Maura Murray

I guess its like they say ... great minds thing alike.

Here are two separate excerpts done from separate affdavits by NH AAG Strezlin and Lt. Landry.

Affadavits are someone's own words right? Hmm.

Sounds like these two guys might be siamese twins or something. they sure do think a lot alike.

Jeff Strezlin Affadavit
The Maura Murray investigation is open and ongoing. I am familiar with the State Police files related to Maura Murray and her disappearance. Based on my experience with criminal investigations and prosecutions and the information in this case in particular, I have a reasonable belief that it is possible that the investigation may lead to criminal charges. However, at this stage of the investigation, it would be detrimental to our ability to continue this investigation and any subsequent prosecution if we are required to make public whether or not there is a person or persons of interest and the information on which those beliefs are based. In my experience in this case and in other cases, our investigation would be hindered by the following ways:

Todd Landry Affadavit
The Maura Murray investigation is open and ongoing. Based on my experience with criminal investigations and the information in this case in particular, I have a reasonable belief that this investigation may lead to criminal charges. However, at this stage of the investigation, it would be extraordinarily detrimental to our ability to continue this investigation if we are required to make public whether or not there is a person or persons of interest and the information on which those beliefs are based. In my experience in this case and in any other cases, our investigation would be hindered by the following ways:

should be think alike not thing alike OOPS

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenky,
I have both rulings (one which favored fred) and the final one done on June 11, 2007 by the superior court judge Vaughan in front of me as I type this.
The ultimate reasons given for not releasing the info to fred were:
And i put this in the order of priority determined by judge
1. The info release could reasonbly be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
2. the info release could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.
the utlimate decision by the judge came from a result of pouring over the affidavits that strezlin, landry, smith all typed up for the court and the sealed in-court testimony (done by Nancy Smith) which took place on April 13, 2007.
The affidavits are all public released documents and if you bother to get a hold of them, like the affidavit of Strezlin and lt. Landry, you will see that they don't mention specifics about the case at all, just hypothetical situations that could arise if information was to be released to fred and family.
the judge found that line of reasoning to be credible. Period.
No talk about murder suspects or anything of the like.
And the judge also used Strezlin's 75 percent chance of conviction statement as part of his evidence that the investigation should remain under wraps as well.

Your talking about all the arguments that took part in open court, they can't talk specifics of the case in open court or otherwise they'd be releasing the very info that they're trying to keep secret.

Your not considering the in-camera review they had to do. Upon in-camera review, which is in the judge's chamber and the record of is sealed, is when they had to give details specific to this case. That's why there was an in-camera review because they had to show the judge that not only are those arguments valid, but also the case they are talking about applies to their argument. If the case didn't apply, say they're findings indicated suicide for example, then they wouldn't be able to withhold it based on the arguments they made.
So they didn't just get to say 'this is a criminal case we can't damage the case' and that's that. They has to show that this case legitimately applied to those standards. That was the purpose of the in camera review.
. I gotta couple quotes I have to dig up that deal directly with this

Good find orky- that's crazy, what'd they fill out a form letter or something?

I wonder who wrote that, is it not strange they handed in identical affidavits.
Where did you find those affidavits?

But remember, they can't say anything specific at all about the case in anything public, or otherwise they'd compromise the information. What are you trying to say here orky that they dont have any evidence and If they did they'd be talking about it in public affidavits and open court? I don't think so.

That was the whole point of the in-camera review. So the judge could review the specifics of the case to make sure this case meets the criteria of being exempt from the right to know law. I'm tryin to find this quote from the judge and I will, he says something to the effect of they can't just say these things and get the info withheld, they need to show that this is applies to this particular case.

Meaning they can't withhold information about suicide from her family. Any family clearly has the right to know that LE believes; and has evidence, that their daughter committed suicide, any judge would agree with that Suicide is not a crime, suicide is something that is not exempt from the right to know law.

I've found the mauramurraymissing.com website and I'm focusing my efforts with people other than this forum. Thanks for the direction of many. Keep the spirit alive, never forget Maura Murray.

Orko Kringer wrote:

fred murray in his own words about strezlin's 75 percent goofball predicition as told by the Whitman-Hanson Express
Fred Murray thinks that prediction has more to do with public relations than any accurate assessment of Maura's case.
"They [police] wouldn't hold up under a close look at their performance. They didn't do what they were supposed to do and they've been covering up ever since," Murray said.

