Maura Murray

Emmett- as for what your saying about that pic i agree completely. It definitely looks like she was on some sort of drug in that pic and I believe she was.
Her pupils are huge! She was in a hallway with bright fluorescent lighting, theoretically her pupils should've been on the small side, not huge like that. I truly believe she was on some sort of stimulant that night, that doesn't mean she did it all the time but it appears she was that night, IMO.
Most likely ritalin or adderrall. Meth is almost unheard of up north and I don't see Maura as the kind of girl who'd be smoking crack or doing lines of coke in her room. Ritalin and adderrall are extremely popular for college age girls like maura who have classes and two jobs. Id put my $ on Ritalin as adderrall back then was new and wasn't popular like it is today, back then Ritalin was the popular one on college campuses.
It also looks like she had a black eye in that pic IMO, it really does.
The other thing you said about her family using old pictures in her missing posters is spot on IMO. Most of the pics they used were older pics, ones from west point and even high school. Makes me wonder are they tryin to find her or are they more worried about her image? It's weird.

From the papers on Renners site, it can be reasonably inferred that her case was set for a status hearing AFTER she disappeared.

Thus, she didn't know.

True, it was almost 5 months from the last hearing - that does not discount the feasibility of the Judge telling her 'Stay out of trouble for three months, and then when you come back to court, we will dismiss the charges.'

Nolle Prosequi. NOT CWOF. Two different things.

**All the above is my reasonable inferences drawn from Renner's site and the papers there he obtained via a FOIA request. I am of the opinion that she had to check in with her probation agent for three months, perhaps drug test, perhaps other rules she had to follow - and then, TWO MONTHS AFTER THAT, she would return to court, where the charges would be dropped.**

I actually like your posts, Jenkins, but I wish you would make sure you don't state things as fact - such as the CWOF. That is a potential disposition of the case, but not the most likely IMO. But feasible.

Please ignore the second line on my above post. I was typing angrily and skipped a line :)

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't you just say this same thing a couple of posts back? Why are you copying your own post and pasting it so we have to read through the long tedious post a second time?

Really wowzer????
Sorry about the double post, clearly it was an accident. What'd u think I double posted the same exact thing twice on purpose?? And why did you read through it a second time?? Are you really that slow that you didn't realize it was an accidental double post which happens to people all the time around here?

How about this wowzer: how about you do yourself a favor and just skip over my posts? Nobody is forcing you to read them, particularly an accidental dbl post.

Kinda reminds me of bill... Last jan when I started posting after about 5 posts bill put me on his "pay no mind" list. Meaning that he was just ignoring my posts because. Well ok, that's fine with me, thats his right to ignore any posts he wants to. He said that but yet he proceeded to respond to my posts and still does today. So clearly his "pay no mind" list is just more of the bullshit he likes to talk.

That's just ridiculous wowzer, now your bitching because someone accidentally double posted?? I don't even know now those happen, as far as I know I only posted that once so idk, maybe you should take it up with topix?

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

Emmett- as for what your saying about that pic i agree completely. It definitely looks like she was on some sort of drug in that pic and I believe she was.
Her pupils are huge! She was in a hallway with bright fluorescent lighting, theoretically her pupils should've been on the small side, not huge like that. I truly believe she was on some sort of stimulant that night, that doesn't mean she did it all the time but it appears she was that night, IMO.
Most likely ritalin or adderrall. Meth is almost unheard of up north and I don't see Maura as the kind of girl who'd be smoking crack or doing lines of coke in her room. Ritalin and adderrall are extremely popular for college age girls like maura who have classes and two jobs. Id put my $ on Ritalin as adderrall back then was new and wasn't popular like it is today, back then Ritalin was the popular one on college campuses.
It also looks like she had a black eye in that pic IMO, it really does.
The other thing you said about her family using old pictures in her missing posters is spot on IMO. Most of the pics they used were older pics, ones from west point and even high school. Makes me wonder are they tryin to find her or are they more worried about her image? It's weird.

Nah it isnt a man/min on a charge under $250, thats petty larcney! The only things I know is that both Ma & Va are Commonwealths with weird ass laws...Also it seems everyone has a diff doc, so idk whats true or not.. It should be, if she was arrested in Nov, the Dec date would be for a Lawyer hearing.. No way would a month be quick enough to even give her a charge on a minor offense like that.. Maybe the DA brought up an old record from WP?? Idk.. But still, it should have been a lawyer hearing.. Thats the way Commonwealths work different that regular states..

True about the pills.. I remember one thing popular with college kids back then.. Them pain pills, oxys percocets & such.. Maybe some of them or atteral or a combo.. Idk.. & her eye looks like it has a shawdow but the pic is sooo grainy its hard to tell..

