Maura Murray

Ex-Felon... I aint no felon, but thats cus I havent met people like u n real life..

Make some breaking news... Talk about what YOU want to theorize about... We aint holding you up... What u want, people to make up news??

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
It was from Feb of 2012.
And....the grand jury information was in direct response to posts on the grand jury that was, in fact, convened regarding the disappearance of Maura Murray.

I do believe a gran jury was called regarding her dissapearance, but that is not what advocate was talkin about as far as I understood. He was talkin about her leaving campus because she found out a grand jury was being called for her misuse of a cc case, which is obviously not gonna happen on a misdemeanor charge; trust me she wasn't in danger of getting sent upstate to prison.

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
No I don't have them saved but I believe they are archived somewhere. I'll try to take a look and see If I can find them for you to read.
From what I remember RO was fairly confident that they were mass plates, she remembered the red writing. But when pointed out that the temp plates had red writing she said that it was possible they were temp plates as she didn't look that closely at the plate. The way she put is it that it's like when you see a car you look down to see what state they're from, buy you dont pay that close attention because your not expecting Someone to go missing. She always felt bad about not looking closer.
Now RO is a perfect example of a witness that came forward with information that she knew and was never accused of anything, never harassed like people try to claim any witness who comes out is going to suffer. To me that sounds ridiculous. The only witnesses that were really accused of anything at all were cw & the sbd, and both of them had distinct inconsistencies in their statements that warranted being questioned. This whole notion that any witness who comes forward is going to be accused is just ridiculous.

Its on WS... & its almost been 9yrs.. Aint no one coming forward unless someone gives a confession on a death bed or is facing hard hard time & gives something up.. Hope is a very strong emotion to keep putting in their families face all the time... What we need is some sort of break in real 100% authentic news.. Anything, a shoe, the backpack, anything of hers..

Bummed wrote:

This message board has finalky hit the crapper. The Care Bears and the X-Felon are talking about imaginary food parties and Jerky Jenkins long ass posts. Snore some more.

Whats your AGENDA on here?? Keep calling me names, ima catch that proxy & post ur other monikers.. Im not scum or pointless like you... Do urself a favor & buy a proxy if you can afford it cus them free ones I can track.. Im no damn felon nor x-felon.. Im off work till the 8'th, so I got plenty of free time to track you! I got some friends called Anyomous & im sure you dont want them posting your stuff like you did me...

& are u dsylexic? Cus everytime u type, u mess up the L & K everytime...

Howdy Brian.. how u been doin?

Skal!

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm still walking around town looking for the Waffle House.

Amy the beauty of waffle house is that they are on every corner of rt 95

SVEDKA wrote:

Skal!

wha?

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
:) lol.. But the part of VA she talking bout, have to hit the Marriot for breakfast! Love the Hamptons!! If ya gonna go2 breakfast & show some1 around.. Give'em somethin 2 remember!! Maybe a murder mystery dinner theater.. A nice Spa.. Manies, pedis, facials, hair... Gotta do it up.. All wit a southern drawl!!!

WOW!!! Emmett you better slow down that southern charm or us ladies are apt to take this virtual breakfast to a whole new level. LOL

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
I been to Chi-Town serveral times to watch my friends graduate from the Navy.. They do like a huge dive & everything.. I've never seen a waffle house there.. Just a buncha bodegas & street vendors.. Even in the outer skirts.. I know its cold up yonder! If you bring your own jacket, your gonna need to buy a Chicago jacket if you wanna stay warm!... Lol

Adding to list:
Take extra cash to buy Chicago jacket
Learn to speak this new "hood talk".
Bring GPS so we can find a wafflehouse for Amy

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
You two better invite me to your wedding! Haha.

No wedding bells I'm afraid. First I'd be arrested for bigamy and surely Emmett would throw me out into the hood after discovering he's have to cook REAL Italian meals for me everyday. ;)

Simply- I can see what your saying, & I should've worded what I said in that original post different.
We were talking about plea deals she could've gotten & that's where the confusion is coming in; in other states the nolle exists as a pleas agreement, and it doesn't in mass. In mass it just means that they're dropping the case.

In ct, for example, you can plea and get your case nollied for 2 yrs lets say. Meaning if you don't get in trouble for those two years the case gets dropped, which is in essence the same thing as a CWOF in mass.

So I shouldn't have just made a blanket statement that they don't exist at all, but rather that they don't really exist in the context of a plea deal arrangement. That they're differen than most states.

