Maura Murray

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Lighthouse- Doing a general search in the woods is completely different than singling out someones home to search . Searching the woods is an obvious thing to do as she was on foot when she left her car. To single out CW trailer to search indicates that LE must have had something that pointed them to do so. To try and connect the logic of searching the CW trailer to searching the woods just doesn't work at all. JMO

I know that JWB - I was having fun with Jenkins. He is very agressive this morning.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I have read her posts. and her posts just say "blood on the carpet." I'd like to know if it was human blood. I'd like to know if the lab tested to see if it even matched her blood type. Maybe a DNA test was never done because it wasn't even human blood. I would like to know why with such little evidence would a newspaper be told about this and this placed on internet forums? I doubt many people are going to let you search their house if you are going to condem it over a drop of blood that probably has nothing to do with a missing person.

As far as i can tell She answered pretty clearly that it was human blood.. She said it was human but she didn't know If it ever was DNA tested or even if more testing had been done to it.

Often times in missing persons cases LE will release info to try to drum up public interest and the potential new leads that come along with that public interest. I get the sense this is what the pi's were trying to do when they said this to the media.

I still would like to know how big of a stain this was, I think that is something fairly important

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Often times in missing persons cases LE will release info to try to drum up public interest and the potential new leads that come along with that public interest. I get the sense this is what the pi's were trying to do when they said this to the media.

Jenkins - if you are revealing information about a house in a missing persons case on a public forum or in the newspaper I think you should atleast be certain that it had something to do with that person.

PI's aren't LE, and any decent PI probably realized that if they leaked this info out to the public than that will put an end to anyone every allowing searches on private property again. Who would allow the PI's on their property if cadever dogs happen to smell possible blood in your house or yard; even if unrelated to the case it would be in the newspaper and on public forums.

Also it was FM who told the newspaper about the dogs going bonkers, And finding the carpet.
I wonder why he would jepoardize any future searches by anyone else with a possible lead. I doubt anyone spoke up after the way they saw the Aframe handled.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I was merely trying to make a point that there is a chance that she became hypothermic and could have become delerious.
I'm at a loss to your comment "there is no evidence she entered the woods." You treated us to your logic last week since LE searched the CW trailer he had to be a POI at some point. Wouldn't your same logic clearly state "If LE took a search team out in the woods and used a helicopter to search the woods then it is obvious that MM ran off into the woods?" I think this is clear Jenkonian logic.

Yes, technically if she was lost in the woods and suffering from hypothermia she could potentially become delirious.
That still offers up nothing as to a reason why she would enter the woods, or anything resembling evidence that she actually did.

So you agree that them doing a general search of the woods in the early days/months after her dissapearance is completely different than searching someone's home for evidence of a crime?

To my knowledge the last search of the woods that LE did was the one they did up by 116 in late spring/early summer of 04; after the cw's alleged sighting.
Since then they've done zero ground searches. LE sounds rather confident that she is not lost in the woods anywhere near the accident scene. As far as I can tell that seems like one of the only things they actually sound confident about; both the local pd and the NHSP. It doesnt sound at all like they really think its likely she's in the woods
. One would think that if they truly thought she was in the woods they would've conducted at least a few more searches than they did. Maybe check the woods in winter looking for a few likely areas of egress and come back and search them in the summer? Something along those lines.
Something other LE agencies will do when they think someone is lost in the woods is set up a huge ground search, often utilizing volunteers from the community. Many times in cases like this LE will get together hundreds of people and go out and comb the woods, nothing like that was ever done. Again, just doesn't sound like an agency that thinks someone is lost deep in the woods.

Didn't they turn down help from equisearch? I believe they did, if they thought she was in the woods why turn down the help of a world class SAR group? Equisearch also could've come an searched without permission of LE, that's perfectly legal. But they didn't come; what did LE tell them to make them think searching the woods would be a waste of time? You would think that they must have convinced them they would be wasting their time. Hard to believe LE would turn down that help if they thought she was in the woods. What harm could possibly come from having people search the woods? Certainly couldn't damage the case at all.
Their actions and statements in no way indicate that they believe she's in the woods, and they're the ones who have done the real investigation into this case and have spoken on the record about it.

They've also stated that they believe she most likely caught a ride from the area.
In one article I posted a quote from a few nites ago they flat our say they believe she caught a ride from the area.

Does any of this sound like they think she simply gor lost in the woods and died from exposure?
To me it does not, I find it hard to believe anyone can dispute that but I'm sure someone will.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Yes I know that was posted as evidence that it can happen and clearly does on rare occasion. Did I say anything about you not having a life? I'm not frmLE, I don't say shit like that to peopl.
I was asking you about the search you already did, were there any articles you found referencing that and you picked the best one or was that all you found?
All I was asking was if that was the only article you saw, I wasn't saying you need to go comb the library of congress or go find 10 articles on the subject to prove its validity.
It is a valid point and technically possible, however low the chances.
All I'm saying is while it is possible, it's definitely rare. It's certainly not common to hear about bodies being disbursed by animals, for some reason they don't like human remains. You never see a deer carcass intact and decomposed; like a full deer skeleton. Animals almost always spread the remains of a animals but rarely human for some reason.
Do you disagree that it's rare?