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

From the papers on Renners site, it can be reasonably inferred that her case was set for a status hearing AFTER she disappeared.
Thus, she didn't know.
True, it was almost 5 months from the last hearing - that does not discount the feasibility of the Judge telling her 'Stay out of trouble for three months, and then when you come back to court, we will dismiss the charges.'
Nolle Prosequi. NOT CWOF. Two different things.
**All the above is my reasonable inferences drawn from Renner's site and the papers there he obtained via a FOIA request. I am of the opinion that she had to check in with her probation agent for three months, perhaps drug test, perhaps other rules she had to follow - and then, TWO MONTHS AFTER THAT, she would return to court, where the charges would be dropped.**
I actually like your posts, Jenkins, but I wish you would make sure you don't state things as fact - such as the CWOF. That is a potential disposition of the case, but not the most likely IMO. But feasible.

Ive never copped to a Nolle.. But took plenty of Alfreds :).. I know ur not supposed to get them often but somehow ive got a few & after a couple years poof...

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenkins, you state above 'It SHOULD say CWOF for 3 months.'
It's frustrating me, because nowhere has it been clarified/verified that her case was continued without a finding....granted, it appears that is the case, but...we can't make up facts.
It's not been verified as such.
There's such a thing as judicial discretion.
Where are you getting this CWOF from?

I'm obviously not trying to make up any facts here, I can see what your saying but I think you misunderstood what I said.
What I was saying was that in mass no such sentence exists to my knowledge, three mos good behavior is what a CWOF is. That means that if she doesn't get into any more trouble during that period of time the charges are dropped. There are no more hearings unless she catches another charge. The proceedings being sealed are another thing entirely, but a judge can say that the record will be sealed.
3 mos good behavior is not a sentence. If the judge said "don't get in any trouble for 3 mos" that wouldn't be a sentence, there would just be a continuance for 3 mos and then at the next hearing the charges would've been dropped.
Mass is a commonwealth state, it's court system is somewhat different than other states. The options for an outcome are: charges dropped, a CWOF, probation or jail time. A judge can get creative but the sentences must fit into those parameters and a sentence was listed.

Do you see what I'm saying? Was that she had a sentence listed, and 3 mos good behavior isn't a sentence in mass, that's what a CWOF is. That's why I said that should have said CWOF. But like I said above, I am not an attorney, it may be possible that exists but I really don't think it does, I've certainly never heard of that. Go look at other similar arrest reports, I bet you won't be able to find that sentence listed in any other cases.

A CWOF has not been confirmed obviously, all I'm saying is that first page of the documents doesn't make any sense, especially considering that later on in the report it cays the case was cont'd to 5/30, almost 6 mos later. How is there 3 mos good behavior if the case is cont'd for 6 mos? Does that make any sense to you? So say she got arrested at the beginning of may, the charges would still be dropped because the judge Said 3 mos? The whole thing makes no sense.

She was a good kid that fucked up, no SA or judge would want to make it so she couldn't get her nursing degree on a first offense, that's where the CWOF would come in.
I'm obviously not trying to make anything up, I'm tryin to determine the validity of that document which looks highly suspicious to me, well the first page of it does at least.

If u just want me to be frank about it.. Her documents look as those of a CI.. Ive seen plenty of those every time indictments come out & my friends catch a charge.. Theres always 2initails & 2 #s.. Ima make up 1 cus im not bout to get n trouble sayn one from down heres id.. JH38 - thats a CI #..

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

From the papers on Renners site, it can be reasonably inferred that her case was set for a status hearing AFTER she disappeared.
Thus, she didn't know.
True, it was almost 5 months from the last hearing - that does not discount the feasibility of the Judge telling her 'Stay out of trouble for three months, and then when you come back to court, we will dismiss the charges.'
Nolle Prosequi. NOT CWOF. Two different things.
**All the above is my reasonable inferences drawn from Renner's site and the papers there he obtained via a FOIA request. I am of the opinion that she had to check in with her probation agent for three months, perhaps drug test, perhaps other rules she had to follow - and then, TWO MONTHS AFTER THAT, she would return to court, where the charges would be dropped.**
I actually like your posts, Jenkins, but I wish you would make sure you don't state things as fact - such as the CWOF. That is a potential disposition of the case, but not the most likely IMO. But feasible.

A Nolle Prosequi does NOT exist in Massachusetts, ask any mass attorney. A mass attorney will say something to the effect of: in mass it's called a CWOF.
In ct and most states it's called a nolle, in mass the similar thing is called a CWOF but a nolle is not an option in mass.

The other comment I wanna make about what you said is that if she had to check into probation for those 3 months that should have been listed on the sentence. It should have said something about needing to appear at probation.

