Maura Murray

NEW RENNER POST.....


Very interesting.....the red truck owned by WALTER GLYNN.Imagine that......?

Do you know him Tang?

OH Yes.....I have had dealings w/ Him, his brother and his girlfriend. Starting to find that last puzzle piece..

Tang Zoi wrote:

NEW RENNER POST.....
Very interesting.....the red truck owned by WALTER GLYNN.Imagine that......?

Would there be a reason some people sooooo badly wanted him to look suspicious?

Tang Zoi wrote:

OH Yes.....I have had dealings w/ Him, his brother and his girlfriend. Starting to find that last puzzle piece..

Interesting!! I wonder why this witness thought the truck was suspicious to the point of taking down the plate number.

Obviously RO wasn´t the only one to think the driver acted strangely, but why all this fuzz about the red truck for all of these years if he was known to LE and PIs?

Jenkins wrote:

How could you possibly NOT knot ahat? It's obviously true. I would dig up the quote but I don't see a need considering it's common knowledge amongst anyone who's actually followed this case.

.
.

I would love to see you dig up the quote. I am sure you will cite some anonymous media outlet or possibly the Murray family. Please dig up that information.
.
.

BillNH wrote:

How does it work? And specifically how did it apply in MM's case? What Jenks stated was how it was reported to the general public so I am curious. On the same line....is what Julie is asking, for the public to request FBI intervention, even possible/legal?

.
.

Let me try to explain how the issue of “jurisdiction” works, whether it be local, State, or Federal.

The most important thing to understand is this. The FBI will investigate ANY CASE THEY WANT TO INVESTIGATE. PERIOD.
No one tells the FBI to back off if the FBI wants a case. 99.9% of the time they don’t want the case, and when they do they take it. Most of the time they help when asked, they work with the State Police, the Local police, etc.

There is rarely, almost never this ‘jurisdictional’ fight over whose case it is, as so many civilians believe happens. That comes from watching too much TV, too many movies.

In the real world we all worked together, if we need some help we ask the FBI and they would help if they could devote resources, if they need help they ask us and usually we help if we can devote resources. It is that simple.

What does not happen is the State Police, or Local police tell the FBI they aren’t ‘invited’ and the FBI then leaves the case alone. The only way they leave the case alone is if they don’t want the case, which happens A LOT. They have limited resources and to be blunt they are more lawyers and accountants with guns than real live cops or Investigators.

Now there are exceptions to this, and those are in those very limited cases where the Local or State police are corrupt or involved in the criminal act being investigated. In those cases the State or Federal agency takes the case.

The other instances I can think of have to do with drug cases, especially when there is the issue of “asset forfeiture” and the Feds want the assets being forfeited, or where there is a long complicated undercover operation that involves informants, buy money, and whatnot. But that is not this case and has no bearing here.

So that is the very long answer to the FBI being “uninvited” to any case, or in the Patric McCarthy case the FBI being told to “back off”. It sounds cool, like on TV with Sonny Crocket, but in the real world it does not happen.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
How could you possibly NOT knot ahat? It's obviously true. I would dig up the quote but I don't see a need considering it's common knowledge amongst anyone who's actually followed this case.
You really DON'T know that or are you spreading misinformation intentionally?
I find it rather interesting that you claim to be ex NHSP but yet you constantly state things that directly contradict what the REAL cops who actually worked this case for the NHSP have said about it on record.
So we got some random anonymous person on the internet who CLAIMS to be ex NHSP and his info almost always contradicts what the real NHSP has stated on record. Why should anyone believe ANYTHING you have to say over the real cops who've spoken on record?
Can't believe everything you read on the internet

Jenkins...is it even possible for you to ask for clarification of a statement before you rip into a tirade? I, for one, do not believe everything I read in the news, which by the way is just as bad as believing everything you read on an internet forum. Since FrmLe has refuted the popular belief on the matter I think it is only fair to allow him to expand on that.

Based on prior information here and elsewhere I tend to believe that FrmLE actually knows what he is talking about and I would hope that a reasonable explanation of his statement will be forthcoming since I asked politely for his knowledge.