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
There has got to be something more to it than that. It is highly uncommon for animals to take apart a human body, humans are almost always found complete, even after months or years.
On the other hand, animals are almost never seen complete. In all my years in the woods I've never come across a complete animal skeleton and I've never heard of anyone coming across one either. Not saying it never happened but it is clearly extremely rare.
So it is extremely rare for a human to get taken apart and it's very common for a deer not to get spread. There has to be some reason that animals don't usually go for human remains.

Jenkins, please read your statements in these quotes. You are not questioning, you are not saying "I think that ... " - you are stating things as if they are fact. This is the problem that I and others have with your posts. This is not a question or opinion, it is you stating something as if it were fact: "It is highly uncommon for animals to take apart a human body, humans are almost always found complete, even after months or years." Do you see that? Do you see how what you are saying is presenting something as fact?

The problem is, you make statements like this constantly, many times in each post. If you said, "it is my belief that ...," nobody would have a problem. Instead, we are left to either ignore these statements, or to dispel the notion that they are indeed facts, WHICH THEY ARE NOT.

I had to wonder at your insistence that animals do not disperse human remains. Even common sense tells me that a dead body left to decompose in nature would be a natural attractant to carnivores. So I did some more googling and found that there are books with whole chapters devoted to the subject, papers written, with one book citing 30 cases of remains scattered by animals. Unfortunately, most of what I found you have to pay to read, but here are some links (if they will post here). I don't care how old these materials are, I don't see how that makes any difference at all. This link has some rather disturbing photos of decomposing bodies, so be warned: http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/v...

This book has a preview page - it was published in 2005: http://books.google.com/books... Two quotes from it: "Some common causes of skeleton dispersal include taphonomic processes such as animal or human activity ... " and "In many instances, dispersal of skeletal remains results from carnivores scattering skeletal elements over a large area."

So, what you are stating above is NOT TRUE, and is not FACT. As stated in the links above and elsewhere, IT IS COMMON for human remains to be scattered by animals.

Maruchan- There are some things I should probably word more carefully, I sometimes forget how much some people love to pick apart my posts, but this is one time I have to disagree.
Obviously animals will sometimes take apart a human corpse, clearly it does happen.
But that does not mean its common; as in most of the time human bodies get spread by animals. Just because something happens sometimes does. It mean it's common
Now you just did exactly what you critisized me for, you stated something as fact that isn't.
Maybe it's not extremely rare like I stated above, i probably shouldn't have used that phrase. But saying it is common is obviously not a fact either.
I don't doubt that there's 30 cases, there's probably hundreds; but that's out of tens of thousands.
When was the last time you heard about a case where the body for scattered by animals? I can't think of one. This is probably the kind of thing that they would mention in the media. While it is certainly gross, this is the kinda stuff people find interesting; animals eating human remains.
Bill- in your 25yrs doing SAR have you ever seen a human body that was dispersed by animals?
There has to be sometimes that it happens, but generally it doesn't.
It may not be highly unusual, may not be quite as unusual as I thought originally,, but it is NOT common. If it was common there would be a certain percentage of the time that it happens, like 25%, 50%; some percentage. But yet I've never heard of a SAR/recovery operation where the body got dispersed by animals. That in no way means it doesn't happen, it is just not a common occurrence. It's not a high enough percentage of the time where it can be considered common.
I made this point above but i feel its worth making again: It is common for a deer carcass to be spread by animals; you almost never see or hear about a full deer skeleton, I've never heard anyone say they found a full skeleton of an animal like that and I've certainly never seen one. I've see parts of deer carcasses on a few different occasions.
On the same tip; you almost never hear about a human body that's been spread by animals. Not one case that I've ever looked at has ever had this happen, I've never heard about it happening.
Most human bodies are found intact; obviously not all, but most.
While it may not be quite as rare as I stated above, again my wording might've been too strong, but it is certainly not common by any stretch.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins - if you are revealing information about a house in a missing persons case on a public forum or in the newspaper I think you should atleast be certain that it had something to do with that person.
PI's aren't LE, and any decent PI probably realized that if they leaked this info out to the public than that will put an end to anyone every allowing searches on private property again. Who would allow the PI's on their property if cadever dogs happen to smell possible blood in your house or yard; even if unrelated to the case it would be in the newspaper and on public forums.
Also it was FM who told the newspaper about the dogs going bonkers, And finding the carpet.
I wonder why he would jepoardize any future searches by anyone else with a possible lead. I doubt anyone spoke up after the way they saw the Aframe handled.

