Maura Murray

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

That is a reasonable point lighthouse, if they think he might be the last person to see her alive and his ex-wife is saying things like that that might be cause for them to take a closer look at him. That would make him a poi. That doesn't mean that he's still a poi or a suspect, although he might still be, that means at one point he was a poi in her dissapearance.
Judging by what scarinza has said most recently, particularly to renner, it appears that le doesn't really believe the cw's sighting of Maura 4-5 miles away.
Why does it matter what frmLE said anyways? You are aware that he has absolutely no inside information on this case right?
You do know that nobody from LE with inside information is going to be posting on topix right??
Do you really think that someone would put their pension at risk, or the career of the person who showed them the case file at risk just so they can post on an Internet forum with a bunch of people they consider to be idiots? No way.. If he truly had inside info do you have any idea how illegal and unethical it would be to post that info to a public forum like this?

Let's get this straight once and for all; no cop who's ever worked this case would ever post on topix, not gonna happen. On the same tip, no cop who's ever been illegally shown the case file by one of his buddies is going to post the info here either. FrmLE has claimed both. While frmLE very well might have been a cop, I believe it's possible but there are very good reasons to think he was never NHSP. Maybe he was a cop somewhere but we can be very certain that he has absolutely no inside info relating to MM.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

I completely agree about there being no link to vasi except her crying and being in the same area, that's hardly a link, certainly not what anybody should consider to be even circumstantial evidence. At this point I don't see how a link could ever be proven without a confession from Maura herself, especially considering the face that the cops did absolutely no investigation into the matter. Even if she was involved it still brings us no closer to finding out what happened to her after she left her car at the wb curve.

How is it that there is a hit and run and no investigation? Does anybody else find that just unbelievable?

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Here we go again........

Ok, let me ask you, on what do you base your opinion that the gathering and processing of evidence would be a significant undertaking?

How many times have you processed a crime scene? Or did you see it on TV, watch a little CSI maybe?

How many times have you worked a criminal investigation and made the decision about what leads to follow and what evidence to follow?

Please tell us, if LE thought there was a high enough likelyhood that CW was a POI, then why didn't they find any evidence?

Or how about, if they though he was a POI strongly enough to process the trailer, then why couldn't they get a search warrant at the time he became a POI?

Please tell us, besides watching TV, where does your experience come from that compels you to make such strong statements about what the cops did and what it must mean?

Please tell us.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Why does it matter what frmLE said anyways? You are aware that he has absolutely no inside information on this case right?

RIGHT! lol

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Here we go again........
Ok, let me ask you, on what do you base your opinion that the gathering and processing of evidence would be a significant undertaking?
s.

So you disagree about gathering trace evidence taking a Long time? You don't think it's a significant undertaking? What do you think it's quick and easy? If anything does that sounds like info obtained from CSI.
I am clesrly not an expert on gathering forensic evidence but I know enough to say that it's not easy and analyzing it takes a significant amount of time. There is no question about that, if your trying to say that analyzing trace evidence is really quick and easy you are dead wrong.
Clearly I'm not getting this info from watching CSI lol, I fkn hate that show. It's so damn fake it's ridiculous. Shows like that make forensics look really quick and easy, which it's not. Is that where your basing what your saying on? because it sure sounds like it.
Like i said above I'm basing what I'm saying about the trace work on the forensics class I took while studying for my criminal justice degree, which is the degree that the NHSP wants its cadets at the academy to have.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
RIGHT! lol

FRMLE- lets assume the trailer was vacuumed and they filled and average vacuum cleaner bag of say 6-8 cups of material. What would be the process (gather-sort-examine) roughly how long would it take forensics to complete this? again roughly. Hours? days? weeks ? Months?.

Thanks

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 .

Amy already asked but I'll ask again.

Does anyone know what year the trailer was searched?

Jenkins wrote:

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.

I see, this is the entire basis for your vast knowledge and extensive experience. While you were studying for your criminal justice degree...... Which, it does not appear you have put to use as of yet. Interesting, very interesting.

So you feel that whatever course you took in college qualifies you to offer expert opinion on how Law Enforcement works? Yes?

I mean, I could understand if you were some rookie cop just out of the police academy who actualy did take a forensics course taught by a real cop, which would still mean you know absolutely nothing but at least I could understand why YOU think you do.

But you never actually went to a police academy, you took some classes in college. Taught by some professor, presumably.

Please. Stop.

Jenkins wrote:

I do have a good idea about how this work is done and how long it takes to accomplish.

No you don't.

Jenkins wrote:

While I'm certainly no expert....

Finally, something we can agree on.

