Maura Murray

Jenkins wrote:

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.

This is a perfect example of Jenkins stating things as FACTS that are NOT FACTS and solely his opinion. It is also, perhaps, one of the most ignorant and ridiculous things he has said here.

Really Jenkins?!? Really?!? "Girls don't bleed that much ..." Well, speaking as a girl, I can guarantee you that women DO bleed that much, and more. You are not female, therefore, you have never menstuated, therefore, you have no experience of any kind to say how much women bleed during menstruation.

People who have little experience reading Jenkins' posts for a long period of time on this site will think that people are being mean to him, but it is because of these types of statements, stated as FACT, not opinion, that causes everybody to have to stop talking about Maura Murray and spend time proving that Jenkins' facts ARE NOT FACTS. The longer you are here, the more you will find yourself having to set the record straight with correcting Jenkins' facts. I would advise you all to ignore his long, multiple, rambling posts - he is here only to waste everybody's time. You can pick any of his recent posts and go back a few months and find nearly word for word the exact same posts. I'm not saying this to be mean, I am saying it because I hope some people wake up to him sooner than later. Look at how all the discussion has centered around his posts since he showed back up here. Everybody is spending their time pointing out the errors in his posts and how his assumptions and opinions are not facts. I would suggest taking a break for a while until he gets burned out and disappears again.

Lol, wow!!! Wow maruchan!! You can't be serious can you?? This one is ridiculous.
Literally in the sentence before I stated your so called "fact" I asked if it was possible. So how the hell am I stating it as a fact in the next sentence. I asked "is it even possible" the sentence before I said that, I obviously never intended that to be taken as a fact, but I forget how much people go through my posts. But since I had asked if it was possible the sentence before I didn't think anyone could possibly think I was now stating it as a fact. Generally when people ask if something's possible they aren't then stating it as fact the next sentence. I suppose I should have said usually, because that is true, most girls usually dont bleed that much. That's why I was asking, I was literally asking if that was even physically possible. I've lived with a girl for 10 of the last 14 years and I've never once seen a stain anywhere, except a little one on the bed, certainly not anything even approaching close enough to cause a stain in the corner of a closet, even if the sheet was thrown on the floor blood stain down.. That's a lot of blood! Is that really possible? Not to be gross but It would have to be on something like a sheet and then be enough that it was transferred from the sheet onto the floor. A fairly significant amount of blood would be required for that.

I was asking a question there, not stating a fact. I'll clearly have to be more careful with my wording here, I did not intend to be stating that as fact.. But Why is it whenever people think they caught me making up a fact they always break out the cheesiest bullshit?, these cheesy technicalities in wording. It's hilarious actually, these people try so hard to try to catch me making something up yet they can never find anything real that I've ever made up. It's always this cheesy shit, never any real facts that actually have bearing on the case. This is seriously a weak attempt right here, and a funny ass too! I made up the "fact" that girls can't bleed that much lol, that's hilarious. Obviously I was asking if it's possible because it's clearly rare for a girl to bleed that much. And even if someone did bleed that much how the hell could it stain the corner of a closet??
Either way, the point is that is a very strange explanation for there being a bloodstain in the corner of a closet; I've never heard that used as an explanation for a bloodstain in a criminal case. The whole thing is weird. But for real, is that the best you can come up with for facts that I've made up? Why can't you people come up with some real shit I've made up if I actually make shit up like you say.
Disagree with what I say, that's fine, everyone is welcome to their opinion. The accusations of me making shit up is getting old, you guys either need to come up with something real or just give up because so far no one has come up with one fact that I've made up, and it's not gonna happen either. Ain't gonna happen.
If people like you don't like my post please just skip over them, nobody has to read anything. I invite you to please skip my posts, especially if you feel I'm wasting your time. As for the other guys that you say are "correcting" me lol, I would much rather them skip over my posts if I'm wasting their precious time. I don't want to take their time away for talking about how drunk she was and much she as trying to elude police. Wanna talk about saying the same thing? Bills been saying the same exact shit for years, she got drunk, ran from the cops and got lost in the woods; end of story. That is all he's ever talked about, that and SAR. Same as frmLE, if your not talking about how drunk and lost in the woods she got, your an idiot. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statement here? Also remember that their whole theory is based on the ASSUMPTION that she was drunk and trying to flee. They constantly state that as fact when it's clearly not. Such hypocrisy it's crazy

Orko Kringer wrote:

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."

