Maura Murray

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok well first of all that assumption is clearly wrong. It was posted on a thread about MM, it also was posted on the anniversary of her dissapearance in 2010; so the post definitely had something to do with mm.
That being said we really have no idea if the tape was connected to mm or not, this guy was clearly implying that being a real possibility., it is possible this was posted just to create a stir; I don't believe it was but honestly I don't know
Based on the info I currently have.
But obviously the post has something to do with mm, I don't see how anybody can say otherwise.

things are found in the woods all the time. if something is found the best thing to do would be to contact the proper authorities.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not to sound rude:
If you can't compromise the investigation why post anything?
What would prevent a search partner from sharing on the forum?
If snow is coming and you told LE a couple months ago maybe it isn't important because I would think they would be all over it. And it probably survived 8 snow falls.
It sounds like your in need of a search partner and I can't stress to anyone how important it is to not randomly just go into the middle of the woods with someone to search for anything regardless of the cause.
Not saying Appointed is a bad person but please remember Internet safety rules.

I agree with you. If I need help with anything I always turn to my friends and family. Its not a good idea to be looking for a complete stranger to help.

I agree, Maruchan. Strelzin was/is impressive.

NHlover wrote:

<quoted text>
Is there info available on where this broken phone was found? I may have some info, as I did find a cell phone, at one point, and contacted a mm site to ask if her phone had ever been missing/recovered. But the phone was then thrown out again. When I went back to find it, it was gone. I never got any response when I tried to find out what type of phone mm had. This was just about 2 yrs ago now.

curious if you found a cell phone that maybe connected to a missing person then why was it thrown back out? Where did you find it and what type of phone was it? thank you.

citigirl wrote:

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

Sorry :(.. So many things were going on at that time & also was tryna defend myself that I missed most all of the comments wading through the good/bad & mostly picking the bad to argue my point :(

Orky,

You are way off on JS. Jeff Is not only an excellent Attorney, but an extremely intelligent and compassionate human being. I used to ride Mtn. bikes with jeff and a group of guys for years and I can tell you first hand that he is of excellent character. He worked his ass off to get where he is and we are lucky to have him. There is no ego or guile in him. Short of the fact that he used to ride a Cannondale, I can assure you he has sound judgement!

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

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.

There was no lie.

Saying 75 percent or saying 65.5 percent or 54.7777 percent is a cowardly way of really saying nothing at all.

He can't be wrong in any scenario.

He says there is a 75 percent of conviction and if there is never a conviction, his comment isn't neccessarily wrong.

Now if he would've backed up his comment with anything of substance, then his comment can be validated or invalidated.

His comment to the court was very odd and came out of left field. And the biggest thing is there is nothing to support it.

Orky,
The other thing I wanna mention, what makes me truly believe you are wrong about this, is what the judge said. The judge said something to the effect of: the state can't withhold anything just because they want to, they can't claim it's a criminal case if it's not, they must show not only that a legitimate investigation is taking place but also that there are targets to this investigation and there's a likelihood of charges being filed.. They can't withhold files that aren't potentially part of a criminal investigation.
Basically what the judge said was that they can't just claim there's some big investigation going on and say they might convict someone to keep the files sealed, they can't just say it; they have to show that this is truly the case. That was the whole purpose for the in-camera review of the case, so they could privately show the judge what they were talking about and prove to him that what they were saying was true.
Well the judge reviewed the files in-camera and agreed with the state. He agreed there was a criminal investigation going in and there was a likelihood of charges being brought.

I think people are forgetting that critical fact; that the state didn't just stand up and say that and that made it so. they stood up, said it, and then the judge reviewed it all in his chambers and agreed with them. He agreed that they were truly conducting a criminal investigation and there was a likelihood of charges being files.

The thing that Proves they weren't just lying was the fact that the judge agreed with them, does it not? You cant be saying that the AG's office was lying and the judge lied too can you? That's a whole lotta lying for a case they really think was a suicide. How does that make any sense if they believe she killed herself??. I think it's pretty clear the judge would've released the files if he thought they were lying.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

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

It's the end of the world as we know it ... and I feel fine.:)

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
There was no lie.
Saying 75 percent or saying 65.5 percent or 54.7777 percent is a cowardly way of really saying nothing at all.
He can't be wrong in any scenario.
He says there is a 75 percent of conviction and if there is never a conviction, his comment isn't neccessarily wrong.
Now if he would've backed up his comment with anything of substance, then his comment can be validated or invalidated.
His comment to the court was very odd and came out of left field. And the biggest thing is there is nothing to support it.

75% means that there is a fairly high likelihood of charges being filed in this case, that means they must have had something, definitely not nothing. I agree that they pulled that # out their ass but if they truly had nothing indicating a crime occurred then that was a flat out lie said to the court.

