Maura Murray

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes. What I said is entirely accurate. How do you think packets sent to your ip address get to you if it wasn't a unique address destined to you and only you?
Bill

Packets of what? Thank you.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right. That's why I said I didn't believe it and gave the reasons why I didn't believe it.

Sadly to say some will say and do anything to make a buck. Although we have not always agreed I know your heart is in the right place to help find Maura.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Packets of what? Thank you.

Packets are the units containing the transmitted and received data on the internet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_packet

Read the section called "Example: IP packets". You will notice that the packet contains the ip being sent to and transmitted from.

Bill

just me wrote:

<quoted text>I read somewhere that CW's x wife told police some sort of story and well, maybe that's why they waited to seach the trailor. I don't think they actually found her story credible, but they still had to check it out.

CW never allowed his property to be searched. It was in April of 04 that he claimed to see someone running about 4 miles from the accident scene.He told this to a neighbor.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>CW never allowed his property to be searched. It was in April of 04 that he claimed to see someone running about 4 miles from the accident scene.He told this to a neighbor.

Citigirl, do you know what year the trailer was allowed to be searched by the new owner?

gpj wrote:

it was searched when it arrived at its new owners in lyme nh. the owner gave the permission to do so. i know the owner. it was gone through with a vacuum cleaner top to bottom .

Very interesting, thanks for that info.

That's a real lot of work for them to do if they were just following a lead because they have to follow all leads, even if they don't really believe them.
That is a lot of work to do for something you don't believe is possible.

The vacuuming means they are generally looking for fiber evidence specifically, vacuuming the entire trailer properly for fibers takes a Long time but then the bags have to be sent to the lab to be analyzed, that's when the real work begins.
Do you guys realize how long it would take the lab to sift through and analyze the potential evidence collected by the vacuum?
That's a fairly serious project, and it would utilize a log of the crime lab's time. It is highly unlikely that they would take this step if they didn't think that there was a potential for finding evidence of a crime. Doing that is more than just following a lead, no matter how unlikely it is. They might follow an unlikely lead, meaning go talk to someone, ask questions, that kind of thing. But they aren't going to waste the time and resources of the crime lab unless they have some sort of legitimate reason to think the crime lab might come up with some sort of hard evidence.
Le clearly thinks, or thought, that the cw is a poi in Maura's dissapearance.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>The Aframe ended up being searched because of what a NH resident said about the AFrame.

Be specific - my post to Amy was that FM searched the house and not LE. Your post does nothing to add any factual information. We know all about the "bonkers" story but I was never under the impression or is there any evidence to suggest that LE searched the Aframe.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you guys realize how long it would take the lab to sift through and analyze the potential evidence collected by the vacuum?
That's a fairly serious project, and it would utilize a log of the crime lab's time.
They might follow an unlikely lead, meaning go talk to someone, ask questions, that kind of thing. But they aren't going to waste the time and resources of the crime lab unless they have some sort of legitimate reason to think the crime lab might come up with some sort of hard evidence.
Le clearly thinks, or thought, that the cw is a poi in Maura's dissapearance.

Jenkins - I have no idea how long it would take to sift through the analyze the potential evidence from the vacuum. Can you please tell me?
Can you also tell me how long this "project" would take? Maybe you can also tell me what other jobs the Lab had infront of it that day or that week where they didn't have the "time" to do this?
Then can you also tell me what forensic traning you have to give a correct time frame to make a logical quess as to how long it would take.
Can you also tell me which manager of the forensic lab you spoke with that said they were too busy to do theses tests. Once I have this information I can then understand your conclusions.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Le clearly thinks, or thought, that the cw is a poi in Maura's dissapearance.

Again, just as much effort needs to go into a search in excluding a person or place, as it does to include a person or place.

After this "massive" search, anyone hear of LE mentioning that they now had a suspect? Didn't seem to change their working theory, or POI, not that they have one, one bit.

Bill

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins - I have no idea how long it would take to sift through the analyze the potential evidence from the vacuum. Can you please tell me?
Can you also tell me how long this "project" would take? Maybe you can also tell me what other jobs the Lab had infront of it that day or that week where they didn't have the "time" to do this?
Then can you also tell me what forensic traning you have to give a correct time frame to make a logical quess as to how long it would take.
Can you also tell me which manager of the forensic lab you spoke with that said they were too busy to do theses tests. Once I have this information I can then understand your conclusions.

Man, do you want Jenkins to feed you your morning cheerios as well? Some of that information you can look up at this handy little site called www.google.com . Other questions you asked cannot be answered by anyone here.