Look kid, the more you type the dummer you look. Have you ever heard the phrase "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Good advice.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Well you are incorrect regardless as to who your post was to. Fred did not search the AFrame and was not in the area when the AFrame was searched.Were you present at the 2006 search?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Thank you Bill.

amy researches wrote:

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

Im sorry but I do not recall the year the trailer was searched.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
The CW was clearly considered a POI at some point as evidenced by the fact that they searched his trailer, there is no question about that. Do you think the cops search the home of people that they think have nothing to do with the crime?
Do you think he wasn't a poi when they searched his trailer?
If they thought there was no way he was connected to her dissapearance why would they be searching his trailer?
What could possibly be another reason to search his trailer besides looking for evidence of a crime?
FrmLE asked this:
"Please tell us, if LE thought there was a high enough likelyhood that CW was a POI, then why didn't they find any evidence"
This question is just ridiculous, what do you mean why didn't they find evidence? Either there wasn't any there, or they missed it. That has nothing to do with whether they considered him a POI before they searched it. What do you think every time LE searches for potential evidence they find it? Sounds like you watch a little too much CSI. Just because they didn't find anything doesn't mean that they didn't think they would potentially find evidence. They obviously thought there was a possibility they would find something, otherwise they wouldn't waste their time.
They certainly didn't take this action just to make it look like they were investigating; this wasn't in any media reports that I'm aware of, it wasn't on the news. The general public has no idea that this search took place.
Just because he is a POI doesn't mean that they have enough probable cause for a search warrant, otherwise I'm sure they would've gotten one much earlier. obviously they didn't have enough PC to get a warrant on the place, but that in no way means they didnt consider him a POI.
I said this a few pages back, they must have had something to make them think he was potentially involved but it wasn't strong enough to obtain a search warrant. I wonder what it was. Was it because he made up the sighting? Was it his ex-wife's comment? It had to be something fairly compelling because otherwise they wouldn't have searched his trailer.

Who is to say that new carpets were not put in the trailer.So far we really don't know when he moved the trailer. Also, we don't know if they found evidence or not because we are not privy to the case file. It may be possible that they found some evidence, but not enough to bring a case forward or maybe there was nothing.For FRMLE to insinuate that no evidence was found can't be said for certain.

Very good point jwb, for all we know they did find some evidence against him, just not enough to prosecute him. They aren't exactly telling the public everything they know so in reality we have no idea if they found anything or not, and if they did you can be damn sure they wouldn't be telling the public about it.
Think about it, even if they found one of Maura's hairs, which is unlikely, that wouldn't be nearly enough for a prosecution. All that would prove is that she was in his house at one point; That wouldn't prove that he killed her or that she's even dead. If they found evidence linking him to the crime, but not enough evidence to prosecute, there is no way in hell they would come out and tell the public about it.

Bottom line is we have no idea if they found anything or not, the only thing we know is that they didn't find her body.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Well you are incorrect regardless as to who your post was to. Fred did not search the AFrame and was not in the area when the AFrame was searched.Were you present at the 2006 search?

Citigirl below is a quote from the Hanson Witman Express. Looks like he set up the search, got the key and was also there. To answer your question I was not present at the search. What about you where you there? Were you an "observer"?

"Fred was also present for the search and aggressively pushed investigators to search an A-frame house on Valley Road near the scene of the accident. He suspected it might be somehow connected.

The property was on the real estate market, so Fred sought out real estate agent Stan Davis and asked permission to search the house. Davis confirmed that he gave Fred his consent and provided him with a key to the house.

The fight for the house search was worth the effort."

On the first day, a cadaver dog searched the house and had hits on the second level; the next day four more cadaver dogs were put to work in the house and went "bonkers," Fred said. The strongest hits by the dogs were in a downstairs closet. Cadaver dogs are skilled in sniffing for decomposing bodies but are not able to distinguish the identities of bodies. "

Citi- Fred wasn't present for the search that took place in '06, when the A-frame was searched? I always thought that he was. Wasn't he the one that made the comment about the dogs going "bonkers"? How could he have made the comment about the dogs if he wasn't there to see it?

What ever happened with the piece of carpet that was taken from the closet? I always found it strange that we never heard anything else about it. Didn't the family have it forensicly tested? I always thought that LE had one piece tested and the pi's had a piece tested on their own as well. It's interesting that we've never heard anything about it again. You would think that if they tested it and found that it had nothing to do with Maura someone would have said so. If LE tested it and determined it was unrelated I would think they would come out and say so. On the other hand, if they found that it was potentially connected there is no way that LE would come out and say that it was.

Was it human blood is the question; I thought I read somewhere that it was human blood. Well who's blood is it? I read something and it was explained away as possibly being menstruel blood. That is just completely ridiculous to even say, does anyone actually believe that is possible? Not to be gross here but girls don't bleed that much, certainly not enough to make a stain in the corner of a closet. How could that even be possible? Is it possible there's something to the A-frame and since we aren't privy to the findings of the forensics lab we don't know about it it? Well it's obviously possible, the question is how likely is it.

The fifth word in the quote, FOR.....Not IN nor AT.
I was there FOR (As were many family and friends)
ONLY professionals were IN the search.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
I see, this is the entire basis for your vast knowledge and extensive experience. While you were studying for your criminal justice degree...... Which, it does not appear you have put to use as of yet. Interesting, very interesting.
So you feel that whatever course you took in college qualifies you to offer expert opinion on how Law Enforcement works? Yes?
I mean, I could understand if you were some rookie cop just out of the police academy who actualy did take a forensics course taught by a real cop, which would still mean you know absolutely nothing but at least I could understand why YOU think you do.
But you never actually went to a police academy, you took some classes in college. Taught by some professor, presumably.
Please. Stop.
<quoted text>
No you don't.
<quoted text>
Finally, something we can agree on.
Look kid, the more you type the dummer you look. Have you ever heard the phrase "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Good advice.

