Maura Murray

Bobjenkins-OG 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.

I trust you mean nolo contendre

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I am glad that others are seeing it. I haven't even been here so it is interesting

Once again this is the pot calling the kettle black.
What your saying I do is EXACTLY what you do. You've built your whole entire theory on the premise that she was drunk and scared of the police.
I don't think she was very drunk but I do think she was at least somewhat scared of LE, she didn't WANT to talk to them.
But first of all she clearly wasn't THAT afraid, we know she stayed at her car for at LEAST 5 mins after the sbd left, not exactly the actions of someone who is soooo scared of police that they're about to walk miles into the woods to their death to avoid them.
So your theory is already built on two faulty assumptions that don't match up with the known facts of the case. She didn't sound very drunk
At all if you read witness statements and she didnt sound that particularly scared of LE either. Remember: she could've grabbed her stuff and been out of there in 30 seconds flat, which is what you would expect from someone who's that scared of the cops.
Then the rest of your theory that she would've entered the woods to avoid LE is clearly faulty as well. That would've been the WORST possible place to hide, anyone could just follow the blatant, obvious trail she would've left. The whole FD was there that night and they looked in all directions along the woods for a trail leading into the woods and found none.
Think about it: she's scared of the cops and some seemingly nice person stops and offers her a nice warm ride to go use the phone. What's she gonma do? Say no, I'm gonna instead walk through 2.5' of snow wearing jeans and sneakers when she's already shivering??? That just makes no sense at all.
Your whole theory is based on faulty assumptions and in addition to that you also blatantly ignore witness statements and known evidence. The evidence being that there was no trail leading into the woods even though conditions couldn't have been better for tracking and the dog losing the scent 100' up the road. Neither of those facts prove anything on their own but combined they paint a pretty good picture, especially when you consider how extremely difficult it would've been for her to even walk through the snow that deep. When you throw in the fact she was wearing jeans and sneakers and was already shivering when sbd arrived then it would've been hell for her to walk into those woods. Her shoes and jeans would've been packed with snow almost instantly and her body would've been screaming at her to turn back, it would've been hell for her to do that.
What we were discussin last nite was the legal definition of a word. The law is extremely nuanced and difficult to understand, it also really has no direct implications for the case. So what your saying here is basically complete bullshit, it's garbage. When it comes to matters that are directly related to the case I clearly follow the evidence and the witness statements, not just completely disregard them because they don't fit my theory. There's very little evidence in this case and few witness statements as well, it's pretty ridiculous that you just completely ignore what the witnesses who were actually there say because it doesn't fit into your ridiculous theory that she went into the woods.
Anybody who's lived in Nh and actually been out in the woods when there multiple feet of snow knows that walking through the woods in this conditions is like ridiculously difficult. You people say this like she was taking a walk in the park.'scared of the cos?''no problem, just go walking into the woods through feet of snow in the middle of the night'. Do you really have no idea how insane that sounds? It would've been no walk in the park, it wouldve been an extremely difficult and painful task to enter those woods.
Bill you really need to take a good hard look in the
Mirror before you start criticizing people, you are such a hypocrite it's crazy.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
I trust you mean nolo contendre
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Hey Snowy great to see you back.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not accusing you of making something up but I think you might be mixing up the terminology? Simply is right about what nolled means. And I personally know some experienced well-respected defense lawyers in CT and MA and various other states. It means the same thing in all states. Nolo is a plea. Is that what you meant?

Clearly I'm a little confused as to the legal definitions, like I said in all those posts, I am not an attorney and that was how I understood it to be.
You guys are definitely right that a nolle isn't technically a plea, but rather a possible outcome of a case.

A nolle and a nolo are different things correct? A nolle is what the prosecutor does meaning they are dropping the case either due to lack of evidence or because of whatevs deal you made, like staying out of trouble for a certain period of time.
A nolo is you pleading 'no contest' meaning your neither admitting or denying the facts of the case. That is a way of getting a sentence without truly pleading guilty, am I correct about that?

All i was saying last night is what lawyers in mass have said to me, that a nolle in mass isn't the same thing as it is in ct. In ct a case can be nollied for a certain period of time. I don't believe that is an option in mass, well at least that's how a few different lawyers in mass have said to me. Obviously I'm not an attorney and shouldn't have made a blanket statement like that. That was what two mass attorneys said to me so I had no reason to question it.

Obviously the law is very nuanced and does have some distinct differences between different states as to how it is applied to different cases, how it is used in practice. I've had several lawyers also say to me that what you learn in law school is somewhat different than how the law is actually applied in the real world, the only thing that makes someone a good lawyer is practicing it, not aceing the bar exam.

findmaura wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Yes, the guy who supposedly laid the slab definitely owns a red truck, several of them actually. The company his family owns has all red trucks.

