Maura Murray

hannah_b wrote:

I once found an empty bottle of liquor out in the woods in WA. Same kind that was possibly missing from MM´s car. Had I announced it on MM 8 year anniversary, would that imply it necessarily had anything to do with MM case?

Be serious hannah. If it was found in Ohio maybe. She had going to be in-laws there. But no one is going to believe that Maura made it to WA. She didn't know anyone there, at least not that we know of. 8-)

Bill

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
See now this makes the point of what I'm saying perfectly.
Your talking about finding a liquor bottle in WA, even if you posted it on the anniversary there would be absolutely no reason to ever think it has a connection to mm.
Now if you Found that 7.8 miles up 112 from the crash site that would be a completely different story, would it not?

Not really. Most of the items found lying about in the area are not related to MM. If we got a statement from an insider to the case that an item had been determined to be related to MM, that would be different. Maybe there is a cigarette butt lying out on rt 112 as we post? Could be from MM killer!
Sorry if I came across as being rude, I didn´t mean to. But I am sceptical of any poster coming on and posting about stuff found tht may or may not be MM belongings. And why post about need to contact family? Just do it, and let´s then hope for a public announcement some day in the future by family or LE that clothing, phone or whatever belonging to MM has been found. If those items found in the area, really are related to MM it would point to her being out in those woods somewhere. I don´t really have an opinion on the duct tape as long as we don´t know more about it and the exact location those things were found. It could be relevant to the case or not, the poster could be just a concerned citizen doing the right thing or not, but I have to really wonder about the motive for throwing out stuff like this on topix.

Orko Kringer wrote:

Then out of the blue comes this 75 percent chance of conviction statement by the clown AAG from NH ... JS.

I don't know if she was a clown, but, from what we understand she was a last minute replacement so she didn't have an in depth knowledge of the case. Not an enviable position to be in.

Any one else remember that?

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know if she was a clown, but, from what we understand she was a last minute replacement so she didn't have an in depth knowledge of the case. Not an enviable position to be in.
Any one else remember that?
Bill

I do.. She even said so.. I wouldnt call anyone that held a position like that a clown unless they were tryna put me away lol..
It did look as though she was real lost & was getting beat by the other attorney but she kelt reffering to her colleague with "knowledge of this case" & he had to be somewhere so she was sent in on last minutes notice..

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I would think if LE had a very strong poi they would tell fm that they were very close and he shouldnt continue the case to open the files because it may botch the investigation or
Give the poi a heads up and flee. I would think he would be reasonable to understand this.

Maybe, maybe not.
What if Fred is the poi? They wouldn't tell him shit.

Another thing is just having a good idea of what happened, say a piece of evidence that indicates foul play and a witness who places the poi in the area, but no body, telling Fred could be a huge mistake.
Say they told Fred this 6 years ago. Then they still haven't Found her body, don't tell me he wouldn't be knocking on the guys door, maybe searching his property, telling the media, all sorts of things that could jeapordize the case.
Telling fred could be a HUGE mistake.

Have you read the epilogue to Maribeth conways article about mm? It's interesting.

I find it interesting that she says "almost every person I've interviewed in the past months for this article believe that foul play was involved".from memory, maybe Not an exact quote but that is what she said.
Remember that she interviewed pretty much all the major players in this case; LE, the family, witnesses and other locals. I find it highly interesting that almost all of them believe foul play occurred, obviously many of them won't state this on record but that's what they told her.

It's just interesting that pretty much everyone close to this case believes foul play occurred. I would venture to say that most people who are aware of this case and the facts involved in it believe foul play occurred. Seems like most people think that except a select few people who post on this forum and these people really really really want to convince others that she's just lost in the woods. It's a very interesting dynamic; what do these people have to gain by trying to damn hard to convince people that she innocently got lost in the woods? Do they have nothing to gain and just really believe that they're right? Hard to say...interesting though I'll tell you that much.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>Bill how do you not understand this?

I'll happily let my words stand on their own, and let the readers figure out who understands this. What is amazing, well not really considering the track record, is that you don't understand it.

And how do you figure 50% if they didn't have anything? Wouldn't 0% be used if they don't know anything? How do they get to 50% when they don't know or have anything? I'm guessing when you went to school you used the new math that we have heard so much about?

person1-I have a 50% chance of solving this.

p2-Great, what evidence do you have?

p1-Absolutely nothing.

Again, I have seen some pretty crazy WAGs. But to me that sounds pretty optimistic.

Bill

lkiencos = Neil Sock, Lose Link.. & more lol im bored..
so either Neil has a sock or its a lose link (quijas dont spell perfect, the witch board movies said so)

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
I do.. She even said so.. I wouldnt call anyone that held a position like that a clown unless they were tryna put me away lol..
It did look as though she was real lost & was getting beat by the other attorney but she kelt reffering to her colleague with "knowledge of this case" & he had to be somewhere so she was sent in on last minutes notice..

Absolutely. I felt her pain. Nothing worse than looking like an asshat, particularly when it's not your fault. Like a lamb to the slaughter. Oops, that's not like the swinging cat thing is it?

