Maura Murray

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
On what issue is he correct after all?

i'll venture a guess...i don't have the findlaw content in front of me...
damage to personal property.
even more so if MM was not the driver.
it gets sticky, yes?
regardless, it is the responsible course of action not to flee / leave / run. alcohol in an open container(s) was present.

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
i'll venture a guess...i don't have the findlaw content in front of me...
damage to personal property.
even more so if MM was not the driver.
it gets sticky, yes?
regardless, it is the responsible course of action not to flee / leave / run. alcohol in an open container(s) was present.

Agreed it is not responsible action. Guess I am still stuck on was it legal or not. The law referenced says she had no legal requirement to stay. I am interested to know what other law would apply and if there is one, why more than one and how is an average citizen expected to know the difference.

Hey MCS, ok there are 2 ways to go... 1: Mr. Murray met and talked with Bruce McKay or 2: Mr. Murray never talked with Bruce McKay.

if it is situ #1, then maybe there is proof of direct correspondence between them. Did Mr. Murray go into Franconia PD? seems likely. I would like to know the quality of these interactions.

if it is situ #2 that would also be fascinating. Considering Mr. Murray's determination and drive, Did McKay avoid him?

the nature of this problem would be obvious in the communications between McKay and the AG. These would be emails that should be FOILed

To the Point: What was McKay's role in the Murray investigation?

Pointless Endeavor wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for reminding me with that last sentence, Snowy. FrmLE is correct after all. The damaged Saturn was property of FM at the time of the accident, NOT MM, whom was just the registree.

I disagree that FrmLE is correct. This is what he said:

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
If you were you would know that the law states "if any person is injured or killed, or if damage to property is in excess of $1,000"
That does not mean damage to anyone elses property, that means any damage to any property that exceeds $1000, ie: her car.

That statement is not true according to the statute. It only applies to injury or damage to others and/or their property, not your own vehicle or property.

The fact that the Saturn was registered to Fred Murray changes Maura's duties under that statute, but doesn't change the fact that FrmLE's statement that the statute applies to "any property" is incorrect. I have found no other statute that applies to this type of situation, either. If anybody else has, please provide it. This has nothing to do with "bagging" FrmLE, it has to do with keeping the facts straight on this case, regardless of who is wrong or right. If I'm wrong, that's fine, just give me relevant statutes that prove your point.

With the information that Fred was the registered owner of the Saturn, this part of the statute would then apply (edited to its pertinent parts again):

"If by reason of ... absence ...from the place of the accident ... such ... owner of the property damaged ... is unable to ... receive the information required in this section, such information shall be given to any uniformed police officer arriving at the scene of the accident or immediately to a police officer at the nearest police station."

So Maura had a duty to either wait for law enforcement to arrive to report the damage to her father's car or go to the police station to do the same.

This is all my personal opinion, of course.

Julie Murray was being coy with Renner. That family knows....

Mcsmom wrote:

Julie said Fred was the best father a girl could ever have.

of course she did. That family is a mess. Jail birds, dodging questions, etc.

Interesting that Julie Murray said "FINDING my sister is still the number one priority."

The choice of words implies, to me at least, that she does not believe she is dead. Finding my sisters body, finding her killer, finding who took her...seem like more suitable things to say if she was convinced MM was abducted and killed or even died of exposure in the woods.

And "number one priority"? What else is going on that may put 'finding her sister' on the back burner?

Very curious.

Yeats wrote:

Hey MCS, ok there are 2 ways to go... 1: Mr. Murray met and talked with Bruce McKay or 2: Mr. Murray never talked with Bruce McKay.
if it is situ #1, then maybe there is proof of direct correspondence between them. Did Mr. Murray go into Franconia PD? seems likely. I would like to know the quality of these interactions.
if it is situ #2 that would also be fascinating. Considering Mr. Murray's determination and drive, Did McKay avoid him?
the nature of this problem would be obvious in the communications between McKay and the AG. These would be emails that should be FOILed
To the Point: What was McKay's role in the Murray investigation?

Didn't McKay work in Franconia? Why would he have anything to do with the Murrays or Maura's
disapearance? You aren't making any sense

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree that FrmLE is correct. This is what he said:
<quoted text>
That statement is not true according to the statute. It only applies to injury or damage to others and/or their property, not your own vehicle or property.
The fact that the Saturn was registered to Fred Murray changes Maura's duties under that statute, but doesn't change the fact that FrmLE's statement that the statute applies to "any property" is incorrect. I have found no other statute that applies to this type of situation, either. If anybody else has, please provide it. This has nothing to do with "bagging" FrmLE, it has to do with keeping the facts straight on this case, regardless of who is wrong or right. If I'm wrong, that's fine, just give me relevant statutes that prove your point.
With the information that Fred was the registered owner of the Saturn, this part of the statute would then apply (edited to its pertinent parts again):
"If by reason of ... absence ...from the place of the accident ... such ... owner of the property damaged ... is unable to ... receive the information required in this section, such information shall be given to any uniformed police officer arriving at the scene of the accident or immediately to a police officer at the nearest police station."
So Maura had a duty to either wait for law enforcement to arrive to report the damage to her father's car or go to the police station to do the same.
This is all my personal opinion, of course.