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

Simply- I can see what your saying, & I should've worded what I said in that original post different.
We were talking about plea deals she could've gotten & that's where the confusion is coming in; in other states the nolle exists as a pleas agreement, and it doesn't in mass. In mass it just means that they're dropping the case.
In ct, for example, you can plea and get your case nollied for 2 yrs lets say. Meaning if you don't get in trouble for those two years the case gets dropped, which is in essence the same thing as a CWOF in mass.
So I shouldn't have just made a blanket statement that they don't exist at all, but rather that they don't really exist in the context of a plea deal arrangement. That they're differen than most states.

Oh, Jenkins.

I appreciate your polite post above.

That being said - it's still wrong.

See, maybe others here @ Topix will give up bickering with you - after all, it's evidently an exercise in futility. It'd serve more of a purpose for me to bang my head off the wall.

And yet...I'm not giving in, yet.

I think you are an intelligent guy - you can grasp the fundamentals of this. But you are imagining definitions that simply do not exist.

Here we go....

You wrote:'in other states nolle exists as a plea agreement'
Truth: Nope. Nolle Prosequi is the State's Attorney DECLINING to proceed. It is a VOLUNTARY withdrawal by the prosecutor. It is the CEASING of the instituted charges by DISMISSAL.
Not a plea agreement. Anywhere.

You wrote:'In ct, for example, you can plea and get your case nollied for 2 yrs lets say. Meaning if you don't get in trouble for those two years the case gets dropped, which is in essence the same thing as a CWOF in mass'
Truth: Nope. There is no such thing as 'nollied' first of all. If it IS ever shortened, it's called 'Nolle pros'd.'
Further, you cannot get something 'nollied' for 2 years. One cannot dismiss charges FOR TWO YEARS. It is, by definiton, the dismissal of charges. How does one dismiss charges - for two years? Preposterous.
Additionally, it is NOT the same thing as CWOF. CWOF requires that the defendant stipulate the Prosecution has enough evidence to obtain a conviction - similar to an Alford plea. It's a form of probation.

Nolle Prosequi - Dismissal of charges BY prosecutor.
CWOF - ADMITTING that there is ENOUGH evidence to CONVICT you - and accepting a CWOF (kind of like probation).

Two completely different things.

You missed your calling, Jenkins. You should have been a defense attorney. Your ability to ignore the facts right under your nose is staggering.

I do appreciate your acknowledging a prior error - I just wish that, in the future, you would try not to jump to conclusions and state them as unequivocal fact.

So - fingers crossed - you got it, now? Or are we going to rehash this again?

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
See? It is not just Bill, it is many of us that feel this way. We point out that Jenkins constantly states things as "fact" when they are not. Then everybody has to respond to his non-facts to set him straight, to, as Bill said, set the record straight for others reading this thread, so that Jenkins' non-facts don't get carried forward as if they were true. You are now spending your time refuting Jenkins' "facts" just like many of us have been doing for months now. It is annoying, frustrating and needless, yet he will not stop. Many people have requested that he stop doing this, but he won't. There is a reason people are being mean to him, it's not that we're mean people, we would like a reasonable discussion, and it is NOT POSSIBLE WITH JENKINS.

I am glad that others are seeing it. I haven't even been here so it is interesting that others are starting to see the patterns. You have to love someone who wants to argue law with someone who apparently, knows the law.

Like I said before. He builds premises from faulty (intentional or contrived) thoughts and then pursues and tries to get others involved in his bullshit. And then, when someone with specific knowledge on the subject corrects him. He has thirty answers, all more bizarre than that first. You really can't trust anything he writes because he will write something without a hint, that he doesn't have a clue what he is writing about.

Bill

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>
You missed your calling, Jenkins. You should have been a defense attorney. Your ability to ignore the facts right under your nose is staggering.

Bravo!!

Bill

Note to self: buy Jenkins a law dictionary for Christmas.

Or, we could all take up a collection for same!

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
See? It is not just Bill, it is many of us that feel this way. We point out that Jenkins constantly states things as "fact" when they are not. Then everybody has to respond to his non-facts to set him straight, to, as Bill said, set the record straight for others reading this thread, so that Jenkins' non-facts don't get carried forward as if they were true. You are now spending your time refuting Jenkins' "facts" just like many of us have been doing for months now. It is annoying, frustrating and needless, yet he will not stop. Many people have requested that he stop doing this, but he won't. There is a reason people are being mean to him, it's not that we're mean people, we would like a reasonable discussion, and it is NOT POSSIBLE WITH JENKINS.

You just don't know the Bobfather. He's not allowed to let anyone outside the family know what he is thinking.

