Maura Murray

Judged:

2

2

2

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Orko Kringer wrote:

not that it matters much.
But here is a link to that A-Frame house everyone is talking about. This photo was shot two summers ago. this house has not been occupied by anyone in many years.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65640533 @N07/5979069399/sizes/l/in/pho tostream/

Judged:

2

2

2

Jenkins wrote:

Hey lighthouse how do you know they didn't make the house a crime scene at one point? Did LE tell you that?
Just because nobody has posted about it on topix does not mean it didn't happen, for all we know it did. The crime lab could have easily went there and processed it for a day without anyone really noticing or more likely without anyone who posts to topix knowing about it. How much activity do you think there would be? The crime lab would process it in a day, or two max. They wouldn't be coming and going for weeks. LE has clearly done a lot behind the scenes and done a lot that we don't know about here on topix. Just because it's not written about on topix does not mean it didn't happen. LE clearly isn't going to come out and say anything about it.
You said:
"they would tell the new owner they can't rent or sell it because they could taint the evidence"
You don't really believe that do you? Once a home is a crime scene it can never be rented or sold again because evidence can be tainted?? Where did you get that from?
LE can't tell an owner what they can do with their home. All they can do is tell the owner that they cant be there while they process the scene, which needs to be done in a timely fashion. They can't take over a house because it was a crime scene at one point, that is completely illegal and just not done.
If it was a crime scene the crime lab would process the house and it would be released back to the owner.
In some cities there is actually crime scene cleanup businesses. The cops process the scene and then leave It to the owners to clean up the mess. It's not even LE's responsibility to clean up after the crime. Often times crime scenes are released to the owner on the same day. LE can not tell an owner what they can or can't do with their property under any circumstance.
Besides for the fact that once the scene has been processss they have already obtained the evidence. At that point there is no worry about tainting evidence because the evidence has been collected.
Do you really believe that le can tell an owner they can't rent or sell a home because a crime took place there? And your basing an opinion on that??

Orko Kringer wrote:

not that it matters much.
But here is a link to that A-Frame house everyone is talking about. This photo was shot two summers ago. this house has not been occupied by anyone in many years.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65640533 @N07/5979069399/sizes/l/in/pho tostream/

Judged:

1

1

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins wrote:***You don't really believe that do you? Once a home is a crime scene it can never be rented or sold again because evidence can be tainted??***
Lighthouse didn't say it could never be rented or sold again.
And if a crime has taken place then yes the police can tape it off and the owner, renter and anyone else would not be allowed inside until they are done with it.
I can say that I never saw the aframe taped off or police activity around it. IMHO I think the whole story is BS but go ahead and run with it. It's been talked about and raked over for years.

Judged:

1

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins wrote:***You don't really believe that do you? Once a home is a crime scene it can never be rented or sold again because evidence can be tainted??***
Lighthouse didn't say it could never be rented or sold again.
And if a crime has taken place then yes the police can tape it off and the owner, renter and anyone else would not be allowed inside until they are done with it.
I can say that I never saw the aframe taped off or police activity around it. IMHO I think the whole story is BS but go ahead and run with it. It's been talked about and raked over for years.

Judged:

1

Jenkins wrote:

What do you think frmLE?
What kind of question is that? Didn't I just tell you that last night?

Judged:

1

1

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Judged:

2

1

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
What kind of question is that? I say it is a very direct question, will you answer directly?
Are you a sworn Law Enforcement Officer? Not an intern, not on a ride along program, not do you 'work WITH ICE', I mean are you a sworn police officer?

Judged:

1

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I see what you were asking now, sorry I figured you would've known that ICE doesn't have a ride along program lol.
Yes, I am a federal agent.

Judged:

3

3

2

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>I see what you were asking now, sorry I figured you would've known that ICE doesn't have a ride along program lol.

Yes, I am a federal agent.

Judged:

4

4

3

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
A federal agent as in "if it fits it ships" "We deliver for you?"
I'm only kidding

Judged:

4

4

2

FrmLE wrote:

I call 100% absolute complete Bullshit.

Judged:

2

2

2

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>Since there was no signs at the scene that she was abducted or a crime took place then why if she was under the legal limit did she leave the scene? Why did she not go to one of the houses?
Also in the past you stated that she was seen sitting leisurely in the car possibly smoking a cigarette and now this statement:(Also we have the wman's and the mayotte's who both describe her walking around the car methodically getting her stuff together.)
Can you please provide a link to this information? Thanks

Orko Kringer wrote:

here is another picture of the a-Frame house.
Once again you have to add the second portion of the link to the first portion with no spaces to get it to open
http://www.flickr.com/photos/65640533 @N07/5975956445/sizes/l/in/pho tostream/