WOW! 2 or 3 pages of Law Discussion.

Here is my position, and has been the position I have taken in prosecuting these cases for many years.

If you are involved in an accident, you must stop and give the owner of any property damaged, That is right, ANY PROPERTY.

So, if you are driving YOUR OWN car, and crash into a snowbank and damage YOUR OWN CAR, and nothing else, then you can inform yourself of the damage and leave the scene if you are able to.

All perfectly legal.

However, if you are driving SOMEONE ELSE'S CAR, and damage that car, then you must provide that other person with the information if they are at the scene and then leave.

Now, if that other person IS NOT AT THE SCENE, then you must either wait for the police to arrive and give them the information or go to the nearest police station and give them the information.

So, since Maura did not own the car, and Fred was not at the scene to receive the information, then she was legally obligated to either wait for the police to show or go to the nearest police station and give the information.

Which, she did not do. The fact that she left the scene as she did is in itself, in violation of Conduct After an Accident.

I Guess I don't see how that is not what I said? I said, she committed a violation of the law by leaving the accident scene?

The law states, property, not property of another. The distinction is that if it is your property and no other property is damaged, you can theoretically stop and give yourself the information and then leave.

So, maybe I misunderstand, but how am I wrong?

For the record, the second part of the statute that gives the $1000 dollar figure is the general guideline to determine whether property has been 'damaged'.

For instance, if you bump a curb and fl;atten your tire, that does not rise to the level of 'damage' and you are pretty much all set to fix the tire and leave as long as nothing else was damaged and no one was hurt.

Now as much as I enjoy talking law and criminal code, the point I was making is this.

Maura surely did not know what the NH statute was regarding Conduct After an Accident, right? No I don’t think she did.

But what people do know, generally, is when they are in trouble. And I think Maura knew, or thought she was in trouble. I think she had good reason to avoid contact with the police. I think she knew they would be coming, and I think she decided at some point to leave before they came.

What happened after that, hey who know. But the point is she made a conscious decision to leave the car and avoid the police.

I think that was my point.

nobbynees wrote:

<quoted text>
Didn't McKay work in Franconia? Why would he have anything to do with the Murrays or Maura's
disapearance? You aren't making any sense

You have to go to the scene of the crime. It's just down the road from Franconia. Look at the roads, where they meet. If you were going to stage an accident scene, the location of maura's car is as far from civilization as you can get. I think McKay is the bad guy, Maura's father is the good guy, and McKay pulled the wool over everyones faces. He would have enjoyed the mayhem and pain that Maura's dissaperance has caused. The Sarah video should demonstrate the mens rea within McKay. It's fairly obvious that only McKay could conjure such tragedy.

FrmLE wrote:

Now as much as I enjoy talking law and criminal code, the point I was making is this.
Maura surely did not know what the NH statute was regarding Conduct After an Accident, right? No I don’t think she did.
But what people do know, generally, is when they are in trouble. And I think Maura knew, or thought she was in trouble. I think she had good reason to avoid contact with the police. I think she knew they would be coming, and I think she decided at some point to leave before they came.
What happened after that, hey who know. But the point is she made a conscious decision to leave the car and avoid the police.
I think that was my point.

i'll add, from a practical point of view, that with disabling damage to a vehicle, such that it could not be driven away, the options are to
1) call for assistance (spotty to no cell serv at that location)
2) accept an offer to call for help
3) attempt cell connection by walking out of the dead zone
4) approach a residence(s) to request assistance - police / tow
5) stay with or near the vehicle to flag down help

she did not do 2, 4 or 5.
which option did she exercise? 1 or 3, either or neither, before leaving her vehicle unattended?

I think she definitely tried to use her cell phone, the witness reported seeing a red light in the car, I think she made commment about it being a possible cigarette or cell phone.

Since Maura did not smoke, it was most likely the red light on her cell phone indicating no service.

I have never seriously considered that she would have walked away to try to get cell service, though that certainly is a possibility.

I don't see any other likely possibility other than she was trying to avoid contact with the police, for whatever reason.

