, the context.

As far as initial knee jerk, you should really look up the phrase "excited utterances".

Bill

Jenkins wrote:

FrmLE- the SP have stated publicly, on the record, that mc was investigating this case sine the 11th. Are you saying that they were lying when they said that?
Why should we believe you, an anonymous Internet poster who claims to have worked in the SP, that has been shown to been shown to be Lying on several occasions? Why should we believe an anonymous poster over what the sp have said on record?
Is it common for the NHSP to lie to the public?

Haha, you continue to be a complete retard. I love how you state that I have been shown to be lying, simply because what I have told you doesn't jive with your crazy theory? lol, sure man whatever.

I stand by what I wrote. I have explained to you several times that the reason SP can state that MC 'worked the case' was simply because a few MC detectives live in the area and routinely worked out of Troop F.

You can choose to believe it or not, I care not a bit. It is however what happened, I know this for a fact.

Orko Kringer wrote:

Sort of off topic
But I read where maura worked the very next day after her first wreck (her father's car) with the girl that held the get together in her dorm.
The two were good friends and while at work Maura didn't even mention to this friend that anything happened the night before. And the friend, once she learned that maura disappeared, always found that to be extremely odd.

Maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?
It was only a car accident, since when do people commit suicide because they crashed a car?
Does that not make any sense to anybody else,
Since when do people kill themselves over a car crash?
In that quote above Fred said maybe there was something he didn't know about, implying that the car crash by itself isn't really reason enough for her to want to kill herself.

Maybe it wasn't that big of a deal, but it was a little embarrassing so she didn't feel like telling her friend about it the next day

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe it wasn't that big of a deal?
It was only a car accident, since when do people commit suicide because they crashed a car?
Does that not make any sense to anybody else,
Since when do people kill themselves over a car crash?
In that quote above Fred said maybe there was something he didn't know about, implying that the car crash by itself isn't really reason enough for her to want to kill herself.
Maybe it wasn't that big of a deal, but it was a little embarrassing so she didn't feel like telling her friend about it the next day

I have never believed the car crash (with her father's car) drove her to suicide.

I have believed that the car crash (with her father's car) and the second car accident were each a direct result of her being disturbed greatly about something and not just coincidental to one another and that is MY OPINION.

That sounds about right orko, there would have to be something else that's fairly major besides a stupid car crash that would drive her to suicide.

So before you went to Amherst and found out the vasi hit and run location was close to her work what made you think she committed suicide?

A few pages back you said you had "plenty" to indicate suicide. So far the only thing that I've seen you post is the "squaw walk" comment. Do you actually have anything else or is that it? Is that what you consider plenty?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Haha, you continue to be a complete retard. I love how you state that I have been shown to be lying, simply because what I have told you doesn't jive with your crazy theory? lol, sure man whatever.
I stand by what I wrote. I have explained to you several times that the reason SP can state that MC 'worked the case' was simply because a few MC detectives live in the area and routinely worked out of Troop F.
You can choose to believe it or not, I care not a bit. It is however what happened, I know this for a fact.

A few mc detectives living in the area and working out of troop f is not the same thing as mc workin the case, not even close. Not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport.

So your saying that the NHSP was lying when they told the media that mc was working the case?
Is it common practice for the NHSP to lie to the public?

And btw, I never said you were lying because what you said doesn't fit with a theory of mine, that's a ridiculous thing to say. People disagree with me all the time and I don't say they're lying.
I said it's been shown that you've lied on several occasions because it has been shown.
You may or may not have been a state cop, I can't say for sure. The only thing that makes me think maybe you were is your attitude, that certain quality that only asshole cops seem to possess.
So maybe you were a cop, I don't know, but if you were then you've certainly lied about a lot of things you did while you were a cop.

i invite Anybody who thinks frmLE is for real to go back through this whole thread and read what he's written, read how much his story has changed over the years. He worked the cas, he didn't work the case, he worked it briefly, he didn't actually work it but he's been granted access to the case file, it goes on an on. Then there's my personal favorite: he's been provided a full new identity by the federal govt, SS # and all, several different times to go undercover lol. His story changes all the time and whenever anybody asks him a straight forward question to clear it up he avoids the question and/or tries to belittle the person asking the question. The guy is Real class act.