Ok first of all the class was taught by a cop, a Vermont state trooper. Same exact course any rookie cop would have taken, so your point there means absolutely nothing. Just like a rookie cop, taking one course on forensics doesn't make you an expert, but it gives you a damn good idea of how the forensics process works. And for the record, I actually DID go to a police academy, the last semester I spent at the Vermont State Police Academy doing field training, which is a requirement In fulfilling the degree.

In general I actually know a hell of a lot more about how LE works then you think. Apparently, according to bill a few pages back, you have to brag about what you've done to be considered credible. Since we are on the Internet and anyone can say anything I always thought that it should be the merits of the argument that matter, not what the person claims to be or have done. It shouldn't Matter if someone bags groceries, if their argument has merit, it has merit. Unlike you and bill, I prefer to let the merits of my argument speak for themselves, I don't like to brag about my accomplishments and in reality they shouldn't matter, remember that this is an Internet forum. Anyone can claim to be anything, what should matter is what they're saying.

As for my criminal justice degree I've actually put it to damn good use. The last semester of college for me was spent at the Vermont State Police Academy so I could have very easily became a cop. I could've walked out of there a sworn Vermont state trooper, and almost did, but chose not to due to the fact that much of a cops time is spent giving out speeding tickets and the like, basically harassing the public for very minor infractions. For several years after college I spent as a licensed private investigator working for insurance companies investigating claims, made damn good money doing it too. It was a very interesting job but I didn't really like it.
For the last few years I've been working for ICE(immigration and customs enforcement). This summer I was assigned to a joint federal/local task force down in Mass. This is what I was doing when I took my little 'sabbatical' from topix this summer. I spent the summer working very closely with both state and local cops down there, the local cops were all city cops so their procedures are obviously very different than the NHSP troop F but it gave me a much better understanding of how local LE works then I already had and how an investigation at the state and local level works, which is similar but somewhat different than how investigations work at the federal level. All arrests that we made, but one, are being prosecuted in state superior court.
So yes, I do have some experience that I'm basing my opinion on, but none of that should even matter in the slightest bit. What should matter is what I'm saying. People can judge for themselves.

That quote is rather interesting. It sounds like there were several hits by the cadaver dogs.
The first day the dog hit on something on the second level.
The second day, with 4 dogs, the dogs went "bonkers". The strongest hits were in a downstairs closet. This implies that those dogs had hits in other areas of the house as well. They had a dog hit on something upstairs, they had hits on the downstairs closet. It sounds like there were other hits as well.
What the hell was going on in that house that would cause multiple hits like that? I suppose It's possible the dogs were wrong and didn't really smell anything but that seems fairly unlikely considering there was multiple dogs present.
What is up with that house?

I thought I've read somewhere that it was determined that the a-frame is unrelated to MM, so who's blood was it? Who were the dogs hitting on?

I would hope that following the search and the results of the dogs that LE took a close look at that house to see if any crime ever occurred there.

Here is the final quote from Lt. Scarinza when he was interviewed by James Renner.

This clearly does not sound like someone who think a crime was committed to Maura that night she went missing.

"Until we know for sure what happened, we're going to treat this case as if she was a victim of a crime."

verry odd way to say they think a crime took place, "we aree going to treat it as if she was a victim of a crime."

On record in many articles over the year, he has stated that police don't believe foul play was involved such as one of his own released statements that said:

"At the accident scene in Haverhill, there were no signs of any struggle, or any other evidence, which would indicate that a crime had been committed."

At the time of Maura’s disappearance, there was approx. 2 ½ feet of snow on the ground. Searchers were able to easily distinguish deer and moose tracks in the area, and the snow cover greatly assisted the searchers in eliminating possible area’s where Maura could have traveled off of
the main roads in the area. The snow greatly aided the search from the air, also due to the fact that any person who would have wandered off the road and into the woods would have left a trail that would readily be seen from the air."

And later in his released statement:

"Investigators believe that Maura was headed for an unknown destination and may have accepted a ride in order to continue to that location."

After re-reading some statements by Lt. Scarinza it is also clear that he disputes just how old the note was of that was left by maura on top of her packed belongings. James has said in his blog that the email was an old one that dealt with maura's boyfriend's infidelity.

Lt. Scarinza notes when he talked to James Renner earlier this year or late last year:

"On top of the boxes was that email from Billy. Maura had discovered her boyfriend had cheated on her."

But In a press release Lt. Scarinza made himself just months after maura went missing (so his memory would've been real fresh), he stated:

"By Monday morning, Feb. 9th Maura had packed up all her belongings in her dorm room at U-Mass, putting everything neatly in boxes and putting all the boxes on her bed along with a personal note she had recently received from her boyfriend."