Maura Murray

I don't know, I wasn't there that night so I can't really speculate on their reasons. What I can say is this really was not a missing person that night, it was an avoiding person.

Police knew that she was alive, reasonably healthy according to witness', refused help and was makng an attempt to avoid the police. Does that sound like a missing person? Sounds like someone making an attempt to stay missing for the time being.

Personally the alcohol atthe scene wouldn't have made a difference to me, if I knew the person was ok, had refused help and was avoiding the police, I would have made some attempt to find her, but that's it.

Trust me when I say, this happens ALL THE TIME. You tow the car, drive around and look for the driver, then wait for someone to show up and claim the car. What else can you do with one or two cops on duty in the entire town?

Hindsight is 20/20

Maura walked away from that car on her own with the intent to avoid the cops. What happened from there no one knows.

Hindsight is 20/20

Hindsight is 20/20

Hindsight is 20/20

JWB wrote:

The reason I ask this is because the acohol and running away from the scene always seems to be brought up to justify the reactions of LE on Feb 9th.

Justify the actions. I would say that is somewhat accusatory, I think it would be more accurate to say that the cops did what they always do in the same situation. Call it policy, Standard operating procedure, or just plain common sense.

Let me ask you this, what SHOULD the police have done? And whatever your answer is, are you ok with that same procedure being done on every situation we encounter just like this? Will you tolerate the cost in real dollars, tax dollars, that will surely result from that change in policy?

That's a fair question I think.

FrmLE wrote:

I don't know, I wasn't there that night so I can't really speculate on their reasons. What I can say is this really was not a missing person that night, it was an avoiding person.
Police knew that she was alive, reasonably healthy according to witness', refused help and was makng an attempt to avoid the police. Does that sound like a missing person? Sounds like someone making an attempt to stay missing for the time being.
Personally the alcohol atthe scene wouldn't have made a difference to me, if I knew the person was ok, had refused help and was avoiding the police, I would have made some attempt to find her, but that's it.
Trust me when I say, this happens ALL THE TIME. You tow the car, drive around and look for the driver, then wait for someone to show up and claim the car. What else can you do with one or two cops on duty in the entire town?
Hindsight is 20/20
Maura walked away from that car on her own with the intent to avoid the cops. What happened from there no one knows.
Hindsight is 20/20
Hindsight is 20/20
Hindsight is 20/20

Thanks for answering

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Justify the actions. I would say that is somewhat accusatory, I think it would be more accurate to say that the cops did what they always do in the same situation. Call it policy, Standard operating procedure, or just plain common sense.
Let me ask you this, what SHOULD the police have done? And whatever your answer is, are you ok with that same procedure being done on every situation we encounter just like this? Will you tolerate the cost in real dollars, tax dollars, that will surely result from that change in policy?
That's a fair question I think.

It wasn't meant to be acusatory at all.

In response to your question " what should the police have done?"

The only thing I had an issue with was not searching the east even if it was just a mile drive. I would have liked to have seen HPD ask the NHSP if they could assist and take a short run east on 112.

amy researches wrote:

FrmLE, can you tell us why LE thought the construction worker's sighting was credible?

I'm sorry Amy, I really can't.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>

Let me ask you this, what SHOULD the police have done? And whatever your answer is, are you ok with that same procedure being done on every situation we encounter just like this? Will you tolerate the cost in real dollars, tax dollars, that will surely result from that change in policy?
That's a fair question I think.

Again, the only thing I think the police should have done differently was to look east at least just a mile. I would have liked HPD to ask NHSP for assistance in doing so. I don't think that would have been as much of a taxpayer burden as the last 8 years have been especially if they found her to the east.

sorry about similiar double postings. My first post took 5 min to show.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
It wasn't meant to be acusatory at all.
In response to your question " what should the police have done?"
The only thing I had an issue with was not searching the east even if it was just a mile drive. I would have liked to have seen HPD ask the NHSP if they could assist and take a short run east on 112.

I would not say that 112 to the East was not checked, how far I don't know but to say that they didn't even drive a mile up the road is not accurate to my knowledge.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
I would not say that 112 to the East was not checked, how far I don't know but to say that they didn't even drive a mile up the road is not accurate to my knowledge.

The night of Feb 9th you believe that east was searched past the SBD house arround the bend and possibly a mile or more? Am I reading you correctly?