Bill

Emmett Dove wrote:

lkiencos = Neil Sock, Lose Link.. & more lol im bored..
so either Neil has a sock or its a lose link (quijas dont spell perfect, the witch board movies said so)

No, no, no. Not that simple. There are at least two maybe three more letters we don't even know.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
No, no, no. Not that simple. There are at least two maybe three more letters we don't even know.
Bill

Lmao!! Good thing you didnt add another C cus I was leaning towards Neils ...

Emmett Dove wrote:

lkiencos = Neil Sock, Lose Link.. & more lol im bored..
so either Neil has a sock or its a lose link (quijas dont spell perfect, the witch board movies said so)

So Neil killed MM and kept her sock as a souvenir?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely. I felt her pain. Nothing worse than looking like an asshat, particularly when it's not your fault. Like a lamb to the slaughter. Oops, that's not like the swinging cat thing is it?
Bill

They shouldnt have sent her in without atleast a week of briefing IMO.. It wasnt fair IMO.. & I see what u say as metaphors but I guess that 1 person will show up tonight & call me a troll again..

Im sorry but its hard for me to believe that someone shows up out the blue & post they need to talk to the family.. They found this site, its easy to type in MM Contact.. Especially when I posted the other day about that guide wowzer said came out & figured they might hope a hunter finds it.. Way to odd for me..

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
So Neil killed MM and kept her sock as a souvenir?

LOL.. I mean No Offense in saying this, but it sounds like something someone would post here as a Fact or main theory..

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know if she was a clown, but, from what we understand she was a last minute replacement so she didn't have an in depth knowledge of the case. Not an enviable position to be in.
Any one else remember that?
Bill

She was completely unprepared ... pretty unprofessional for an entity that is entrusted with solving crimes and keeping communities safe. But then again, if there is no boogeyman out there and maura wasn't met with foul play, then sending some unprepared goof to court makes more sense.

But the "clown" reference wasn't referring to her but rather mr. strelzin.

I have talked with him more than once. IMO This guy is a clown who will say anything to anybody and he is the one who made the 75 percent conviction (pull from his behind) comment.

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
They shouldnt have sent her in without atleast a week of briefing IMO.. It wasnt fair IMO..

I agree. But, we have two lawyer types that hopefully will weigh in on this. I suspect that when a legal match is scheduled, you can't just postpone it at the last minute, especially before the state supreme court. Something must have happened at the last minute to make this switch impossible to avoid i.e someone died, left the office, etc. I look forward to possible insight by our legal staff. 8-)

Bill

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>But the "clown" reference wasn't referring to her but rather mr. strelzin.
I have talked with him more than once. IMO This guy is a clown who will say anything to anybody and he is the one who made the 75 percent conviction (pull from his behind) comment.

I have to disagree. I watched the trials of the scumbag murderers who killed Kimberly Cates and maimed Jaimie Cates, Stephen* Spader and Christopher Gribble, and Strelzin was excellent. No showboating, no drama, just a good lawyer proving his case.

*Just on the off chance that Spader ever reads this, I misspelled his name on purpose, heh.:)

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I'll happily let my words stand on their own, and let the readers figure out who understands this. What is amazing, well not really considering the track record, is that you don't understand it.
And how do you figure 50% if they didn't have anything? Wouldn't 0% be used if they don't know anything? How do they get to 50% when they don't know or have anything? I'm guessing when you went to school you used the new math that we have heard so much about?
person1-I have a 50% chance of solving this.
p2-Great, what evidence do you have?
p1-Absolutely nothing.
Again, I have seen some pretty crazy WAGs. But to me that sounds pretty optimistic.
Bill

No, absolutely incorrect.
If they have noevidence there was a crime and no evidence that she's in the woods, then they don't know what the hell happened.
That would make it 50/50 of charges being brought.
If they don't know what happened that would mean that both outcomes are just as likely: foul play/no foul play. Get it?

If they have no idea what happened then that would mean there's a 50% chance of charges being filed in this case

yes Emmett I did read the poem you wrote awhile back and commented on how nice it was. guess you forgot.

Hey orky- good to see you back.

So your saying that a AAG stood up in open court and lied, committing perjury?
I don't know about that, maybe that's why they had her stand in last minute? To protect against any potential perjury charges? She could just play stupid and say she didn't know? But idk if that excuse would hold up for an AAG, she should know better than to lie to the court and if she didn't know the answer she should've said that instead of lying.
Honestly if mm is found in the woods and apparent suicide and the case file is released & it's found that she was lying then they should be brought up on perjury charges and she, maybe all of them should lose their jobs. If they had indications that she was a suicide and this wasn't a criminal case then there is no excuse for them to keep the case file private, it's non-criminal.
Why go through all this, why lie if they believe he killed herself? How does that make any sense? This wouldn't set precedent for any other cases if it's not a criminal case. See what I'm saying? The whole thing makes absolutely no sense if they don't believe this to be a criminal case.

Hey maruchan- I agree with you! Heyyy, imagine that.

From what I can tell strelzin seems like a very competent Lawyer and a stand up guy.
I feel saying he's a clown, or whatever orky said, is a mischaracterization.

.