Your certainly making some valid points here lighthouse, some things Fred did and said has gotta make you wonder.
It is strange that they were talking about blood in a house before it was even known whether it was related.

The thing about this one though is the fact that somebody told Fred, or a pi, that whoever killed Maura lived in that A-frame. Remember the whole deal about the bloody knife that someone supposedly gave Fred? The knife was supposed to be the murder weapon, and I think the house was supposed to be the crime scene. This could have made it a little different in his mind.

But I completely agree about your statement that why do anything that could potentially jeapordize any future searches? You would think that he would try to lean on the safe side, as in not saying things that could put future searches in jeopardy in any way whatsoever.

It's also possible the pi's and/or Fred took a calculated risk by releasing this info to the public. They had to have known that saying that would give them media coverage and get articles written about it. This could have been a method to keep the case in the public eye, drum up up interest and the potential leads that could come with the public interest..

There are some things that Fred did and said that just make me really wonder, like the story about the knife. He says that he tried to turn the bloody knife into the NHSP in concord and they wouldn't accept it. So then he said he mailed it to them, and I believe he said that after that he doesn't know what happened with it. Does that not just sound hinky? Who would mail his daughter's potential murder weopon anywhere let alone to the cops who wouldn't accept it in person?
Idk, but if it was me, and the cops wouldn't accept it, i would want to know for myself if it was my daughters blood on that knife. If LE wouldn't accept it I would send it out to a private forensics lab and get it tested to see if it was in fact my daughters blood. Wouldn't he want to know? Wouldn't he be worried that his daughters murder weopon could get Lost in the mail or never even looked at? If he thought it was a real possibility it was her blood why not send it out privately? Then If it was her blood he could take it to LE, and the media, and say "look! I told you she was murdered". All of this is contigent on Fred truly believing it was the murder weopon, which I suspect he never really did.

Fred certainly is an odd duck and some of his actions and words really gotta make you wonder.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

When was the last time you heard about a case where the body for scattered by animals? I can't think of one.

Caylee Anthony. Although her remains weren't scattered over a large area, they were dispersed and showed they had been chewed by animals. It was a big deal during Casey Anthony's trial, and it upset a lot of people, even the murderer, er, I mean the accused-yet-strangely-aquitted murderer. The defense tried to get it excluded: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-1...

On the issue of whether or not human remains are as likely as animal remains to become scattered by animals, I'd venture to say that I believe human remains are JUST as likely to be scattered, as are the remains of animals, given certain conditions.

Most people who wander off/get lost in the woods and die are found within days since usually it is known roughly where they went, so it would be more likely their bodies would be more intact. If the area is a wilderness area with a decent population of larger carnivores (coyotes, bears, mountain lion), that likelihood would go down a bit and more scattering of remains as well as sooner scattering of remains, would be more common.

I don't believe the fact of a human body rather than an animal would deter carnivores at all. Mountain lions and bears and wolves have killed human beings and begun eating on the spot, the human scent didn't mean a darn thing. It doesn't mean anything to flies or ants either. In fact, even the activity of just the insects and small animals such as voles and mice, can reduce a human body to little but skin and bone in a short period of time. Quicker in summer than winter.

Talking here about bodies that are lying out in the open. Clearly if a body is buried, there may not be any or much animal activity in terms of scattering the remains.

When bodies are found by searchers, I honestly don't remember reading whether or not the remains were scattered over a wide area. I don't believe a detail like that is commonly reported, possibly to avoid further grief to family members. So bodies may in fact be found scattered more often than not.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Maruchan- There are some things I should probably word more carefully, I sometimes forget how much some people love to pick apart my posts, but this is one time I have to disagree.
Obviously animals will sometimes take apart a human corpse, clearly it does happen.
But that does not mean its common; as in most of the time human bodies get spread by animals. Just because something happens sometimes does. It mean it's common
Now you just did exactly what you critisized me for, you stated something as fact that isn't.
Maybe it's not extremely rare like I stated above, i probably shouldn't have used that phrase. But saying it is common is obviously not a fact either.
I don't doubt that there's 30 cases, there's probably hundreds; but that's out of tens of thousands.
When was the last time you heard about a case where the body for scattered by animals? I can't think of one. This is probably the kind of thing that they would mention in the media. While it is certainly gross, this is the kinda stuff people find interesting; animals eating human remains.
Bill- in your 25yrs doing SAR have you ever seen a human body that was dispersed by animals?
There has to be sometimes that it happens, but generally it doesn't.
It may not be highly unusual, may not be quite as unusual as I thought originally,, but it is NOT common. If it was common there would be a certain percentage of the time that it happens, like 25%, 50%; some percentage. But yet I've never heard of a SAR/recovery operation where the body got dispersed by animals. That in no way means it doesn't happen, it is just not a common occurrence. It's not a high enough percentage of the time where it can be considered common.
I made this point above but i feel its worth making again: It is common for a deer carcass to be spread by animals; you almost never see or hear about a full deer skeleton, I've never heard anyone say they found a full skeleton of an animal like that and I've certainly never seen one. I've see parts of deer carcasses on a few different occasions.
On the same tip; you almost never hear about a human body that's been spread by animals. Not one case that I've ever looked at has ever had this happen, I've never heard about it happening.
Most human bodies are found intact; obviously not all, but most.
While it may not be quite as rare as I stated above, again my wording might've been too strong, but it is certainly not common by any stretch.