What her intent was after she left the car is hard to discern, but considering that she had plenty of assistance available to her in the immediate area tells me that she wanted to avoid contact with anyone for a time.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
WOW! 2 or 3 pages of Law Discussion.
Here is my position, and has been the position I have taken in prosecuting these cases for many years.
If you are involved in an accident, you must stop and give the owner of any property damaged, That is right, ANY PROPERTY.
So, if you are driving YOUR OWN car, and crash into a snowbank and damage YOUR OWN CAR, and nothing else, then you can inform yourself of the damage and leave the scene if you are able to.
All perfectly legal.
However, if you are driving SOMEONE ELSE'S CAR, and damage that car, then you must provide that other person with the information if they are at the scene and then leave.
Now, if that other person IS NOT AT THE SCENE, then you must either wait for the police to arrive and give them the information or go to the nearest police station and give them the information.
So, since Maura did not own the car, and Fred was not at the scene to receive the information, then she was legally obligated to either wait for the police to show or go to the nearest police station and give the information.
Which, she did not do. The fact that she left the scene as she did is in itself, in violation of Conduct After an Accident.
I Guess I don't see how that is not what I said? I said, she committed a violation of the law by leaving the accident scene?
The law states, property, not property of another. The distinction is that if it is your property and no other property is damaged, you can theoretically stop and give yourself the information and then leave.
So, maybe I misunderstand, but how am I wrong?
For the record, the second part of the statute that gives the $1000 dollar figure is the general guideline to determine whether property has been 'damaged'.
For instance, if you bump a curb and fl;atten your tire, that does not rise to the level of 'damage' and you are pretty much all set to fix the tire and leave as long as nothing else was damaged and no one was hurt.

Snowy posted the law a couple pages back & it is rather clear what it says. It says absolutely nothing about having to stay on the scene & wait for police, whether it's your car or not. It says that you or the owner of the car must report an accident over $1,000 within 15 days UNLESS an officer is on scene and makes a report.

Instead of just saying it, why don't you SHOW US where in that law dictating conduct after an accident does it say anything about needing to wait for police after a one car accident.
Remember, you're just some Random anonymous person on the Internet claiming to be former LE, if what you're saying is correct it should be pretty easy to show us the law right? Idk but I'm gonna believe the state or NH's own website before some anonymous person online.

Now I'm not gonna argue that it was smart for her to leave the car by herself like she did. It was cold dark & pretty desolate, once she walked away from that car she was extremely vulnerable.

Sure jenky, here you go. Just curious, will you apologize for your comments a few pages back regarding the violations/ Crime issue that I clarified? I think you will not.

264:25 Conduct After Accident.
The driver of a vehicle who knows or should have known that he or she has just been involved in any accident which resulted in death, personal injury or damages to property, shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident and give to the driver or owner of any other vehicle involved in said accident, and to any person injured, and to the owner of any property damaged, the driver's name and address, driver's license number, the registration number of the vehicle and the name and address of each occupant.

Ok, that says the driver of a vehicle……. Maura was driving the vehicle

involved in an accident….. Maura was in an accident

which resulted in death, personal injury, or damages to property…. The Saturn was damaged

Shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident and give to the driver …or owner of any property damaged, the drivers name, address, etc…….. Did Maura own the property damaged? No, she did not.

Ok, so she had an accident, damaged ‘property’ that did not belong to her, and the owner of that property was not on scene to receive her information…..

So what must she do? Well here it is…..

Continued.....

Continued.....

Ok, so here is the next sentence of that law.

264:25 Conduct After Accident.

If by reason of injury, absence or removal from the place of the accident, or other cause, such injured person, or driver of such other vehicle, or owner of the property damaged, or any of them, is unable to understand or receive the information required in this section, such information shall be given to any uniformed police officer arriving at the scene of the accident or immediately to a police officer at the nearest police station.

Ok it says..

****“If by reason of injury, ABSENCE, or removal from the place of the accident, or any other cause”…

++++++Ok, so was Fred, the owner of the property, present at the place of the accident? No, he was not there.

****“or owner of the property damaged, or any of them, is unable to understand or receive the information required in this section”………..

++++++So was Fred unable to receive the information required? No, he was not able to.

****“such information shall be given to any uniformed police officer arriving at the scene of the accident or immediately to a police officer at the nearest police station.”

+++++ Ok, so it says that if the owner of the property damaged is not on scene, the information shall be given to any uniformed police officer arriving on scene of the accident..

+++++Did Maura give the information to the Police Officer arriving on scene? Did she immediately report to the nearest police station?

No, she did not do either of those things,. Therefore she committed the crime of 264:25 Conduct After Accident.

Does that spell it out clear enough? I don’t know how much more detailed I can be on this forum.

Jenkins wrote:

Snowy posted the law a couple pages back & it is rather clear what it says. It says absolutely nothing about having to stay on the scene & wait for police, whether it's your car or not. It says that you or the owner of the car must report an accident over $1,000 within 15 days UNLESS an officer is on scene and makes a report.