Of course, you know that already and were just asking non answerable questions to prove your point, which is also known as wasting everybody't time. Jenkins opinion was that if they indeed vacuumed for evidence some time later, it must have been for a reason since that does seem somewhat out of the ordinary and time consuming (don't ask to the minute how long it takes please, all you need to know is that the process does consume time).

The guys initials you all are talking about are RF and not CW. Just hoping to clear that up.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins - I have no idea how long it would take to sift through the analyze the potential evidence from the vacuum. Can you please tell me?
Can you also tell me how long this "project" would take? Maybe you can also tell me what other jobs the Lab had infront of it that day or that week where they didn't have the "time" to do this?
Then can you also tell me what forensic traning you have to give a correct time frame to make a logical quess as to how long it would take.
Can you also tell me which manager of the forensic lab you spoke with that said they were too busy to do theses tests. Once I have this information I can then understand your conclusions.

Vacuuming up the trailer would take a few hours and then sifting through the evidence when it got to the lab would probably take a few hours as well, but that's the easy part. Then they have to analyze the evidence, which could easily take weeks or even months, depending on what material was collected and how much was collected.
Trace evidence is some of the most difficult and time consuming work that a forensics lab does, this type of work is not going to be done on a whim.

Did I talk to the manager of the lab?? Are you serious with this question?? There is no way I'd waste the time of anyone working in the lab with a question like this, never mind the fact that you don't need to talk to anyone to determine that the state crime lab is busy.
There is only one lab in the state, it serves 220 towns and cities, 10 sheriffs dep'ts and 9 state agencies including the NHSP. They also take cases from fire dep'ts and federal agencies working in the state.
In 2011 they worked over 18,000 cases, that's a lot of casework. Most of those, over 15,000 were drug and urine analysis which are fairly quick but that still leaves a lot of time consuming casework on their hands. In 2011 they did trace analysis on 155 cases. The crime lab certainly is not looking for work. you don't need to talk to the manager to know that they are busy and have a lot of casework on their hands.
In order for the sp to have the trailer vacuumed they must have thought there was a reasonable possibility that there would be evidence recovered. For example: if they truly believed the cw saw her running 5 miles away that night then they wouldn't be searching his trailer for evidence because they would believe that there would be none found.

While I was studying for my criminal justice major I did receive some basic forensics training which included trace analysis; collection in the field and analysis. While I'm certainly no expert on forensics I do have a good idea about how this work is done and how long it takes to accomplish. Trace analysis is very difficult and very time consuming. They are not going to have the lab do all this work for the fun of it, they must have had some reasonable expectation of finding evidence.

I think everyone knows his real initials are RF orko; CW is the abbreviation for "construction worker"

Many people, myself included, feel it is irresponsible to use someone's real name or even initials on a public forum when referring to them as possibly being a suspect or poi.

The initials cw and sbd have been used since the original MM forum, before it even became MMM. Back then people really didn't use anyone's real names or initials. Until last year I took a couple year break from posting. I was shocked when I came back and people were using their real names and initials.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, just as much effort needs to go into a search in excluding a person or place, as it does to include a person or place.
After this "massive" search, anyone hear of LE mentioning that they now had a suspect? Didn't seem to change their working theory, or POI, not that they have one, one bit.
Bill

Bill that is a good point about it taking as much work to exclude someone.

But didn't a few pages back you get into a debate with jwb over there needing to be evidence to cause you to include a particular person or theory?
Now your saying it's the other way around? That you need to find evidence to eliminate potential theories?

Jenkins wrote:

I think everyone knows his real initials are RF orko; CW is the abbreviation for "construction worker"
Many people, myself included, feel it is irresponsible to use someone's real name or even initials on a public forum when referring to them as possibly being a suspect or poi.
The initials cw and sbd have been used since the original MM forum, before it even became MMM. Back then people really didn't use anyone's real names or initials. Until last year I took a couple year break from posting. I was shocked when I came back and people were using their real names and initials.

Oh, I do apologize. I really didn't get that CW was construction worker.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill that is a good point about it taking as much work to exclude someone.
But didn't a few pages back you get into a debate with jwb over there needing to be evidence to cause you to include a particular person or theory?
Now your saying it's the other way around? That you need to find evidence to eliminate potential theories?

If someone, like an ex wife or girlfriend accuses someone of having something to do with someones disappearance. The lead might have to be checked out, no matter how stupid it might appear on it's face simply because he was injected into the case by being a witness. I think that is what happened in this case if I remember correctly.