The whole thing here is that a search warrant can't just be 'ordered' under any circumstance, this is the whole point of the constitution saying 'no illegal search and seizures', or something to that effect.
There needs to be probable cause for a search warrant to be obtained, and just owning a red truck and pouring a concrete slab on your land in the days following someone's dissapearance in your town does not constitute probable cause.

You own your property, you fully have the right to deny LE access to it if you don't want them to search it, this is why they wrote 'no unlawful search and seizures' into the constitution. To protect people from LE overstepping their bounds.
This is why hiding a body under concrete in your own property is an ingenious way to get rid of a body, especially in Nh in winter. If there's no evidence against you then you know there's nothing LE can do about it, they can't search your property without PC or permission. No judge can just order a search without probable cause.

But I seriously doubt that LE has just 'dropped' it. If they think this guy did it, which it appears they probably do, there's no way they're just going to drop it. They will search that property at the first legal chance they get. Kind of like how they searched cw's trailer as soon as it was moved. They asked him permission and were denied, but they didn't just let it go; they paid attention and once the trailer was moved they did a forensic examination of it.
Also, Apparently a grand jury was also called on this case, I wonder who was the target? My money would be on this guy, but that's unclear knowing what we know now.

But no, a search warrant can't just be 'ordered' in the interest of justice. I know it seems f'd up but trust me, Id were the target of an investigation into a crime you didn't commit, or did, you'd be damn happy that this clause was written into the constitution. That is just a basic right, your right to privacy in your own home. IMO its better to let one murderer walk then to throw out our entire system of law and just let LE do whatever they want.

Findmaura- The other point i want to make is that you don't want to be evidence found without legitimate probable cause. If the evidence is obtained illegally the defense would do a 'motion to suppress' on the evidence. Let's say a judge granted LE a search warrant on faulty grounds. Well once the case was getting to trial a defense attorney could get the evidence thrown out, meaning they couldn't use the fact that her body was found on his property against him.
Imagine that: they find her body on this guys property and then it gets thrown out of court, then it would be known this guy def killed her but there would be nothing anyone could do about it, he'd be able to just walk away with no trouble. That would be crazy but it is potentially possible. imagine the Punic outrage, but there'd be nothing anyone can do.

Evidence does get thrown out. A case in Holyoke,ma a judge didn't allow 17.5 kilos of cocaine to be used as evidence against a drug trafficker because the judge thought the cop lied in order to obtain the search warrant illegally. The case was then dismissed. At the time people were pissed that this judge seemed to side with a drug trafficker over LE, but he was following the law. Later on it was found out that the cop definitely was a liar and had obtained all sorts of search warrants illegally. Many of the cases he was involved in were then thrown out. This cop was subsequently arrested for cocaine trafficking himself and is currently out on $100,000 bail and awaiting trial. His name is Paul barkyoumb and he was a dirty cop. It takes good judges to see through stuff like this. This guy was a dirty cop and at the time the judge looked crazy for throwing out 17.5 kilos of coke; but once this guy was found out for who he really was the judge was vindicated.
This is why the constitution was written the way it was, to protect people. IMO its better to let one murderer walk then to throw out our entire rule of law. There needs to be justice but the cops need to follow the law too

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
That's pretty much what they both mean. My understanding is that technically after a nolle prosequi, the charges can be brought again unless dismissed. Maybe Simply can correct me if I'm wrong. In state court each state might have a different limitation of time that the prosecutor can do this - I don't know but maybe Simply does. Is that where your 2 year thing is coming from? I'm not a lawyer either, just trying to make some sense out of this whole thing.:-)
And yes, it's all very confusing. I have worked for lawyers whose cases are in various states, and right now I work for one who only does military criminal law which is a whole other code. How things are done in one place won't be the same as another. This is why I would usually try to keep my mouth shut rather than risk giving someone bad info since I'm not in MA or CT, but I wanted to try to help answer your question.

Yes it's very confusing! I can only imagine what military law must be like!

I guess the only thing I know for sure is that in ct in '97 I got a case nollied for a year. I didn't get in any more trouble so after that year the case was dismissed. I know that my boy right now in ct is on a two year nolle.
And yes, the charges can be brought back up. If my boy gets busted again he's pretty screwed because then he'll have two cases to fight at the same time.

That's the only thing I'm sure of, that and two different attorneys told me that a nolle in mass isn't used the same way that it is in ct.

The other thing i know for sure is that The law can be very confusing especially comparing it between different states, it sure is interesting though.

