Maura Murray

Bill, I agree about the fishing expedition. Renner posted here months ago that he wanted to interview her and she publicly declined. He then posted something like "If the family truly cared for Maura" then they would talk to him -- which seemed to me like he was trying to manipulate her into an interview. She declined. How many times does someone have to say no?

I'm guessing anything she responded here would have gone into his book. Maybe he would even have attributed her reply to the right person and not just "rumored by a CPA to be aka Citigirl on topix" but who knows. I think she was smart to not comment to Renner. Anything she replies to him here could be twisted around to fit whatever point he wants to make about Fred. He will obviously go to great lengths to make his point if he was trespassing on private property to find those magazines in the first place.

I do hope Citigirl will feel free to keep posting here though if she wants to. It would be a shame to see someone else driven away from posting here, especially when it's a forum about her relative.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe I was wrong about using the word "point". His comment he made has no solid facts right now to back them up.
What he did do was direct the post to citigirl. With citigirl being considered a family "insider" - by writing her directly and asking her a question it puts her on the spot. If she doesn't answer the question the way readers are hoping for he looks like he gained creditability.
I did ask JR if FM didn't sit down with LE because he was avoiding them, or if LE didn't ask him to sit down until after two years. A big difference.
I have written citigirl about this because she can easily be targeted again by JR on any topic she writes. He can use the same strategy.

Renner wrote about his firsthand experience and the absence of the welcome wagon in NH. Almost got his "butt kicked" by a former police chief. Phew, close one for him.

Renner also wrote that Fred was the first one to call out the ex-chiefs character.

I think if the FBI had been called in like Fred was screaming for from the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

amy researches wrote:

Bill, I agree about the fishing expedition. Renner posted here months ago that he wanted to interview her and she publicly declined. He then posted something like "If the family truly cared for Maura" then they would talk to him -- which seemed to me like he was trying to manipulate her into an interview. She declined. How many times does someone have to say no?
I'm guessing anything she responded here would have gone into his book. Maybe he would even have attributed her reply to the right person and not just "rumored by a CPA to be aka Citigirl on topix" but who knows. I think she was smart to not comment to Renner. Anything she replies to him here could be twisted around to fit whatever point he wants to make about Fred. He will obviously go to great lengths to make his point if he was trespassing on private property to find those magazines in the first place.
I do hope Citigirl will feel free to keep posting here though if she wants to. It would be a shame to see someone else driven away from posting here, especially when it's a forum about her relative.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. He is not an officer of the court. He didn't swear to what he found when he entered the premises. We don't know how he got access to the abandoned home. We don't know if or what he found was even there or manipulated by him or others. It is basically a guy off the street who says, hey, I went into this house and this is what I am telling you I found. I can make up stories also. And his questions seem to be of the type "have you stopped beating your wife". I mean really? Hey I found a picture of a high school girl placed in a porno mag. How do you explain that citigirl? Really? I don't even remember him defining why he considered it as a porno mag and even if it was a "porno" mag why it was assumed to be Freds? The picture or the magazine. I am far more interested in finding out did he also find peanut butter all over someones chocolate? I mean THAT would really have me interested.

And again, I agree, he is trying to manipulate citigirl to answer him and doing a really crappy job at it. Again, I think desperation is forcing him to behave this way.

And I agree yet again that he will, in the end, print and say anything that suits him in his book. I think with little regard to what can be proven and to whatever ends he can manipulate.

I don't always agree with citigirl but, she should post here anytime she wants and choose virtually any subject she wants without concern or worry about what Renner wants.

Bill

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>I think if the FBI had been called in like Fred was screaming for from the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.

You will find it unusual for the FBI to be called in for a drunk driver who runs from a car crash. You can search around, but I don't think you will find that happening many times. I know not one of the crashes I was involved with, where drinking was involved, our police didn't call the FBI one time. Shocking I know but true.