Hey orko, your def right that he has never said he thinks foul play, he's always very careful with his wording to not let on what he thinks either way, the NHSP too. They are extremely careful in their wording to not say what they think happened to her.
Scarinza makes very ambiguous statements that can't really be interpreted either way.
That's why I believe that looking st their actions gives a much Better picture of what LE believes happened to her. If they believe she is a suicide then this is the most investigated suicide ever, maybe I'm being facetious there but still, theyve done a real lot of work on this suicide.
In '06 they had thousands of pages and thousands of manhours put into this case, and since then theyve done a lot. And a lot of the work has been done behind the scenes, as in not made known to the media. Much of it, cw's trailer for instance, would never even be known if it wasn't for locals and people like renner talking to the locals. That was never made public. You can't say that was dine to make it look like they were investigating
Basically they could have stopped in 06 and no one could say they didn't really investigate it. If they put in 4,000 hours and concluded that she most likely killed herself they can't get in trouble if they were wrong. They can't get in trouble for being wrong. They can only get in trouble for not doing the work, nobody can say 4,000 hours isn't adequate. They've done a lot of stuff since 06, do you really think they would do all this if they truly thought she killed herself? Especially considering they make none of this known to the public. To me it looks like they are truly looking for Maura's killer. IMO its the only thing that explains all the things they've done. It doesn't make sense to be out investigating a crime like that If you believe that a crime didn't even occur. Am I wrong here? I know that they need to investigate leads even if they think suicide but it appears they are doing more than just running down the occasional lead.
Do you explain all their actions merely as a technicality? Like they have to do it to say they did it kind of thing? I believe that they've put a little too much time and energy into this investigation to say that.

Orko- he said
"Until we know for sure what happened, we're going to treat this case as if she was a victim of a crime."
That doesn't sound like he thinks a crime occurred but it also doesn't sound like he doesn't. That's a very ambiguous statement, that can be taken either way very easily.
He said this:
"Investigators believe that Maura was headed for an unknown destination and may have accepted a ride in order to continue to that location."
He slips in "may" and makes it ambiguous, they don't want to commit to anything but it sounds like investigators think she caught a ride. Do you think that indicates suicide?
If they think she caught a ride from her killer there is no way they would say that to the public. That'd be who their looking for, they wouldn't want him to know that they know and are looking for him. No way the NHSP would release that information. That statement can be taken either way, either suicide or murder. This in no way indicates that he thinks a crime didn't occur, the exact opposite could potentially be interpreted, that he thinks a crime did occur. His statement is ambiguous as to not indicate what he thinks either way.
One of the only unambiguous statements he makes is about her not being In the woods near the crash site. He mentions there being fresh snow and seeing no tracks leading into the woods. He also describes flying in the helicopter and what he can see from it. He says that he is reasonably confident that she is not in the woods near the crash site. This is one of the only statements he makes fairly clear.
Something that we can determine here is that the SP believe that Maura is not lost in the woods anywhere near the crash site, but rather she caught a ride from someone to an unknown destination. Well scarinza appears to believe that and in reality that makes the most logical sense, that she caught a ride.
Anything after that is purely speculation but IMO LE does believe a crime occurred and are investigating it as such. To me it looks like they've done way too much work to not believe a crime took place at all. How could someone out that much effort into an investigation where a crime doesn't even exist? Do you think that's possible? Since they're doing it behind the scenes, and they long ago did more than enough work where they probabky don't have to worry about a lawsuit by Fred or anyone. 4,000 hours is a lot of work, nobody can ever say they didn't investigate it enough. 4,000 hours is enough for any court of law.
Do you really think the whole investigation is all an act? What do you think about all the work they've done orko? How do you explain that away or do you think LE is wrong? LE has certainly been wrong before so if that's what you think it makes sense, I'm truly wondering how you explain the investigation.

Jenkins, those are some very interesting posts.

Let me ask you, are you a sworn Law Enforcement Officer with ICE? Simple question really, are you a cop?

I can't wait to hear this answer.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>I would suggest taking a break for a while until he gets burned out and disappears again.

That is what I am waiting for. It takes much far to long for me (and others) to make substantive posts than to just squirt his same written diarrhea over and over and over in such volumes that it's hard to compete if you work for a living. He seems to be under the impression that the volume of what he writes is far more important than the quality, content and logical construction of what he writes. He really seems to believe that high volume equals excellent content. And many of his posts are just rehashing of the previous two, three or four. He reminds me of that kid in fifth grade that has to fill a 1000 word paper report, and he will put anything on the page to get it filled.

And I see he is not content to just cover the walls here, he is on other forums as well spreading his total lack of knowledge, his inexperience and misunderstandings of the facts far and wide.

Marvelous.

Bill

FrmLE wrote:

Jenkins, those are some very interesting posts.
Let me ask you, are you a sworn Law Enforcement Officer with ICE? Simple question really, are you a cop?
I can't wait to hear this answer.

I'm guessing summer intern on a ride along program.