All I'm saying is that first page of those documents doesn't really make any sense knowing what I know about the mass court system.

For example.. Lets use my friend "Joe Jack" .. JH38 went to "address" to meet with "cops names" got $2800 to purchase a "Big 8" or 4 1/2 ounces of cocaine from Joe Jack.. JH38 met with Joe Jack at "wherever" & "conversation" JH38 returned to "cops addy again, uselly down d street" handed over the cocaine & it was confirmed "144.3 grams" & being shipped to "lab name here".. Now that wont come on a FOIA, but with a name blacked out, seems like a CI

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/rul...

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
A Nolle Prosequi does NOT exist in Massachusetts, ask any mass attorney. A mass attorney will say something to the effect of: in mass it's called a CWOF.
In ct and most states it's called a nolle, in mass the similar thing is called a CWOF but a nolle is not an option in mass

I b damn! Its called a Joe Montana & if ur lucky enough to get 1, especially in places like Lowell, u better take it.. Rule 16, joe montana wore #16 "fighting irish"
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/source/mass/rul...

Simply sarcasm- was that post by advocate from January or more recent? Im just wondering where it came from.

One thing I can say for sure is that there's no way in hell a grand jury was gonna be called on this case. It was misuse of a credit card under 250$, a misdemeanor.
Grand juries work different in mass as well.
A person gets arrested on something, let's say a major drug charge, and is arraigned in district court. After that point there is what's called a bindover hearing. This is to determine whether the case is worthy of having a grand jury called on it. After that hearing a grand jury is called and the grand jury determines whether to indict someone up into superior court. In mass a person can only be sent to state prison from superior court. District court deals with cases where the sentences are 2.5 years and less where the person will be sent to county jail. Most states any sentence over a yr the person gets sent to prison but mass is different like that too, it's 2.5 yrs, and the person needs to be indicted to superior court for that to happen.

On Maura's charge there is just no way that she would be indicted or even a bindover hearing would be scheduled. There is absolutely no way a grand jury is going to ever be called on what amounts to a petty larceny charge.

If anything Maura was likely running away from the embarrassment. It's been said that the person who's card she used lived in her dorm. That must've been wicked embarrassing for her if she knew that people were talking about it. I can see her wanting to get out of town for a week to try to let people remember how to forget.

Thanks for posting that jwb. That makes it look like a nolle does exist in mass.

What's weird though is every attorney I've ever spoken to said a nolle doesn't exist in mass.

I'm confused now. In ct in 1997 I got a charge for simple possession of marijuana. I got a nolle on that case, case was thrown out after a year of not getting arrested again.
About 2005, I think it was, an ex-Gf of mine got arrested in Massachusetts. She didn't have the $ for a private attorney so I paid for one for her, freaking $1500 bucks but that's another story. We went and met with 3 attorneys and chose the third one. I specifically asked if we could get the case nolle'd and they all said no, in mass it's called a CWOF. Well two of em said that, I actually asked again because I didn't believe that. Both of them said pretty much the exact same thing:'that doesn't exist, in mass it's called a CWOF'

If it really matters maybe someone should call a Massachusetts attorney and ask because according to all attorneys I've spoken to a nolle doesn exist, well at least they're never used. A mass attorney pretty much described that a CWOF and nolle is interchangeable terms for different states.

I'm talking about how the law is actually used in practice, not the legal definitions. Any lawyer will tell you that in practice the law is very different than what's taught in law school and the only thing that really teaches you how to be a good attorney is practicing it.

Emmett- I have never had any issues with you at all and infact welcomed you back to the forum.

I am not your guy that has been harrassing you or pointless endeavor.I am tech challenged and could never pull it off. I have only been kind to you. Bill on the other hand?? I think it was the whole conversation on camping that set me over the edge lol.

Bill mentioned that it was me and it was not me and I wanted to clear up the NON Facts that BILL was spreading.

Emmett I don't see what your talkin about when your saying it looks like a CI

What page of the doc are you talking about?

JWB wrote:

Bill mentioned that it was me and it was not me and I wanted to clear up the NON Facts that BILL was spreading.

He's good at doing that, just one of his many many many talents.

Bob aka Jenky- you know I am o your side but do you have any comments on my post relating to procedure rule 16? Not bustin chops just interested in your view. I might be toatally wrong with it.

JWB wrote:

Emmett- I have never had any issues with you at all and infact welcomed you back to the forum.
I am not your guy that has been harrassing you or pointless endeavor.I am tech challenged and could never pull it off. I have only been kind to you. Bill on the other hand?? I think it was the whole conversation on camping that set me over the edge lol.

Whatcha talkin bout brah? I never said nothing about you! We always been cool I thought.. Im not mad at anyone.. All they need is google..