It's quotes like this that make me feel like I got totally scammed by Fred.
I've been following this since the beginning, back then I just took Fred at his word when he was complaining about the cops, I was right along with him bitching about the lack of investigation. I feel like a dumbass for just believing the guy.

He is clearly exaggerating to try to drum up moe support from the public and put more pressure on the NHSP, maybe even get them to release their file to him just to shut him the hell up..

I agree with his complaints on local LE. They sucked. The NHSP is another story. If back then I knew how many hours they NHSP had put In, how much work they've done I would not have been as critical. If I knew LE had put in thousands of hours into this case and Fred still hadn't even say down for a formal interview I would've thought much differently.

Now don't get me wrong, just because they put in a lot of work doesn't meant they solved the case, quite the contrary. I think they have a good idea what happened but don't know how to close the deal. The NHSP has a long and storied history of being unable to solve difficult cases. I remember asking frmLE about 20 times if he could name one difficult case that the NHSP has ever solved and he literally couldn't even name one, that's pretty bad. These guys couldn't catch the clap in a Mexican whorehouse.
But that still doesn't mean that they dont have a hell of a lot more info then we do and they believe maura got murdered. You have to admit that at this point if Maura gets found in the woods an apparent suicide the NHSP is gonna look really fkn stupid. They put all that work in, biggest case in NH history, argued all that in the court case and it turns out she just killed herself in the woods near a favorite hiking spot? They would look like freekin idiots if that's what ends ho happening. they couldn't even figure out that she killed herself? These guys wanna come across as seasoned murder police, a good murder police should be able to tell if they're investigating a suicide and isnt gonna waste their valuable time investigating suicide.

Appointed- PM me if you wanna coordinate some search efforts. I'm gonna finally be back ho NH in the next week or two and I'm gonna have at least a month off from work.
I was gonna go out in the area and do some searching as well, it'd be cool if we coordinated to cover more ground, make sure we're not searching the same spots twice.
If your interested in doing that feel free to PM me.

All I'm gonna do is go hiking & biking for the month so i figured may as well do some hiking in that area.

I was also planning on figuring out what hikes were Maura's favorites up there and hike those & keep an eye out for anything.
If anybody knows what hiking spots were her favorites I would appreciate that info

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

Good find orky- that's crazy, what'd they fill out a form letter or something?
I wonder who wrote that, is it not strange they handed in identical affidavits.
Where did you find those affidavits?
But remember, they can't say anything specific at all about the case in anything public, or otherwise they'd compromise the information. What are you trying to say here orky that they dont have any evidence and If they did they'd be talking about it in public affidavits and open court? I don't think so.
That was the whole point of the in-camera review. So the judge could review the specifics of the case to make sure this case meets the criteria of being exempt from the right to know law. I'm tryin to find this quote from the judge and I will, he says something to the effect of they can't just say these things and get the info withheld, they need to show that this is applies to this particular case.
Meaning they can't withhold information about suicide from her family. Any family clearly has the right to know that LE believes; and has evidence, that their daughter committed suicide, any judge would agree with that Suicide is not a crime, suicide is something that is not exempt from the right to know law.

Jenky,

the court testimony (strezlin's 75 percent conviction statement) and affadavits are the first two things the judge mentioned he used to determine that the inforamtion should not be released and made public. the last thing the judge mentined was the in-camera testimony (done by Nancy Smith).

It's interesting because at no point did they ever go over file by file (the over 2,000 plus documents of evidence) instead everything was lumped into categories (examples: photos, Subpoenas, Narrative Reports, Police dispatch logs etc...

and what the state did was to bring up hypotheticals for why releasing a photo could lead to trouble or why releasing subpoena info could hamper an investigation etc. they gave generalities.

And I believe that the in-camera testimony you keep referring to was nancy Smith face-to-face explaining the affadavits to the judge.

And the affadavits are very textbookly written and do not bring up specifics about the maura murray case that would lead anyone into which direcetion/theory is believed to have happened to maura.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol really sammie-girl, that's wrong?

Yep, roberta-girl, it was wrong. Another utterance by you stated as if it were a fact.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe it, certainly no expert on Arizona weather, and it doesn't really matter anyways cuz the point I was making still stands, your critisism has nothing to do with the point that I made, your splitting hairs.

Catching you in a misstatement of fact is splitting hairs? So what?