And please god, don't tell me he actually graduated from a criminal justice program. Unless, maybe a Florida college. I really didn't have time to read all of his "credentials". Maybe tonight.

Bill

Orko Kringer wrote:

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."

Orko- There are so many changes in Scarinzas statements over the years it is mind boggling. I remember someone even gathering together all his inconsistencies in a neat little package to compare.If I find it again I will post it.If you read through the news articles you can also pick up on it.

Jenkins wrote:

but IMO LE does believe a crime occurred and are investigating it as such. To me it looks like they've done way too much work to not believe a crime took place at all. How could someone out that much effort into an investigation where a crime doesn't even exist? Do you think that's possible?

Saw this little tidbit of crap and had to respond because its so silly.

They are investigating a disappearance. They have no idea if there is any crime involved and won't until they finish the investigation. The investigation will be helped significantly when they find Maura. Until then no one knows if a crime has occurred and to date, NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME EXISTS, except almost certainly drunk driving. What the investigators might "think" is purely speculative, something you clearly love to do, but your guesses are really not based on either knowledge or experience and so are fairly useless. The professionals have never said foul play but to you that is an oversight of some kind I guess, instead of a statement unto itself. It OK LE. Jenkins has your back, he is telling everyone he thinks its suspicious. You guys can stand down. Jenkins is on the case and he is writing reams of material on the subject.

I think his real intent is to stall the investigation by making the investigators spend day after day reading the voluminous amounts of crap he keeps composing.

Bill

Off topic:

I have been reading that many vehicles have a safety mechanism that won't allow the car to start for a certain period of time after Airbags are deployed. This is for fire safety. I don't know if Mauras car had that feature.

Also- I read on a 2008 Saturn that the drivers airbags deployed and they were inquiring how to shut off the airbag light . I was wondering if FW could have seen the airbag light and not a male smoking a cigarette.

JWB wrote:

Off topic:
I have been reading that many vehicles have a safety mechanism that won't allow the car to start for a certain period of time after Airbags are deployed. This is for fire safety. I don't know if Mauras car had that feature.
Also- I read on a 2008 Saturn that the drivers airbags deployed and they were inquiring how to shut off the airbag light . I was wondering if FW could have seen the airbag light and not a male smoking a cigarette.

It is actually a manually resettable breaker (not timed on the ones I have seen) that is usually in the rear of the car to reset and allow the fuel pump to start sending fuel again (IIRC). Obviously it depends on the car model and the year, how it is implemented or if one exists so they may not all be the same. I don't think the airbags going off have anything to do with it because I think it has its own accelerometer to determine a crash. Again, not positive as I have only seen a handful of these so other models may work differently. I remember talking about this years ago, but don't remember if the Saturn had one. I do remember Fred getting in and starting the car. If someone remembers something different I am sure they will speak up.

Bill

meant 1998 Saturn not 2008 (closer to Mauras car)

Who got out of work an hour not long before Corolla crash? Did MM meet with that person? Did MM's father know about a possible meeting? If so, was he expecting MM to talk to him about it right after?

Interesting couer de lion, do you know of someone who got out of work an hour before the corolla crash?
Her meeting up with that person could explain the hour lapse between when she left the party and crashed in the side of the road. She just have gone somewhere for that hour, many people, myself included have speculated that she went to meet someone. Do you have info that says she did do that?

Jenkins wrote:

I've never once seen a stain anywhere, except a little one on the bed, certainly not anything even approaching close enough to cause a stain in the corner of a closet, even if the sheet was thrown on the floor blood stain down.. That's a lot of blood! Is that really possible?

Jenkins - I don't know how big this stain of blodd really was. I find it difficult to think that it was very large. I think pictures would have been taken and shown to the press. However the article also states the carpet was sent for DNA testing and since we never heard back we can assume that it had nothing to do with MM. Had it been involved with MM we would have heard more about it.

Lighthouse couldn't that also be potentially viewed the other way?

If LE determined that it was linked to MM do you really think they would come out and say it? That would be extremely important info to the case file if it was related and I can't see them comin out and saying it. That would be some very important evidence that would be used in a prosecution and they would have damn good reason to keep it close.
And on the other side of the coin why wouldn't they come out and say its not connected if it was determined it wasn't? We got a bloodstain in the closet of a house nearby to where a girl went missing. Shouldn't they want to reassure the public that it isn't related to MM? If it wasn't connected there would also be no good reason to keep it private, well as far as I can figure. Can you think of a reason why to keep that private?

You really think it would be more likely they would say if it was connected than it wasn't? I just can not see the NHSP come out and say that it was related to MM.

Jenkins wrote:

Bill do you really not realize the hypocrisy in your statements or do you just not care?
Wanna talk about volume of posts?? How about 2,800 posts?!?!!