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, the only thing I think the police should have done differently was to look east at least just a mile. I would have liked HPD to ask NHSP for assistance in doing so. I don't think that would have been as much of a taxpayer burden as the last 8 years have been especially if they found her to the east.

Again, hindsight is 20/20. When you say, "if they found her to the East...", what does that mean? Was she lost then? I mean, at what point did she go from being at the scene of the accident, with her car, refusing help, walking past several houses, to being "lost" and needing to be "found"?

It's a real question, if she was at the car, refused help from SBD, didn't want the police called, then left her car behind, what series of events would have occured that one of the cops drove East and then "found" her? She wasn't 'missing', was she?

Does it make sense that she would have walked away from her car, and then ten or fifteen minutes later when the cops drive by, she would have waved them down? Why not wait at the car?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, hindsight is 20/20. When you say, "if they found her to the East...", what does that mean? Was she lost then? I mean, at what point did she go from being at the scene of the accident, with her car, refusing help, walking past several houses, to being "lost" and needing to be "found"?
It's a real question, if she was at the car, refused help from SBD, didn't want the police called, then left her car behind, what series of events would have occured that one of the cops drove East and then "found" her? She wasn't 'missing', was she?
Does it make sense that she would have walked away from her car, and then ten or fifteen minutes later when the cops drive by, she would have waved them down? Why not wait at the car?

Why not wait at the car? Because she was abducted.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, hindsight is 20/20. When you say, "if they found her to the East...", what does that mean? Was she lost then? I mean, at what point did she go from being at the scene of the accident, with her car, refusing help, walking past several houses, to being "lost" and needing to be "found"?
It's a real question, if she was at the car, refused help from SBD, didn't want the police called, then left her car behind, what series of events would have occured that one of the cops drove East and then "found" her? She wasn't 'missing', was she?
Does it make sense that she would have walked away from her car, and then ten or fifteen minutes later when the cops drive by, she would have waved them down? Why not wait at the car?

Are you saying then no search should have been done that night because she wasn't considered missing or lost? I thought there was a hasty search done.

"Does it make sense that she would have walked away from her car, and then ten or fifteen minutes later when the cops drive by, she would have waved them down? Why not wait at the car?"

I never said or implied she would just say hey guys what took you so long to find me. That doesn't mean that LE couldn't have spotted and stopped her and questioned her about the accident etc.. due dilligence.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Why not wait at the car? Because she was abducted.

From where? At the car?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
I would not say that 112 to the East was not checked, how far I don't know but to say that they didn't even drive a mile up the road is not accurate to my knowledge.

I and several others personally spoke to responders that responded to the scene that night. They had stated that the search only went to the end of BHR on 112 because there were no footprints.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you saying then no search should have been done that night because she wasn't considered missing or lost? I thought there was a hasty search done.
"Does it make sense that she would have walked away from her car, and then ten or fifteen minutes later when the cops drive by, she would have waved them down? Why not wait at the car?"
I never said or implied she would just say hey guys what took you so long to find me. That doesn't mean that LE couldn't have spotted and stopped her and questioned her about the accident etc.. due dilligence.

No,I am saying they did what cops do ithe situations. Speak to witnesses, tow the car, drive around and look for someone walking down the road. That's what they did.

One thing I am pretty tired of is this constant trend to reply to my very clear posts by saying...

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you saying...

Why must you try to take what I am actually saying, and twist it into something you want it to sound like by saying

JWB wrote:

Are you saying...

If you want to know what I am saying, read what I wrote. If you want to say what you are saying, then say it.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>I and several others personally spoke to responders that responded to the scene that night. They had stated that the search only went to the end of BHR on 112 because there were no footprints.

Define "The search". Would that include either CS or the Trooper driving up 112?

Where was Maura abducted from? Her car?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
From where? At the car?

Wish I knew the exact location. But sadly to say we dont know.

Frmle stated tonight that (they didn't search a mile east) was innacurrate.

Ooops, I gotta go give a speach, good luck to all you crazy kooks. later

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
No,I am saying they did what cops do ithe situations. Speak to witnesses, tow the car, drive around and look for someone walking down the road. That's what they did.
One thing I am pretty tired of is this constant trend to reply to my very clear posts by saying...
<quoted text>
Why must you try to take what I am actually saying, and twist it into something you want it to sound like by saying <quoted text>
If you want to know what I am saying, read what I wrote. If you want to say what you are saying, then say it.

I am only asking for you to clarify the question I have. I am not twisting anything. Just looking for s straight forward answer. Thats what I'm saying