No, that is not true. I posted the Law, verbatim. It says in the first 2 sentences that if you are involved in an accident that resulted in damage to property that you must stop and either provide information or wait for police.

It says it right there, read again.

Jenkins wrote:

Instead of just saying it, why don't you SHOW US where in that law dictating conduct after an accident does it say anything about needing to wait for police after a one car accident.

I just showed you, exactly where it says that, in the law. I was as detailed as reasonably possible, if you can't understand that I don't think you will ever understand the law.

Jenkins wrote:

Idk but I'm gonna believe the state or NH's own website before some anonymous person online.

You know what the problem is? You are not trained, or experienced enough to understand the Law you are reading.

You can google and read all you want, but you also need to understand what you are reading. I think that is where your problem is.

Now, will you apologize for your comments a few pages back and for this as well? Are you big enough to say I was wrong?

I shall wait and see.

& btw, how long are you supposed to wait after an accident? 20 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour? All night until a cop drives by?

I doubt the first thing she did after crashing was check her watch to see what time it was. She was at the car for almost 20 minutes, maybe she thought she was there longer.
Even if she was watchin the time, For all we know she could've thought that after almost 20 minutes minutes they weren't coming. Think about it, she's from mass where the cops arrive in 2 mins after they're called. It's not that unlikely that after sitting there for almost 20 minutes she thought that no key called the cops, nobody was coming & she was gonna have to hitch a ride.

You might take a minute to think about it or whatever but if you're drunk & so scared of the cops that you're about to literally walk miles into the woods to your death through 2.5' of snow you don't sit around thinkin about it, you get the hell out of there. Running from the cops because your scared involves leaving the scene ASAP, not siting around for almost 20 mins, several minutes of which were spent just sitting on the side of the road with her door wide open either smoking or trying to use her cell.
Read what the witnesses said, this does not sound like a girl who's particularly scared of the police. I've heard of people running from cars after crashing while drunk, that's not THAT uncommon, but sitting there for 20 minutes & THEN running? Who the hell ever heard of that?

She sat there for almost 20 minutes, it's very possible she was waiting for the cops & thought they weren't coming because it had been so long, she might've felt like it was a half hour or longer, who knows? People that are deathly afraid of the cops don't sit there for nearly 20 minutes before they run.
She would've thought the cops were gonna show up much sooner than 20 minutes, nobody is gonna think its gonna take the cops that long if they were called.
Idk, she didn't sound particularly scared of the cops to me, but that's just me.

I see, so no apology for me huh? About either one of the issues you accused me of being wrong on, not knowing the law, etc?

You just jump right into some nonesne about 20 minutes wait and bullcrap like that?

Cool, you are a real stand up guy.

Do you wonder why this forum was so much better when you weren't here?

Do you wonder why people cringe at the sight of your name atop looonggg rambling posts?

Do you wonder why your life is not really going the way you thought it would?

Look in the mirror kid.

Jenkins wrote:

& btw, how long are you supposed to wait after an accident? 20 minutes? 30 minutes? An hour? All night until a cop drives by?

20 minutes blah blah blah 20 minutes..... blahhhh blahhh

Here jenky, just for you I copied my earlier post. Maybe read it and consider for a second that people do NOT ALWAYS DECIDE WHAT TO DO IN AN INSTANT.

Have you (jenky) considered that perhaps it took Maura 20 minutes to decide what to do? That those 20 minutes were spent deliberating and considering her options?

She surely did not anticipate crashing her car, therefore we could assume that the time immediately after the crash she was perhaps getting her bearings, maybe trying to move the car and continue driving, assessing her options, getting rid of the alcohol from the bottle.

Then she likely came into contact with SBD, tried to convince him to NOT CALL THE POLICE. She was probably trying to use her cell to call AAA, or maybe her Father. So after SBD left she spent some time gathering her things, and that would have taken, perhaps 20 minutes? Then she made the decision to leave and ran, walked, trotted, strolled from the scene.

People do NOT make decisions in an instant, especially when they are troubled and don’t know what they are going to do. They think, ponder, wait, consider, reconsider, and sometimes change their minds. When people commit suicide, do you think it is an instant decision? Or do they stand on the side of the bridge for minutes, sometimes hours, deciding what to do? They are distressed, upset, emotional, and indecisive.

That’s life man, that’s how it REALLY works in the REAL world, not the world you live in on this blog.

I think that’s probably what Maura did, crashed her car, spent some time assessing the situation, tried to call AAA or someone else, couldn’t use her phone, spoke to SBD which may have changed the dynamic, she then reassessed the situation, decided to gather her things, dump out the alcohol, and then before the cops showed up she left.

That’s how it works.