Either way, this really has no bearing on this case. The point of what I was saying was that the first page of thy document renner put up just doesn't look right to me. I've never heard of '3 mos good behavior' being considered a sentence in mass.; something just doesn't sound right about that to me.
Also it doesn't make sense that the sentence was three mos good behavior and then two pages later it says the case was cont'd to 5/30, that's almost six mos. you would think that if she did get some sort of 3mo good behavior sentence that he next appearance would be 3 mos later. Say she got arrested again at the beginning of may, what's the judge gonna still have to throw the case out because he said '3 mos good behavior'? That just doesn't add up IMO, but who knows.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

What's funny about this ridiculous, obviously untruthful assessment is that these people spreading bullshit as fact is the exact reason I started posting again last January.
I came an read the thread after a long time of not posting and could not believe what people like bill and fakeLE were stating as facts that clearly weren't. It's ridiculous that you would say this and I suspect you are aware that it's bullshit.
These guys constantly state things as fact that clearly aren't, they constantly base everything they say on faults assumptions and constantly ignore evidence and witness statements that don't fit with their theories. This is the reason I started posting again.
As for having a reasonable discussion; I would love to have a nice, peaceful discussion like always used to take place, but it is impossible with these guys. They are constantly resorting to stupid personal attacks. Can't win an argument? Your clearly wrong? Don't worry about it, just call the other person stupid or one of the other many insults they constantly use.
Anybody who questions this I invite to go back and read the posts from around the end of January this year. I clearly can have a civil discussion with almost everyone, except these guys. It's funny because when they can win a debate using facts they will, the thought that if she was in the woods she would've been found by now. That is wrong and when someone says it they will break out articles and clearly prove its wrong. But then when what they are saying is wrong and you clearly prove their argument is flawed, they start calling you stupid. They literally debate like 5-yr old kids.
Go read the Patric McCarthy thread, that's a shining example of how big of assholes these guys can be. I started pressing them on how a hypothermia victim can be found with dirt in their OPEN eyes. They clearly can not explain this fact away, there is no explanation that accounts for this that fits into the hypothermia assessment, so as soon as I started pressing this they freaked out and called me every name in the book. The behavior of some of these people is just plain ridiculous. I can see why some people think there's some sort of conspiracy and these people have an agenda. People just don't understand how anyone can be so rude and nasty. While I do believe a couple people on here do seem to have some sort of agenda that seems suspicious, I really think its more these are just really insecure, bitter old men who just can't admit when they're wrong. They think they know everything and everyone else is a bunch of idiots. Bill has to be one of the most blatantly insecure people I've ever encountered on any forum.
Your assessment is completely ridiculous bullshit, and I suspect you know it is too. You must know it is, these people are by far the rudest, most disrespectful, and just plain nasty posters on any forum ever, by a long shot. I've never seen such rude and childish behavior on any other forum ever. If you are saying these guys are nice and willing to have a civil debate you just can't be being truthful, you can't. Either that or you really need to have your head examined. I'm not trying to be mean here but it's the truth, anyone can see these guys are the rudest posters on any forum anywhere, probably the entire Internet. I challenge anyone to find a forum on a different topic that has any behavior that's even remotely like what they display, i'd bet anything you can't find it.
Why do you think they were banned from WS? People on there think she's lost in the woods &/or
Committed suicide. Orky is on WS all the time. These guys weren't banned because of their theories but Esther due to their ridiculously rude and childish behavior.

Hi all I assume if Maura had been in Amherst and allowed in school she would have left town on May 23r.d. to go back to her prior existence or the reported job in O.K.I am guessing here but maybe someone spoke up for her at the first hearing and they went easy on her after considering her history.I dont' get why she would have to re appear or not on May 25 t.h. 2004.Take care philip

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
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

LOL!! Just being myself.. Turn the heat up in here & make it a virtual 5* Dinner at Sparks Steakhouse in Manhattan...:) Have on one of my finest Versace Suits & we'd stop at the Gucci store & grab a nice silk Gucci dress for you..

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
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. ;)

Bigamy? Aint that one them big fancy northern words?? LMAO.. & nah.. I love cooking!!! All my friends hit me up everyday for extras.. & never throw ya down in "tha hood".. Feel like R. Kelly, "I dont see nothing wrong..." ... Lol & if it got that bad, Id just get my uncle to fly ya back in his G4...

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
I trust you mean nolo contendre
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Yup.. I know much more than I need about CT law Jenkins... "nollied" is rich boy talk when they tryna sound hood.. No offense & its not a attack on you jenkins.. Some lawyers up there used to say it to me & im like STFU..

Im sayn.. If it comes down to it & your guilty but want it to disappear from your sheet after bein on papers.. Never ADMIT to anything.. Never cop a plea unless your getting a really good deal.. Like 1yr vs 5.. But if u got 3-5 dont cop just to get 2-4 then be stuck on papers for 5 more.. It dont matter if they took it from your hands.. ITS NOT YOURS.. Its THEIRS!! Make them work, make them do their job!! You get put to sleep for less time.. & if your really really stuck..
Just take the Alfred..

www.GetvipNews[dot]com/Maura-M urray

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
The reason is that you can't get a search warrant without probable cause. Otherwise LE could just start digging up anybody's property or searching their homes without evidence. So if LE has no probable cause then they can ask permission to search, but if they are denied permission then it would be illegal to search.