I'm not sure of frmLE's goals or intentions of posting here are but one thing is certain, he's been proven to be a liar on several different occasions.
But don't take my word for it, remember, I'm just some guy posting anonymously; please go back and read this guys postings. There is absolutely no way he's been entirely honest.

Besides for the fact that if this guy ever did work the case there is no way in hell he'd be posting about it online, that's seriously violating legal and ethical boundaries. Also, if he was ever illegally shown the case file by someone who was working it there is also no way in hell he'd be online posting about it, do you think any cop would put his friends job in jeopardy just so he can post on topix? Remember that if he wasnt working the case then it would be majorly illegal for him to be shown the case file.

Bottom line is this: the NHSP has stated on the record that major crimes has been working this case since the 11th. FrmLE is an anonymous Internet poster, I'm gonna take the word of a known Leo who's speaking on record over some anonymous Internet poster any day, particularly when said poster has been caught lying.
If there's anybody who still believes frmLE then I got some beach front property in Arizona to sell you. Lol

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Jenkins. While I agree that it's smart to be skeptical of any information provided by an anonymous poster, I don't recall FrmLE having been proven to be lying about anything since I first came to topix in February. I have no desire to go back and read this whole thread, so can you just tell us what about this case do you think he has been caught lying about?

Correct. I am skeptical of everyone. I know something about people that talk crap. I have seen it and am pretty good at recognizing it. I have seen nothing that FrmLE has said that makes me think he is not who he says he is and many things he has said that makes me think he is who he says he is. And he has contributed enough that if he was full of crap, I am pretty sure he would have tripped up on something by now.

I believe what he says, far more than others that I could mention.

Bill

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. The case was always a Troop F case worked by Troop F Detectives at Troop F, until it was handed over to the NHCCU in 2009 when it was formed.

I hope that is clear and direct enough to answer your question.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Jenkins. While I agree that it's smart to be skeptical of any information provided by an anonymous poster, I don't recall FrmLE having been proven to be lying about anything since I first came to topix in February. I have no desire to go back and read this whole thread, so can you just tell us what about this case do you think he has been caught lying about?

It's not that I think he's been caught lying, he has definitely lied. Anybody can go back and read his posts and see for themselves. I understand it's a pain in the ass to go back through all these posts so I'll give u the basic gist but I was trying to make the point that I'm not just saying this, if people think that frmLE is for real then they really should take the time to go back and read his old posts before they decide to base any opinion on what he's saying.
The major thing that he's lied about in relation to this case is whether or not he's worked it, which is a pretty major point. If he has worked this case then he's seriously violating LE's rules of ethics. I find it very unlikely that any Leo who has worked this case would put his pension at risk just to post to some online forum with a bunch of people that he considers idiots.

He has tripped up, his story about what hes done has changed multiple times. Most importantly his story has changed multiple times about whether he worked this case or not.
I'm not sure what his story is now but several months ago he said that he "never personally worked this case but he has been granted access to the case file", as if the investigators working the case will let any trooper see the case file just because their curious. Never mind all the legal and ethical boundaries that crosses but he definitely said it.

Well ok, but If you go back and look several months before that you can clearly see that back then he claimed that he had worked the case, but only briefly.
So what is it? Did he work the case or not? His story clearly changed. His story has also changed in other occasions as well but I think you get the point.
If it is obvious he is lying about something then why should we trust anything he says about anything?

My question is what is his purpose of being here? From what I can tell hes brought just about nothing to the table, except maybe insults and some misinformation. It appears to me that his goal is to derail the conversation and his method generally is to use personal attacks to do so.
Why does he care? He considers everybody here to be idiots, so what does he care if a bunch of idiots discuss a case online?
I find it very strange that he comes to this forum at all and I would love to know the real reason he does.
I personally feel that he was really a cop but he's never worked this case and has never seen the case file.

FrmLE wrote:

Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. The case was always a Troop F case worked by Troop F Detectives at Troop F, until it was handed over to the NHCCU in 2009 when it was formed.
I hope that is clear and direct enough to answer your question.