Bill - hater #2

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Orky- yes really.
You often refer to LE either keeping things hidden from the public or saying things that might not neccesarily be true in order to mislead the public.
Example: you seem to think they found some sort of suicide note, or draft of said note, on her computer. Even though they've specifically said that there was no suicide note, you say they want to keep this from the public for good reasons, I don't think any of those reasons make sense but that doesn't really matter.
But then you constantly refer to them saying there's no evidence of foul play as if that should be believed. Well if they would lie about finding a suicide note why wouldn't they lie about any evidence of foul play? It actually makes much more sense for them to lie about foul play than suicide if you really think about it. There is basically no logical reason to keep any sort of suicide note hidden, this in no way could be related to a crime and couldn't harm any potential prosecution that could be comin down the road.
On the other hand they could have damn good reasons to lie about the existence of evidence of foul play. Think about it,; if they have a suspect, or suspects, which it appears they do; or at least did at one point. During the court case they specifically mention people from the community that are well known. These people are clearly at least poi's, if not suspects; or were at one point These people's family owns a rather large business. Well LE has apparently been denied permission to search their property. LE was supposedly denied a search warrant for the property as well, apparently the NHSP wanted to run a ground penetrating radar over a concrete slab that was poured on the property in the days or weeks following Maura's dissapearance.
So LE needs more probable cause to obtain a warrant. Basically at this point they need this person/people to make a mistake that would give them probable cause. If this is the situation, and it appears that very well could be, wouldn't it make sense that LE would try to play down the foul play angle? Maybe Play it down as an attempt to let the poi become relaxed and make a mistake? If this person knows LE thinks foul play they might be extra careful to not make a mistake. It would make sense that LE wouldn't want these people to think that they're on them, hopefully they might let their guard down.
I just don't understand the logic behind thinking that they're lying about the existence of a suicide note on the computer but they're telling the truth when they say there's no evidence of foul play. IMO it would make way more sense to lie about the foul play than the suicide note. Not only could it maybe get the poi to let his guard down, it also looks better in the eyes of the public. If they came out and said that there was evidence of foul play then they would look really really bad if they never make an arrest. The NHSP would NEVER do that, they won't admit there's evidence of foul play until someone is in cuffs? Do you really think the NHSP would come out and say there's evidence of foul play, there's been a murderer on the loose for the past 8 years and we can't do anything about it? No way in hell is that gonna happen, no way. NEVER gonna happen.

So Jenky. Why has the family been completely left in the dark as to what was found on maura's computer.

Did the mass murderer email maura and give her a heads up that he was going to kill her?

C'mon man.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
You will find it unusual for the FBI to be called in for a drunk driver who runs from a car crash. You can search around, but I don't think you will find that happening many times. I know not one of the crashes I was involved with, where drinking was involved, our police didn't call the FBI one time. Shocking I know but true.
Bill - hater #2

This post is just ridiculous.

How many crashed you were involved with where there was drinking involved did the person go missing after? How many where the person still wasn't found years later?

I agree about the FBI though, I don't see what the FBI can do that the NHSP cant, it's not like they're magical investigators or something. Bottom line is if there was proof she was brought over state lines or there was some sort of conspiracy/coverup by LE then yes the FBI should've been brought in. But clearly none of that exists; there is no federal crime that would require the FBI's help.
I would also think that if the FBI thought they could do something here they probably would. We know they took a look at the case, they probably looked at it and were like oh, the NHSP interviewed everyone in a 5-mile radius and have investigated the hell out of this case, why are we gong to waste our time doing it again

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
This post is just ridiculous.
How many crashed you were involved with where there was drinking involved did the person go missing after? How many where the person still wasn't found years later?
I agree about the FBI though, I don't see what the FBI can do that the NHSP cant, it's not like they're magical investigators or something. Bottom line is if there was proof she was brought over state lines or there was some sort of conspiracy/coverup by LE then yes the FBI should've been brought in. But clearly none of that exists; there is no federal crime that would require the FBI's help.
I would also think that if the FBI thought they could do something here they probably would. We know they took a look at the case, they probably looked at it and were like oh, the NHSP interviewed everyone in a 5-mile radius and have investigated the hell out of this case, why are we gong to waste our time doing it again

The FBI was brought in to do a background investigation into Maura.

After interviewing friends and learning about maura etc... the FBI quickly faded from the case.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
This post is just ridiculous.
How many crashed you were involved with where there was drinking involved did the person go missing after? How many where the person still wasn't found years later?
I agree about the FBI though, I don't see what the FBI can do that the NHSP cant, it's not like they're magical investigators or something. Bottom line is if there was proof she was brought over state lines or there was some sort of conspiracy/coverup by LE then yes the FBI should've been brought in. But clearly none of that exists; there is no federal crime that would require the FBI's help.
I would also think that if the FBI thought they could do something here they probably would. We know they took a look at the case, they probably looked at it and were like oh, the NHSP interviewed everyone in a 5-mile radius and have investigated the hell out of this case, why are we gong to waste our time doing it again