There really is no "Probable Cause" laws left in VA.. I know Simply is a law person aswell as you.. Look it up.. We dont have many rights left here in VA.. They just make stuff up down here.. I can call the Magistrate, pick a name out the phone book, say "insert something stupid here" & they'll go pick them up!!

There is NO Parole in VA.. & the county jail is Cruel & Unusal Punishment.. Its underground & stinks!! Should be condimed!! They dont give your meds & they have a medical button but you can reach it!! You have to roll up a newspaper & try real hard 2 even hit the button!! & no one watches on the weekends.. I sleep for 2 years in Big Walker CT over 3 months in our Henry Hilton!!!

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes it's very confusing! I can only imagine what military law must be like!
I guess the only thing I know for sure is that in ct in '97 I got a case nollied for a year. I didn't get in any more trouble so after that year the case was dismissed. I know that my boy right now in ct is on a two year nolle.
And yes, the charges can be brought back up. If my boy gets busted again he's pretty screwed because then he'll have two cases to fight at the same time.
s.

Military Law is VERY strict & it should be.. Also if ur boi gets popped again.. & gets sent up state.. Holla at me, wire me sum $$ & ill make sum calls & get sum protection for a few stacks..

Bobjenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
But I seriously doubt that LE has just 'dropped' it. If they think this guy did it, which it appears they probably do, there's no way they're just going to drop it. They will search that property at the first legal chance they get. Kind of like how they searched cw's trailer as soon as it was moved. They asked him permission and were denied, but they didn't just let it go; they paid attention and once the trailer was moved they did a forensic examination of it.
Also, Apparently a grand jury was also called on this case, I wonder who was the target? My money would be on this guy..

Thats interesting Jenkins!! I didnt know that they think the guy whom got a new driveway poured is a prime suspect...

So they think he did something to her & buried her in concrete? So the guy that the girl who was walking seen driving the red truck & was acting "weird" in her own words, actually waiting at the store for her, whom might have had MA plates.. Him & his family own red trucks & they made a new driveway & the red truck guy helped the other guy by snatchin her up then they poured concrete on her?

Ive not read or seen much about this.. Ive heard about the red truck.. I heard something on this thread back from you about the driveway person.. But I didnt know they actually had a "prime suspect"...

Thats some great information! Im glad they have an idea of who done it.. These are facts that I can go post on other boards I talk about!!!

I got some news to talk about now!! Thanks for bringing this up cus I really didnt know!! Least its a lil closer to being solved now!!

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
Yup.. I know much more than I need about CT law Jenkins... "nollied" is rich boy talk when they tryna sound hood.. No offense & its not a attack on you jenkins.. Some lawyers up there used to say it to me & im like STFU..
Im sayn.. If it comes down to it & your guilty but want it to disappear from your sheet after bein on papers.. Never ADMIT to anything.. Never cop a plea unless your getting a really good deal.. Like 1yr vs 5.. But if u got 3-5 dont cop just to get 2-4 then be stuck on papers for 5 more.. It dont matter if they took it from your hands.. ITS NOT YOURS.. Its THEIRS!! Make them work, make them do their job!! You get put to sleep for less time.. & if your really really stuck..
Just take the Alfred..

More here...
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-s-the-...

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Snowy great to see you back.

Hang onto your hat in the Frankenstorm!

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
I read the post that JWB is talking about and in no way did you say that you didn't want people to put posters up. If JWB wants them up so bad then he should have some made up and displayed.
I think though that with the wind through these mountains, the rain and snow and the snow plows it is hard for a sign or picture to stand up to the elements when stapled on a tree or pole. Displaying something at a business where lots of people go would be the smart thing to do but that's only my opinion which isn't really worth much here on Topix. LOL

posters were hung up at stores. Um not sure where else posters were put. This was done in the early days that Maura disappeared and I did not become involved until March of 04. I would carry posters with me and hand them out to people I talked with and asked them to spread the info along to others they knew. Displaying them in other businesses where alot of people go is a really good idea.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
More here...
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-s-the-...

Thanks! & I know what both of them are, unfortuantly...
This is the one i've used a few times... I had the spellin wrong.. Its Alford not Alfred lol..
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/alford-plea/

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks! & I know what both of them are, unfortuantly...
This is the one i've used a few times... I had the spellin wrong.. Its Alford not Alfred lol..
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/alford-plea/

Thanks, very helpful.