That is an average of around 2 posts a day. And that isn't just on this forum but on Topix in general. And the funny part. Is a lot of those are in response to questions people have asked me. There are some out there who think I have something to contribute.

Think your average over 4 years is going to be less than 2 posts a day? And I'm not counting letters. Many of my posts are two to five lines. Can't say that about yours can we?

Bill

Jenkins wrote:

Lighthouse couldn't that also be potentially viewed the other way?
If LE determined that it was linked to MM do you really think they would come out and say it? That would be extremely important info to the case file if it was related and I can't see them comin out and saying it. That would be some very important evidence that would be used in a prosecution and they would have damn good reason to keep it close.
And on the other side of the coin why wouldn't they come out and say its not connected if it was determined it wasn't? We got a bloodstain in the closet of a house nearby to where a girl went missing. Shouldn't they want to reassure the public that it isn't related to MM? If it wasn't connected there would also be no good reason to keep it private, well as far as I can figure. Can you think of a reason why to keep that private?
You really think it would be more likely they would say if it was connected than it wasn't? I just can not see the NHSP come out and say that it was related to MM.

If LE really thought there was foul play in the house, I would think they would show up and make it a possible crimes scene? They would tell the owner they can't rent it or sell it because new people in the house could taint the evidence. I would think there would be a lot of police activity at the house looking for more clues. Did any thing of that sort happen.....No.

Jenkins wrote:

Nobody even comes close to the sheer volume you have produced.

20 posts for you in this last 24 hour period. 10 times my average number and many, many times the length of my typical posts and many are just crazy ramblings, over and over with different takes on the same subject, not responses.

Quite prodigious. And you know, there are brands of decaf that taste just as good as the caffeinated brands. You might want to look into that.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Saw this little tidbit of crap and had to respond because its so silly.
They are investigating a disappearance. They have no idea if there is any crime involved and won't until they finish the investigation. The investigation will be helped significantly when they find Maura. Until then no one knows if a crime has occurred and to date, NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME EXISTS, except almost certainly drunk driving. What the investigators might "think" is purely speculative, something you clearly love to do, but your guesses are really not based on either knowledge or experience and so are fairly useless. The professionals have never said foul play but to you that is an oversight of some kind I guess, instead of a statement unto itself. It OK LE. Jenkins has your back, he is telling everyone he thinks its suspicious. You guys can stand down. Jenkins is on the case and he is writing reams of material on the subject.
I think his real intent is to stall the investigation by making the investigators spend day after day reading the voluminous amounts of crap he keeps composing.
Bill

Damn dude, wanna talk about assumptions? Holy shit. Almost this whole post is pure speculation
Based on assumptions that may or may not be right.
You said:
"NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME EXISTS, except almost certainly drunk driving"
Wow that is a serious assumption that's based on absolutely nothing.
In reality you have absolutely no idea what there is in the case file as far as evidence goes. You have no idea that everything they think is purely speculative, that is clearly an assumption. It's not like LE is exactly sharing the case file with anyone. They've kept everything they have very close to the chest.
You have no idea if they have evidence of a crime or not.
You have no idea if they found any evidence during the search of cw's trailer, for all we know they could have. Same thing with the bloodstain. For all we know they could've determined it was Maura's blood. Do you think they would come out and say it?
You whole post is speculation and based on an assumption, the assumption that they have no evidence a crime occurred. There is no way you know that.

The other thing I have to address is your statement: " almost certainly drunk driving"
Again another assumption. There is absolutely no evidence she was drunk driving. There is evidence that she was driving with an open container yes, but none that she was drunk. If she was picked up the next day there is no way she could have been convicted of drunk driving, there was just no evidence of that.
It's also in direct contradiction to the witness statements. The SBD clearly said that she didn't appear intoxicated. Also we have the wman's and the mayotte's who both describe her walking around the car methodically getting her stuff together. Not one report of her staggering, falling down or anything of the like. If you go strictly by witness reports you would have to assume she wasn't drunk.
The only evidence that she was drinking is the pink stain that was found in the snow after the car moved and the coke bottle it came from, that's it. Thats evidence that she at least drank some of one drink, certainly not evidence she was drunk. The blood alcohol allowed by law is .08, they allow for people to have a drink or 2 and still drive. Your not allowed to actually drink while your driving but that's a different thing than actually drunk driving. It is possible to have a drink or 2 and not be drunk, hence the .08. It sounds like she drank a lot so it's unlikely she would be drunk after one or 2 drinks, which is likely what she had. I don't see her binge drinking on the drive.
Seems like she was walking around just fine, if a cop was on scene she probably could have passed a field sobriety test and gotten a fine for having an open container.