***don't doubt that there's 30 cases, there's probably hundreds; but that's out of tens of thousands.***
Are you saying that there's tens of thousands of people lost in the woods?

***I made this point above but i feel its worth making again: It is common for a deer carcass to be spread by animals***
That's because there's a lot more deer in the woods than there are missing people IMO.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
***don't doubt that there's 30 cases, there's probably hundreds; but that's out of tens of thousands.***
Are you saying that there's tens of thousands of people lost in the woods?
***I made this point above but i feel its worth making again: It is common for a deer carcass to be spread by animals***
That's because there's a lot more deer in the woods than there are missing people IMO.

Obviously I'm not saying there's tens of thousands of people lost in the woods right this very minute, although around the whole world there very well might be, I was talking about over the years, in America over the last 50 yrs or so I would think there's been at least ten thousand people died in the woods, would you agree with that? Maybe I'm wrong

As for the second part; are you actually serious with that? You purposely pick out one sentence fragment that wasn't what I was saying at all? That's dirty wowzer.

Never mind the fact that even your reply to my hacked up post kind of helps prove my point.
You say because there are a lot more deer in the woods than missing persons. I agree, way more deer by a longshot. So since there are way more deer wouldn't logic dictate that you would see way more full deer carcasses in the woods than complete human corpses? You should see way more if the percentage of deer not being scattered was the same as humans. Most human bodies are recovered in one piece, even years later as skeletons. But you never see a deer carcass that's been skeletonized and still complete. I'm sure it's been seen before but have you ever seen that? I haven't, never heard of anyone seeing it either, its clearly a rare sight to see.
That doesn't mean human corpses don't get disbursed,, as you guys are showing clearly they do. Caylee Anthony is a great example, animals definitely got to her body. I remember that being a fairly big issue as it made it extremely difficult to determine a cause of death, which I don't believe they ever conclusively established. That definitely happened and I'm sure there's another case im not thinking of, it clearly happens a little more than I thought but it's still not common. You guys have to admit that most bodies are found complete, obviously eaten by insects. that's how they determine TOD and COD in all of these cases. Almost impossible if the body's not in one place.

All the remains of the Connecticut river valley killers were found full intact in the woods of nh, some not being found for 2 years.

Correction: the victims were found in not nh and vt. Most, if not all, were in forests relatively similar and none of there bodies were taken apart by animals, well not to my knowledge at least.

He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist.

Jack Levin Sadist wrote:

He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist. He is a sadist.

He is evil. He is evil. He is evil. He is dirt. He is less than garbage. He is worth nothing. He is total shit.

Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows. Jack Levin knows.

Jack Levin is an idiot. JMO, of course, but I kind of feel the present evidence speaks for itself.

It's Beagle again:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/franconia-nh/...

Maruchan wrote:

It's Beagle again:
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/franconia-nh/...

Yes, I know.:)

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
The thing about this one though is the fact that somebody told Fred, or a pi, that whoever killed Maura lived in that A-frame. Remember the whole deal about the bloody knife that someone supposedly gave Fred? The knife was supposed to be the murder weapon, and I think the house was supposed to be the crime scene. This could have made it a little different in his mind.

Jenkins you are right about the jacknife supposely belonging to the resident in the Aframe. The knife FM tried to drop off at the police station that they wouldn't accept, so he mailed it in.

I would think that if I truly believed the jacknife story I would make sure that myself or Healy (the head PI)would be present at the Aframe search. According to Citigirl FM and Healy were not present.

I don't know what to believe. Would FM if he was given a stained knife - that he mailed to LE, and then had the ability to search the house of the "owner" be there for the search or would he have somthing more important to do that day? Logically you would think he would be there, he does make first person quotes in the newspaper that he got the key and organized the search of the Aframe. IMHO.

Fred was there, or at the least there at the command post or lodge where family and such gathered in 2006. Fred made a "nervous" comment to one of our posters. She posted that he was picking on her weight, but that he was only kidding and had nervously said something to that effect. Alot of people were ther in 2006 but only so many went off to do the search.
I was told Fred went along to the A-frame :( Someone working with the PI's told me that, but that may have been untrue.