Also there must have been something to support it. We haven't seen the case file, but the judge who made the decision did. The judge reviewed it and agreed with the state. That means they must have showed him something legitimate that indicated that a prosecution was a likelihood.
Saying there was nothing to support it is an assumption and it doesn't fit with the outcome of the case. The judge specifically said that they had to prove their side of the argument; they cant just say there's a criminal investigation going on and keep the files private because they say so, they had to show there was a legitimate investigation going on.
Apparently they had something to support it as evidenced by the fact that the judge agreed with them and kept all facts that were part of the criminal investigation secret.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
It's the end of the world as we know it ... and I feel fine.:)

Haha, hopefully the sky doesn't start falling or something.
But for real, I've never seen anything to indicate strelzin is anything but a good guy and an honest attorney.

AppointedNH wrote:

<quoted text>
The answer is, I can't compromise the investigation on little details that may interest a few, spoil a whole caseload in the event that a trial may be held in the future. I would share more with a search partner if I had a search partner, more boots on the ground is a great idea. Snow is coming in though...

follow your heart. if you are looking for a seasrch partner dont do it here.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Orky,
The other thing I wanna mention, what makes me truly believe you are wrong about this, is what the judge said. The judge said something to the effect of: the state can't withhold anything just because they want to, they can't claim it's a criminal case if it's not, they must show not only that a legitimate investigation is taking place but also that there are targets to this investigation and there's a likelihood of charges being filed.. They can't withhold files that aren't potentially part of a criminal investigation.
Basically what the judge said was that they can't just claim there's some big investigation going on and say they might convict someone to keep the files sealed, they can't just say it; they have to show that this is truly the case. That was the whole purpose for the in-camera review of the case, so they could privately show the judge what they were talking about and prove to him that what they were saying was true.
Well the judge reviewed the files in-camera and agreed with the state. He agreed there was a criminal investigation going in and there was a likelihood of charges being brought.
I think people are forgetting that critical fact; that the state didn't just stand up and say that and that made it so. they stood up, said it, and then the judge reviewed it all in his chambers and agreed with them. He agreed that they were truly conducting a criminal investigation and there was a likelihood of charges being files.
The thing that Proves they weren't just lying was the fact that the judge agreed with them, does it not? You cant be saying that the AG's office was lying and the judge lied too can you? That's a whole lotta lying for a case they really think was a suicide. How does that make any sense if they believe she killed herself??. I think it's pretty clear the judge would've released the files if he thought they were lying.

the only thing they agreed upon was not allowing Fred murray in on the closed court tesitimony --- BECAUSE they did not want him to have all the names of the people that have given statements about the case to date.

It had nothing to do with murder suspects and crime info.

Emmett Dove wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry :(.. So many things were going on at that time & also was tryna defend myself that I missed most all of the comments wading through the good/bad & mostly picking the bad to argue my point :(

no need to apoligize. its understandable.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Bobfather - you are misunderstanding this. I understand the point that you are trying to make as 50-50 but it doesn't work that way.

Something happening and not happening doesn't make a perfect 50-50 scenario. If I live in Arizona and you ask me if it is going to snow today and I don't know, you can't say "there's a 50% chance of snow, because it is going to clearly snow or not snow" Obviously the weather will obviously snow or not, but it doesn't make perfect 50-50 chance scenario.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
the only thing they agreed upon was not allowing Fred murray in on the closed court tesitimony --- BECAUSE they did not want him to have all the names of the people that have given statements about the case to date.
It had nothing to do with murder suspects and crime info.

Orky- I'm talking about the judgement that the court handed down in which it agreed with the state, not Fred. Obviously Fred wasn't going to be allowed into the in-camera review of the files, that would be the same as letting him view the files.

Remember that the judge clearly stated that the state can't withhold info because they want to. They can't even withhold info because they're might be a prosecution at some point. They had to prove to the judge that there was an active, ongoing investigation that was likely to result in a criminal prosecution, that was the crux of the case.
the fact that the judge handed down a judgement that kept the files sealed proves that there had to be something in that case file. That proves that they weren't just lying and claiming there's a criminal case when there isn't. The judge looked over the case file and agreed that there was an ongoing criminal investigation and there was a likelihood of charges being filed. If there was no evidence in the file that indicated foul play that judge would've released those files.

This is the whole point of the right to know law, to prevent authorities from withholding information from the public that the public has a right to know.
If their investigation indicated that she killed herself then her family would clearly have a right to know that. If there was a suicide note on her computer her family would definitely have a right to know that as well, that would have nothing to do with anything criminal.
Her family does not have the right to know anything pertaining to a criminal investigation. The judge reviewed the case file and determined that there was in fact a criminal investigation ongoing and that there was a good chance that it would result in a prosecution, that is why the files were kept sealed, not because the AG's office wanted them sealed.