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
But for the record, does it snow in AZ?? Where? In the way north of the state? In most of the state snow is not a common occurrence right? Isn't that why old people move to AZ, to get away from the snow and cold weather??

I don't get paid to provide state specific data -- look it up. Google is free.

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
And Sammie-girl, btw, what exactly is your purpose of posting?

Roberta-girl, I'm not required to answer that. Who made you the hall monitor?

BobJenkins-OG wrote:

<quoted text>
Nit-pick little stupid inconsequential things about my posts that don't matter, just distract from the conversation and topic at hand?

Nit-pick about misstatements of fact by you that distract from the conversation. Dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. Where's your proof that "most girls" will take a ride with a stranger if their cars break down?

Sorry to interrupt....FWIW Amherst, Ma Topix,
February 2010, "Maura Murray and Molly Bish" originated by "Beagle" aka (DoppleGanger, Claysoup,)later as 112 dirtbag...etc blah blah..
was only 12 Posts. The 11th Post was by "Matthew",
with the same words as our newest Poster, regarding the duct tape hair info. The 12th Post was a request from MMMAdmin.
I find it curious that another moniker poster arrived here recently, especially when speaking of
"more boots on the ground".....
Justsayin'......

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
Jenky,
the court testimony (strezlin's 75 percent conviction statement) and affadavits are the first two things the judge mentioned he used to determine that the inforamtion should not be released and made public. the last thing the judge mentined was the in-camera testimony (done by Nancy Smith).
It's interesting because at no point did they ever go over file by file (the over 2,000 plus documents of evidence) instead everything was lumped into categories (examples: photos, Subpoenas, Narrative Reports, Police dispatch logs etc...
and what the state did was to bring up hypotheticals for why releasing a photo could lead to trouble or why releasing subpoena info could hamper an investigation etc. they gave generalities.
And I believe that the in-camera testimony you keep referring to was nancy Smith face-to-face explaining the affadavits to the judge.
And the affadavits are very textbookly written and do not bring up specifics about the maura murray case that would lead anyone into which direcetion/theory is believed to have happened to maura.

Where'd you find the affidavits and this other info? what your saying has at least convinced me to take another look at the court case, I'll give you that.
Is there any one spot that all this info can be found or is it all over the place?

I gotta dig up a couple quotes that the judge said for you to see what you think, I wanna read then again too. I'll find em and post em tomorrow.

Either way, good debate orky, it's refreshing to debate with someone who actually debates on facts rather than personal attacks.

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Just catching up here so excuse me if you've already answered.
If you can't give out even a little detail because it may compromise the investigation then what exactly was your purpose for coming to this internet forum?
Do you think the hint of sharing information would get someone to go off into the woods with a total stranger? Just wondering what what you are hoping for here.

Fishy, but if he keeps Jenky busy by taking him on a hike, it would be a very good thing.
Rehashing and making things up keeps this whole thread going.

I will be soooo happy when that darn election is over tonight (I hope its late tonight instead of weeks of recounting & stuff).. Im tired of getting fake emails from Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Carl Rove, The GOP, The DNP & several people ive never heard of.. Plus all these darn pop-ups are hard to close on mobile & they are mostly about politics!! Asking me to donate money to their campains & they both rich, 1 email said we only have 900K (like 917,789.42) ONLY?? Is that all??

If its over tonight, I get to go back to work 2moro.. If not, I have to wait till its all over & I wanna work!!!

I know its off-topic, but arent yall tired of all of this stuff everywhere?? Arguing about whos poorer & so on.. I know its what Americans do but I think they took it a lil farther this time than in 2008... Just be glad its done..

& I was suspious & posted about that person when they posted all that stuff.. I hope something stupid doesnt happen in jan/feb again.. Ive read as far back as I could & seems all kinds of people come out the woodworks when it gets close to the anniversary :(

Orko Kringer wrote:

I guess its like they say ... great minds thing alike.
Here are two separate excerpts done from separate affdavits by NH AAG Strezlin and Lt. Landry.
Affadavits are someone's own words right? Hmm.
Sounds like these two guys might be siamese twins or something. they sure do think a lot alike.
Jeff Strezlin Affadavit
The Maura Murray investigation is open and ongoing. I am familiar with the State Police files related to Maura Murray and her disappearance. Based on my experience with criminal investigations and prosecutions and the information in this case in particular, I have a reasonable belief that it is possible that the investigation may lead to criminal charges. However, at this stage of the investigation, it would be detrimental to our ability to continue this investigation and any subsequent prosecution if we are required to make public whether or not there is a person or persons of interest and the information on which those beliefs are based. In my experience in this case and in other cases, our investigation would be hindered by the following ways:
Todd Landry Affadavit
The Maura Murray investigation is open and ongoing. Based on my experience with criminal investigations and the information in this case in particular, I have a reasonable belief that this investigation may lead to criminal charges. However, at this stage of the investigation, it would be extraordinarily detrimental to our ability to continue this investigation if we are required to make public whether or not there is a person or persons of interest and the information on which those beliefs are based. In my experience in this case and in any other cases, our investigation would be hindered by the following ways:

I would love to hear from SS or Amy on this but this looks to me like, what we call boilerplate, which is to say, its bullshit. This is the "standard affidavit" that is presented whenever a case like this goes to trial under the FOI. Again, this "form letter" along with the 75% talk is pure bullshit. I hope that most here see that.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I would love to hear from SS or Amy on this but this looks to me like, what we call boilerplate, which is to say, its bullshit. This is the "standard affidavit" that is presented whenever a case like this goes to trial under the FOI. Again, this "form letter" along with the 75% talk is pure bullshit. I hope that most here see that.
Bill

Looks like a typical "we don't want to release files in an ongoing investigation" affidavit. I don't see anything unusual about it. Most people use boilerplate templates to save themselves from having to type the same thing over and over again.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Looks like a typical "we don't want to release files in an ongoing investigation" affidavit. I don't see anything unusual about it. Most people use boilerplate templates to save themselves from having to type the same thing over and over again.

Thanks Amy. In my mind it is just a standard form letter. Nothing unusual, no one is saying that there is mounds of evidence one way or another. No 75% calculated value that proves anything one way or another. People can go on about dreaming that there are mounds of evidence if they want. But there is absolutely nothing said, or shown, to make any reasonable person believe that. It is standard "I don't want to release anything" so they don't need to worry about compromising the investigation. Everything else being read into it, is nonsense. At least that is how I interpret it.

Bill

OKAY wrote:

<quoted text>
Fishy, but if he keeps Jenky busy by taking him on a hike, it would be a very good thing.
Rehashing and making things up keeps this whole thread going.

If it looks like a fish and smells like a fish then it's probably a fish.
As much as Jenky drives me nuts I'd hate to see him or anyone here harmed. I hope he rethinks meeting this stranger to go hiking or brings a large group of friends along with him.

Just a reminder since there's talk lately about searching in the woods that muzzle loader season opened this past weekend and I believe rifle season opens the 14th.
If anyone is dumb enough to walk through the woods during this time make sure to wear lots of orange.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
The purpose of the example was to show you that you are randomly taking the percentages to make them work.
I'd like to know how you can even quantify to get a 75% chance of conviction? Did the courts bring in a vegas odds maker to establish this? Again you are hanging on to every word.
I also encourage you to go to Renners blog and watch the 15 minute clip. The court does not look for a moment that they have any intention of opening up this case for public record. It seems in my humble non court opinion that the justices were scared that every case would come under in camera review. Rather than go through every page of every case and decide for LE what is important and what isn't they decided to close the book on this.

This is what I thought too while watching that BORING clip. That the court was fighting to keep certain cases sealed and perhaps the MM arguement came in at a bad time. I say a bad time because maybe there really isn't much to it after all (as in criminal). It furthers the mystery to see them argue this in court, yes. But I think it's more about protecting themselves all across the board to keep what they want to keep, PRIVATE.
I know I'm gonna get nuts and flames, maybe spam for this next thing, but I'm going to say it anyway.
Just an example: MM has commited a crime or crimes. She is now missing and her case is on hold.
When they find her, she will be held accountable.
Now, if this were the case and friends, staff at WP or UMASS told police about the full extent of her intentions,(JUST AN EXAMPLE) they would be double crossed by the protection afforded by the courts to remain annonamous.

Now, if this were the case and friends, staff at WP or UMASS told police about the full extent of her intentions,(JUST AN EXAMPLE) they would be double crossed by the protection afforded by the courts to remain annonamous.
..........

The courts couldn't very well let this happen, or could they? Amy? SS? Could this be a possibility?