You may want to think twice about that. Can you imagine the size of his replies if he actually could argue the law with some real definitions to go with the words?

Simply Sarcasm wrote:

<quoted text>

Ok if I'm wrong I'm wrong, I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong & it does sound like you know what your talking about on this. Like I said in all of those posts I am not an attorney and that is how I understood it to be.

What your saying makes sense but I'm still confused a little about something. In ct lawyers definitely use the term 'nollied' as in 'we got your case nollied'
See now this is where I'm confused though, in high school I got the case I had nollied for a year. Meaning that all I had to do was not get into any trouble during that year and the prosecution would dismiss the charges after that year. This happened to me personally so I know it is possible. A childhood friend of mine down ct is currently on a two year nolle, same thing. If he doesn't get another charge in those two years the charges will be dismissed but if he does catch a similar charge then the original case is brought back off the shelf & he would be pretty screwed because then he's got two cases to fight.
In ct you are generally only allowed one nolle though I have heard of people getting two but they're generally for the first time someone gets in trouble.

So what is going on here? is the term nolle really just that different between different states? What your saying about 'how can a case be dismissed' for two years i think is misunderstanding, it's doesn't take two years to dismiss its only dismissed after those two years are up.
So clearly there's something that I'm not understanding here. In ct you can definitely get cases nollied for certain periods of time; the charges are only dropped after the period of good behavior. Ct is the only state that I can attest that this is true.

It's funny what you said about me being a defense attorney because in the last few months I've been seriously considering going to law school to be a defense attorney lol. I understand that was kind of a shot at me but that's all good, I ain't worried about it. I appreciate your ability to have a civil debate without resorting to nasty personal attacks.

I do completely disagree with what your saying about ignoring facts though; I truly try not to do that & that's what gets me riled up so much sometimes, some peoples just blatant disregard for the facts attached to this case. Example: this thought that since she was scared of the cops she must've went into the woods, as if it's that simple. Have you ever been in the woods when there's 2.5' of snow? This isn't just a lazy walk in the woods, it's an EXTREMELY difficult thing to do, especially wearing sneakers, jeans & no gloves. Any outdoor enthusiast who's being honest will tell you this is one of the hardest things to do: break a new trail in through feet of snow. Also if she was a scared of the cops the woods would've been a TERRIBLE spot to hide, all they need to do is follow your blatant trail into the woods. The entire FD was present that night & they looked all over for a trail leading into the woods and found nothing. I don't understand how people just blatantly disregard these facts.

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

I don't think anyone is actually trying to say there's a mafia angle to this, I think that was beagle at first making a silly theory to piss you off and then some asshole who doesn't like you continuing the stupidity.
There's absolutely nothing to suggest anything mafia related, she wasn't even italian & I don't think any of her friends were either.
And I havenn't heard too much about drugs meaning related to this case. The only drug connection I've heard is the person who apparently is the suspect they mentioned in the court case is supposedly involved in the drug world in woodsville. Definitely rumors going around the drug community that this guy is responsible and has even supposedly been heard bragging on it; apparently a couple members of his his family have said they think he's responsible too. I've heard this from two different sources; one online and another offline not related to this thread at all.
Apparently this guy poured a concrete slab in the time after Maura dissapeared and LE tried to get a warrant to run a ground penetrating radar over the slab. This rumor is going around the drug world, but I've also heard that particular thing from a third source completely unrelated to this thread and definitely not connected to the drug world. I consider this person extremely reliable so I have no doubt this happened. I wish I could tell this who this source is but there's no way in hell. I just find it interesting the GPR thing is going around he drug world and I heard it from a completely different and reliable source.
So this guy is connected to the drug world but that should have nothing to do with her dissapearance.
Think of this: she's shivering and she's scared of the cops; some nice lookin younger guy comes up and offers to take her up the road to his house to let her use the phone. What do you think she's going to do? Is she gonna refuse a warm ride from a kid that seems nice so she can instead go into the woods through 2.5' of snow wearing sneakers and jeans? At that moment some nice kid showing up was probably exactly what she was hoping for.
Besides, with all the snow on the ground the woods would be the worst place to hide ever. They can just follow your trail right into the woods, anyone would've known that. Catching a ride from some kid is a much better way to get away from the scene. We know the FD did a search of the area looking fr a trail that night, the whole FD was there because they were having a meeting that night. It just makes sense she caught a ride.

Did the slab layer have a red truck?I just cant understand that in order to bring justice A search warrant cant be "ordered" on the slab..The owners of the slab say "no" and LE just lets it go?Odd.