If that judge looked at that file and thought that she killed herself and the state was just trying to keep it sealed for the sake of keeping it sealed he would've released those files to Fred, this much is clear. There has to be something more to this then just a couple clown AG's lying in court pretending there's a criminal investigation going on just to keep the files sealed.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
75% means that there is a fairly high likelihood of charges being filed in this case, that means they must have had something, definitely not nothing. I agree that they pulled that # out their ass but if they truly had nothing indicating a crime occurred then that was a flat out lie said to the court.
Also there must have been something to support it. We haven't seen the case file, but the judge who made the decision did. The judge reviewed it and agreed with the state. That means they must have showed him something legitimate that indicated that a prosecution was a likelihood.
Saying there was nothing to support it is an assumption and it doesn't fit with the outcome of the case. The judge specifically said that they had to prove their side of the argument; they cant just say there's a criminal investigation going on and keep the files private because they say so, they had to show there was a legitimate investigation going on.
Apparently they had something to support it as evidenced by the fact that the judge agreed with them and kept all facts that were part of the criminal investigation secret.

I don't understand how difficult this is for you. Someone is missing and the body isn't found. Isn't that enough to warrant any discussion that there might be foul play regardless of percentages given? There doesn't need to have any other evidence to support this theory: that someone is missing and there may be foul play. There may also not be foul play, and if this is the case the AG doesn't wish to have the names of people who were interviewed on public record. Can you appreciate the their right to privacy?

If there was in fact a cell phone found ,what was the location?I've never seen it discussed.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't understand how difficult this is for you. Someone is missing and the body isn't found. Isn't that enough to warrant any discussion that there might be foul play regardless of percentages given? There doesn't need to have any other evidence to support this theory: that someone is missing and there may be foul play. There may also not be foul play, and if this is the case the AG doesn't wish to have the names of people who were interviewed on public record. Can you appreciate the their right to privacy?

I do appreciate and respect their right to privacy, for real.

You kind of helped make my 50/50 point with this post. This is completely different than your comparison of a 50% chance of snow in Arizona, which is probably more like 1% or less, or something like that.

Just the fact that she is a young girl that is missing presents the possibility that foul play is involved. Meaning that If you know nothing, there is a 50/50 chance of charges being brought.
Saying there's a 75% chance clearly indicates they have something more than nothing. That means they believe it is more likely than not to have charges brought ho against someone in her dissapearance.

They must have something, some piece of evidence that indicates foul play is likely what happened in this case. This assertion is supported by the fact that the judge sided with the state and handed down a ruling that kept most of the records sealed.
Obviously the 75% wasn't reached mathematically but it clearly indicates they have something more than just a suspicion that a crime may have occurred.

The most interesting thing I find about this court case, besides the fact that the state obviously believes a crime occurred, is the inclusion of a one-party intercept/recording. That is something that is not normal in a case like this, who ever heard of a one party intercept being used in a missing persons case or a murder investigation? I'm sure it's happened before but it certainly isn't common.

could it have possibly been used to try to get probable cause for a search warrant? Is that possible?
There is a rumor going around town that a certain person abducted Maura, this is the guy who supposedly poured the concrete slab in the middle of winter shortly after her dissapearance. Well part of this rumor is that this guy has been heard bragging about committing this crime. This guy is also connected to the drug community around town, this is where the rumor originated.
Well I was thinking something like this: this guy is supposedly in the drug scene aroun town and been heard bragging about the crime.
Is it possible that someone he knows got busted with drugs and agreed to wear a wire over to the guys house to see if he could get the guy to start bragging about it on tape?
I don't see how else a one-party recording could be applicable to this case.
Let's say this kid got busted with some oxy's. To avoid charges he wore a wire over there and got the guy talkin.
Could this be why they applied for a search warrant and were denied? Say he got the guy to talk about it, but the guy gave no details and said nothing specific that could be linked to the case. Maybe he said something like 'I got that girl' or 'i took the girl', something non-specific like that. Wouldn't LE still want to include that as evidence in the case so in the event they do find her body and link him to the crime then this non-specific talk would make sense?.

I believe the talk about LE wanting to run the GPR over the slab to be 100% true. This rumor has circulated up there but I also heard it from a completely different source who is very credible and not linked to woodsville in any way and definitely not linked to the drug community or any drug community anywhere. That the NHSP applied for a warrant to run a GPR over the slab and were denied due to lack of PC.

Obviously if someone made a recording of this guy saying something specific to mm that would constitute PC. I can see LE at least trying to get the warrant even if he didn't say anything specific. The simple inclusion of this as evidence in the case indicates that LE believes that the recording is related to mm.

This is obviously speculation but does anyone else think that this is what the one-party recording could be? Is this just a crazy idea?lol
Does anybody else have any other suggestions/ideas as to how a one-party recording could possibly applicable to this case?