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting. So do you mean that if you don't bring the FBI in the second the crash occurs, there is no real reason for them to be brought in? Or are you saying that if the NHSP is doing an investigation on a missing person there is really no reason to have the FBI come in? Or is it both? I mean both seem to make sense and I haven't seen our local police bring the FBI in because someone ran from a crash and hadn't been located for a day or so. I mean some people here, I won't mention any old ladies names, but some people, insisted that should have happened immediately. And they insist that they do have magical properties. Along with the FBI they wanted helicopter searches, army, navy, marines, SAR teams and just about anything that wasn't nailed down. I agree with you though. You don't call in the FBI for people that run from car crashes after they are drinking. It seems like a waste of resources, but hey, that is just me.

Oh and the answer to your question is too many to remember. And to my knowledge all eventually, hours to days later, turned up. Some tracked by dogs. Others saying later the car was stolen, they just never reported it until after the car was crashed. And yet they had injuries that looked suspiciously like they were from a car crash. Oh, the cops have never heard that one either. And with only one exception, they were all drunk. And that one exception came back to the car when we arrived. They just had to use a nearby house phone to make the call.

Bill

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
The FBI was brought in to do a background investigation into Maura.
After interviewing friends and learning about maura etc... the FBI quickly faded from the case.

Exactly, the NHSP didn't request their assistance so they couldn't really do anything more than interview friends and family in mass.
There is no evidence she was taken across state lines, corruption by local LE or any federal laws being violated so they're not going to keep investigating unless requested.

It's not that they just Faded from the case, they said they would investigate the case if the NHSP requested their help, but the NHSP declined their assistance. there's really nothing they can do that the NHSP couldn't. The NHSP spoke to everyone in a 5-mile radius, many of them twice so I'm sure the FBI thought that the NHSP had it covered. For them to investigate in NH they would need to be invited.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly, the NHSP didn't request their assistance so they couldn't really do anything more than interview friends and family in mass.

The FBI - worked with local LE from NH for MM's disappearance and local LE from VT for Brianna's disappearance. They ruled the disappearance's were probably not related. I would think they did a little more than what your describing. I would imagine that they looked at the facts to establish that conclusion. If FBI didn't look at the facts and made just a wild ass guess I don't think you would want their assistance anyhow.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
mean both seem to make sense and I haven't seen our local police bring the FBI in because someone ran from a crash and hadn't been located for a day or so. I mean some people here, I won't mention any old ladies names, but some people, insisted that should have happened immediately. And they insist that they do have magical properties. Along with the FBI they wanted helicopter searches, army, navy, marines, SAR teams and just about anything that wasn't nailed down. I agree with you though. You don't call in the FBI for people that run from car crashes after they are drinking. It seems like a waste of resources, but hey, that is just me.
Oh and the answer to your question is too many to remember. And to my knowledge all eventually, hours to days later, turned up. Some tracked by dogs. Others saying later the car was stolen, they just never reported it until after the car was crashed. And yet they had injuries that looked suspiciously like they were from a car crash. Oh, the cops have never heard that one either. And with only one exception, they were all
Bill

Why would the FBI ever be brought in for a car crash? What are you even talking about? The FBI may be brought in for a MISSING PERSON, but even that they don't really investigate unless specifically asked to do that or if there's evidence the person was brought across state lines.
I don't see what The FBI can do here, they certainly aren't magic investigators by any means.
And they did bring in helicopters on a couple different occasions, mainly on the 11th when they flew the entire length of 112 looking for evidence that someone entered the woods; and found none.
As for SAR teams, they were obviously brought in on a few occasions but not that many times. The last ground search the NHSP conducted, to my knowledge, was when they searched up by 116 after the cw's alleged sighting.
The lack of ground searches and use of SAR teams is a direct indication that they don't believe she is in the woods anywhere in the area, just like they've said on several different occasions. They've always clearly said that they don't believe she is in the woods anywhere near the crash site.
Here's the thing in my mind, if they thought she was lost in the woods why haven't they looked in the woods? If she gets found in the woods the NHSP is going to look really really bad, like really bad, for not conducting more ground searches. You would think that if they thought she was in the woods they would have done more searches, maybe look for likely areas she might've entered the woods and search there. Maybe even go search the woods near some of her favorite hiking trails? Something like that
They've done nothing of the sort, instead they've conducted a criminal investigation. They are not looking in the woods at all but rather they're looking for someone who may have killed her. They've interviewed many peoole, done criminal records searches, given polygraphs, searched cell records, even have done some sort of one party intercept.
One thing is clear, they are NOT looking in the woods for her. They've conducted the largest criminal investigation in recent memory in the state.
They even went so far as to turn down the help of texas equisearch, now why would they do that if they thought she might be in the woods? TES doesn't need permission to search the woods, they are a private SAR group. Why did they cancel their planned search of the are? What did the NHSP tell them that convinced them that they would be wasting their time? Im sure if TES thought there was a chance they would find her in the woods they would've continued on with their planned search.
Bill not only do they not bring in the FBI because of car crashes, they also don't do major criminal investigations because if a car crash. This is clearly not a normal car crash where someone left, not even close