It still takes just as long and the techs have to work just as hard. Because an outlandish accusation might have been made. The techs still have to do everything they do to prove to the best of their ability that there was no evidence that Maura was ever there. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing. You only need one piece of evidence to prove that she was there. How many pieces of evidence that excludes her does it take before you can say that she wasn't there? Give me a number. Does it prove she wasn't there or does it mean you just missed that piece of evidence that she was there? It is hard to prove she wasn't there. Checking every single piece of evidence and showing that none of it includes anything to do with Maura is a grueling task. Just a laborious, maybe more so, to show she wasn't there.

So the "evidence" in this case, as laughable as it is, would be the ex-wife/girlfriends accusation. Not enough for a warrant, but the police still trying to do their do diligence.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
If someone, like an ex wife or girlfriend accuses someone of having something to do with someones disappearance. The lead might have to be checked out, no matter how stupid it might appear on it's face simply because he was injected into the case by being a witness. I think that is what happened in this case if I remember correctly.
It still takes just as long and the techs have to work just as hard. Because an outlandish accusation might have been made. The techs still have to do everything they do to prove to the best of their ability that there was no evidence that Maura was ever there. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing. You only need one piece of evidence to prove that she was there. How many pieces of evidence that excludes her does it take before you can say that she wasn't there? Give me a number. Does it prove she wasn't there or does it mean you just missed that piece of evidence that she was there? It is hard to prove she wasn't there. Checking every single piece of evidence and showing that none of it includes anything to do with Maura is a grueling task. Just a laborious, maybe more so, to show she wasn't there.
So the "evidence" in this case, as laughable as it is, would be the ex-wife/girlfriends accusation. Not enough for a warrant, but the police still trying to do their do diligence.
Bill

That's a reasonable assessment bill and Yur right, it is extremely difficult to prove she wasn't there.

How are we so sure that it was his ex-wife's statement that led to this search? Is there something you know about that or is it just an educated guess?

If it was that statement then they must have out some stock into it, as evidenced by them doing forensics on the trailer.

I guess the only thing that we can be sure of in this whole scenario is that they don't truly believe his sighting of her running 4-5 miles away. If they believed that sighting was credible then they would not be searching his trailer for evidence, I think we can all agree on that right?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
If someone, like an ex wife or girlfriend accuses someone of having something to do with someones disappearance. The lead might have to be checked out, no matter how stupid it might appear on it's face simply because he was injected into the case by being a witness. I think that is what happened in this case if I remember correctly.
It still takes just as long and the techs have to work just as hard. Because an outlandish accusation might have been made. The techs still have to do everything they do to prove to the best of their ability that there was no evidence that Maura was ever there. Proving a negative is a very difficult thing. You only need one piece of evidence to prove that she was there. How many pieces of evidence that excludes her does it take before you can say that she wasn't there? Give me a number. Does it prove she wasn't there or does it mean you just missed that piece of evidence that she was there? It is hard to prove she wasn't there. Checking every single piece of evidence and showing that none of it includes anything to do with Maura is a grueling task. Just a laborious, maybe more so, to show she wasn't there.
So the "evidence" in this case, as laughable as it is, would be the ex-wife/girlfriends accusation. Not enough for a warrant, but the police still trying to do their do diligence.
Bill

That takes me back to the post about Maura not being missing. Don't you think that would have warranted being looked into by LE ? you blew it off as Crap when I merely said it was interesting.I was only trying to say that it was interesting and I hope LE looked further into it to exclude it but you were implying that things don't work that way and I had it backwards.

Exactly jwb, now bill is saying that they should look into outlandish stories to see if there is any evidence to back them up?

Last week he was saying that a story is complete bullshit until there is some sort of evidence that says otherwise, now he is saying that le needs to look into it to find evidence to either support or dismiss the claim.

Also, in this case le has never said anything about potential suspects. Iirc the only mention I've ever seen is that the sbd was eliminated and billy was eliminated.
Contrary to many other missing persons cases around the county nh le has been extremely tight lipped about this case.

Jenkins wrote:

Exactly jwb, now bill is saying that they should look into outlandish stories to see if there is any evidence to back them up?
Last week he was saying that a story is complete bullshit until there is some sort of evidence that says otherwise, now he is saying that le needs to look into it to find evidence to either support or dismiss the claim.
Also, in this case le has never said anything about potential suspects. Iirc the only mention I've ever seen is that the sbd was eliminated and billy was eliminated.
Contrary to many other missing persons cases around the county nh le has been extremely tight lipped about this case.

Jenkins - CW sighting as FRMLE has stated was probably accurate. Meaning LE thought CW saw MM last. So if CW's exwife makes a statement to LE they would look into that a little more because CW was the last known person to see MM.

There is no links in MM and the Vassi hit and run except she was on the phone crying, and she was close enough to have been part of the accident or cover up.