Ok so your saying the the NHSP was lying when they said that major crimes has been working this case since the 11th?
I'll ask again: is it common practice for the NHSP to lie to the public?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct. I am skeptical of everyone. I know something about people that talk crap. I have seen it and am pretty good at recognizing it. I have seen nothing that FrmLE has said that makes me think he is not who he says he is and many things he has said that makes me think he is who he says he is. And he has contributed enough that if he was full of crap, I am pretty sure he would have tripped up on something by now.
I believe what he says, far more than others that I could mention.
Bill

Clearly you haven't been paying attention buddy

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not that I think he's been caught lying, he has definitely lied. Anybody can go back and read his posts and see for themselves. I understand it's a pain in the ass to go back through all these posts so I'll give u the basic gist but I was trying to make the point that I'm not just saying this, if people think that frmLE is for real then they really should take the time to go back and read his old posts before they decide to base any opinion on what he's saying.
The major thing that he's lied about in relation to this case is whether or not he's worked it, which is a pretty major point. If he has worked this case then he's seriously violating LE's rules of ethics. I find it very unlikely that any Leo who has worked this case would put his pension at risk just to post to some online forum with a bunch of people that he considers idiots.
He has tripped up, his story about what hes done has changed multiple times. Most importantly his story has changed multiple times about whether he worked this case or not.
I'm not sure what his story is now but several months ago he said that he "never personally worked this case but he has been granted access to the case file", as if the investigators working the case will let any trooper see the case file just because their curious. Never mind all the legal and ethical boundaries that crosses but he definitely said it.
Well ok, but If you go back and look several months before that you can clearly see that back then he claimed that he had worked the case, but only briefly.
So what is it? Did he work the case or not? His story clearly changed. His story has also changed in other occasions as well but I think you get the point.
If it is obvious he is lying about something then why should we trust anything he says about anything?
My question is what is his purpose of being here? From what I can tell hes brought just about nothing to the table, except maybe insults and some misinformation. It appears to me that his goal is to derail the conversation and his method generally is to use personal attacks to do so.
Why does he care? He considers everybody here to be idiots, so what does he care if a bunch of idiots discuss a case online?
I find it very strange that he comes to this forum at all and I would love to know the real reason he does.
I personally feel that he was really a cop but he's never worked this case and has never seen the case file.

***My question is what is his purpose of being here? From what I can tell hes brought just about nothing to the table, except maybe insults and some misinformation. It appears to me that his goal is to derail the conversation and his method generally is to use personal attacks to do so.
Why does he care? He considers everybody here to be idiots, so what does he care if a bunch of idiots discuss a case online?
I find it very strange that he comes to this forum at all and I would love to know the real reason he does.***
Jenkins what is anyone's purpose for being here? What is your purpose? What exactly have you brought to the table besides very loooong replies? Have you come up with any new information? What is your goal in this whole thing?
And aren't you attacking him by outright calling him a liar? Just wondering.

Why is it when I make a clear, unambigous statement that is as direct as could possibly be, you feel the need to follow that with a ridiculous post that starts with...

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok so your saying....

LOL, do you think this is the first time some idiot had tried to use that method of 'interrogation' on me? Seriously?

I said what I said, clearly and directly. Now, what you wish to infer from that is entirely up to you. A reasonable person may conclude that what I offered could be accurate, that the case was a Troop F case that was occasionally looked at by a MC Detective, who possibly lived in the area and worked out of Troop F from time to time.

Do you know that Troop Detectives and Major Crimes Detectives routinely work the same cases as needed? Do you know that Major Crimes Detectives often work cases that are being investigated by local police departments? Do you know that Major Crimes sometimes looks at cases, helps with some resources, maybe does some interviewing, then turns the case back over to Troop Detectives or local police?

Do you have any idea at all how Law Enforcement works in NH, and specifically in the Northern part of the State? As in, Troop F, Grafton County?

Do you even know what the F you are talking about when you make statements about what Police do and don't do, what this means, what that means?

No, you don't. You have no clue at all how things work in Law Enforcement and therefore you have no basis for your assumptions about Law Enforcement.

That is why I say you are an idiot. Because you aren't even smart enough to know what you don't know.

:)

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Clearly you haven't been paying attention buddy

I have been paying attention for eight years.

Still am.

Bill