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill not only do they not bring in the FBI because of car crashes, they also don't do major criminal investigations because if a car crash. This is clearly not a normal car crash where someone left, not even close

OK, wait, what? Are you saying they should be brought in because she is missing from a car crash when she was drinking or that they shouldn't be brought in because it was a car crash. You are really confusing me. I personally don't see what value they would add, but I know that there are some who thought that they should have been brought in right at the start, like that elderly women who I won't mention and of course I think Fred was in that category. I definitely don't think that they should have been brought in, except to maybe interview people out of state which they did.

Also, I thought that the F&G DID do several searches in the woods meaning someone officially must have thought it was at least a possibility that she went into the woods. And F&G are chartered by law to do searches done in NH.

Bill

Bill there is a serious problem with your comparison, all of your experiences are in CT. CT is completely different than NH in many aspects, particularly the amount of cops. There's always a cop right around the corner in CT, you crash your car there's gonna be a cop there in 5-10 mins most of the time.
It is not like this in NH, NH is much bigger and there's way less cops. Each cop covers a much larger area. It took smith 19 minutes to even get to Maura's crash and he was in the same town and not on a call.
in NH if you sit there and wait for the cops it could take an hour easy for a minor car crash.
People up there are way more independent, it's not like ct's police/nanny state. The fact of the matter is sober people leave their car just like drunk people do. There is absolutely no legal requirement to wait for the cops and who wants to wait an hour on the side of the road for no reason? You make it out like only drunk people leave the scene of accidents, which may be true in CT but is definitely NOT true in NH. Sober people leave their cars just as often as drunk people, especially in the winter. Who the hell wants to sit there freezing on the side of the road for god knows how long just to wait for a cop??
Your comparison of your experience in CT means absolutely nothing. In winter in NH people leave their car and catch a ride back to town to call for a tow themselves. A private citizen can call for a tow just as well as any cop can.
Sober people definetely leave there cars after crashes in NH. People slide off the road all the time in the winter time and most of the time they don't wait for the cops, that is a fact.

As for Maura we know she was seen walking around her car for a few minutes. She was seen sittin there for a few minutes with her door open either smoking or trying to use her phone. This is NOT the actions of someone who is trying to elude the cops because they're afraid of gettin arrested. If she was so worried about the cops why didn't she just grab her stuff and go? She could've done that in 30 seconds, instead she was at the car for at least 5 minutes. It was probably more like 10-15 minutes when you consider the fact that a witness places her at the car 2-3mins before the cops arrived and it took smith 19 minutes to get there.
I'm sorry but someone who is so scared of the cops that they're about to walk miles into the woods to their death just to avoid them is not gong to just be sitting at their car for 10 minutes, not gonna happen. For all we know she was sitting there waiting for the cops and after 10-15 min she decided they probably weren't coming and decided to hoof it. Remember that she was from mass, you crash in mass the cops are there in 5 min most of the time. After 10-15 min she probably figured they weren't coming.

Your whole running from the crash because she was drunk theory holds no merit. Your experiences in CT mean absolutely nothing in this discussion because we are talking about NH in the winter time here. The fact of the matter is that there is no indication she was drunk. Yes she was drinking but it's very unlikely she was actually intoxicated, do you really think she was chugging drinks on her way up? Sbd said she didn't appear intoxicated. No witness reports her stumbling, staggering or anything you would expect from an intoxicated person. It sounds like she sat there for a few minutes, tried to use her phone and when she realized it wasn't gonna work she got her stuff together and started walking; she then most likely caught a ride just like people do in Nh in winter, drunk and sober alike.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>They've always clearly said that they don't believe she is in the woods anywhere near the crash site.

What does anywhere near the crash site mean to you? 1000 feet, 4000 ft, a mile, five? Who was it exactly that told you that? Did they give you a POD for the areas searched? What critical spacing was used, or what exactly they were searching for? Did they just do some dog searches or type I, II or III ground searches? I mean I understand you know that she isn't in the woods because THEY said "they don't BELIEVE she is in the woods anywhere near the crash site" but do you actually know what that means? I do a fair amount of this looking for people in the woods stuff, training constantly, I teach it to fire departments, CERT teams and others. I use to look for people and things for the Army for a living and I don't have any idea what that means. BUT, if your satisfied I guess there is no point in continuing with those questions. Federal agent Bob is satisfied, she isn't in the woods.

Bill

I can assure u that CT comes quicker than 5-10 mins!! Elm City...

***Bob wrote: Sober people definetely leave there cars after crashes in NH. People slide off the road all the time in the winter time and most of the time they don't wait for the cops, that is a fact.***
Most of the time they don't have to wait for the cops because if you wait just a few minutes someone will come along and either push or pull you out.
***Bob wrote: I'm sorry but someone who is so scared of the cops that they're about to walk miles into the woods to their death just to avoid them is not gong to just be sitting at their car for 10 minutes, not gonna happen. For all we know she was sitting there waiting for the cops and after 10-15 min she decided they probably weren't coming and decided to hoof it.***
Do you really believe that? Really? Who said she was sitting in her car for a few minutes with the door open and smoking or using her cell?
If she was sitting there waiting for the cops and they didn't come fast enough then why didn't she want the SBD to call the police and why didn't she hoof it back to the store she just passed or any of the 5 houses in plain site? If she wanted help she didn't have to go far to get it.
She may not have been drunk but the evidence at the scene (wine box in back with red liquid splashed in car etc) certainly looked like there was alcohol involved especially with the driver gone.
***Bob wrote: If she was so worried about the cops why didn't she just grab her stuff and go?***
Isn't that just what she did?

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Bill there is a serious problem with your comparison, all of your experiences are in CT.....

Bob, you again, really have no clue of what you are speaking. Half the state of CT is forest. Meaning that if you don't live in Hartford, or Bridgeport or New Haven, and especially if you live in many of the rural parts of the state like I do. You can spend a lot of time waiting for a response, particularly from police, particularly if conditions are bad. Many towns, such as mine have no police at all and use the State police for their police response. And the state of CT requires you to wait at your vehicle if you have an accident over a certain amount of property damage or ANY personal injury.

I should also mention Jenkins that there has been more than one request that you produce a Cliff notes version of your posts. Some people work for a living and they just can't wade through all of the writing that you do.

Bill

Wowzer the real one wrote:

***Bob wrote: Sober people definetely leave there cars after crashes in NH. People slide off the road all the time in the winter time and most of the time they don't wait for the cops, that is a fact.***
Most of the time they don't have to wait for the cops because if you wait just a few minutes someone will come along and either push or pull you out.
***Bob wrote: I'm sorry but someone who is so scared of the cops that they're about to walk miles into the woods to their death just to avoid them is not gong to just be sitting at their car for 10 minutes, not gonna happen. For all we know she was sitting there waiting for the cops and after 10-15 min she decided they probably weren't coming and decided to hoof it.***
Do you really believe that? Really? Who said she was sitting in her car for a few minutes with the door open and smoking or using her cell?
If she was sitting there waiting for the cops and they didn't come fast enough then why didn't she want the SBD to call the police and why didn't she hoof it back to the store she just passed or any of the 5 houses in plain site? If she wanted help she didn't have to go far to get it.
She may not have been drunk but the evidence at the scene (wine box in back with red liquid splashed in car etc) certainly looked like there was alcohol involved especially with the driver gone.
***Bob wrote: If she was so worried about the cops why didn't she just grab her stuff and go?***
Isn't that just what she did?

What? Bob isn't correct? Shocking. I know I am struggling to believe it. 8-)

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
What? Bob isn't correct? Shocking. I know I am struggling to believe it. 8-)
Bill

I know,I had a hard time believing it too. But then I realized that most of his "facts" were actually (gasp) not true facts IMHO.

whiston wrote:

Where did Maura Murray vanish to.

Maybe we should change this forum to: "I am so bored after 9 years that I am ready to piss on the next person that posts".It seems to me that this has become a forum for verbal abuse on others. Maybe it is time to call it a day? just saying, This forum has gone to crap and there are less than 6 posting now because of it.

More posters care about pissing on others than the missing girl