If your goal is to actually find answers, then you should try the "polite questioning" tactic. If your intent is to be an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole, then you have accomplished your goal tenfold in one statement alone.

Tang Zoi wrote:

OH Yes.....I have had dealings w/ Him, his brother and his girlfriend. Starting to find that last puzzle piece..

So who is he, his brother and the brothers girlfriend?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
.
.
I would love to see you dig up the quote. I am sure you will cite some anonymous media outlet or possibly the Murray family. Please dig up that information.
.
.
<quoted text>
.
.
Let me try to explain how the issue of “jurisdiction” works, whether it be local, State, or Federal.
The most important thing to understand is this. The FBI will investigate ANY CASE THEY WANT TO INVESTIGATE. PERIOD.
No one tells the FBI to back off if the FBI wants a case. 99.9% of the time they don’t want the case, and when they do they take it. Most of the time they help when asked, they work with the State Police, the Local police, etc.
There is rarely, almost never this ‘jurisdictional’ fight over whose case it is, as so many civilians believe happens. That comes from watching too much TV, too many movies.
In the real world we all worked together, if we need some help we ask the FBI and they would help if they could devote resources, if they need help they ask us and usually we help if we can devote resources. It is that simple.
What does not happen is the State Police, or Local police tell the FBI they aren’t ‘invited’ and the FBI then leaves the case alone. The only way they leave the case alone is if they don’t want the case, which happens A LOT. They have limited resources and to be blunt they are more lawyers and accountants with guns than real live cops or Investigators.
Now there are exceptions to this, and those are in those very limited cases where the Local or State police are corrupt or involved in the criminal act being investigated. In those cases the State or Federal agency takes the case.
The other instances I can think of have to do with drug cases, especially when there is the issue of “asset forfeiture” and the Feds want the assets being forfeited, or where there is a long complicated undercover operation that involves informants, buy money, and whatnot. But that is not this case and has no bearing here.
So that is the very long answer to the FBI being “uninvited” to any case, or in the Patric McCarthy case the FBI being told to “back off”. It sounds cool, like on TV with Sonny Crocket, but in the real world it does not happen.

Thank you. That was how I expected it to be but like you say, the "Miami Vice" mentality blurs the lines for those of us that do not interact in the LE world.

Renner really needs to remove the word "investigative" from his description of himself. It is mindblowing to me how little investigation he truly does.

Example: "A local woman named Robinson Ordway claimed the driver of the truck was acting kind of weird and that the truck had Mass plates."

Sorry, but that isn't her name. Had Renner spent any time at all checking into this story, he would have figured out her actual name. I would think that the actual name of this witness would be crucial to reporting, but obviously not for Renner.

"Personally, I always suspected too much had been made of this small detail and doubted Ordway's ability of recall in hindsight."

Why? Small detail? You don't even know her name, but you doubt her ability of recall? Based on what?

"Graves says a red truck was seen pulling into the Stage Shop but it wasn't from Mass. Another witness grabbed the plate number and handed it over to the family later on." What other witness? Why did you not state this witness's name? Did this other witness see the truck in the Stage Stop parking lot? If so, why would they get the license number? The truck was in the parking lot for a very short time - who was there, and what did they see that made them note down the license number?

Everybody, go back and read RO's statement that Amy provided in post #34805 on page 1706. According to her, the truck had Mass plates, the person working at the Stage Stop had not even seen the truck and the driver didn't come in the store, and the truck left when RO walked into the parking lot - not much time for somebody to get their plates. Or did the witness who got the plates get them from another place at another time? How do we know that this witness saw the truck that RO saw?

"As far as Graves knows, the men have never been questioned." Was the information even given to LE after it was "handed over to the family?" How would Graves know whether LE questioned this person?

"Keep in mind, this was probably just a guy turning around and had nothing to do with the events of that night."

Turning around? The red truck passed RO on 112 on her way uphill to the Stage Stop, then continued on towards the accident scene. It didn't turn around, it kept on in the direction it had been heading in the first place.

Renner obviously has never read RO's statements. Why is that? RO was a witness to something that happened that night that was important enough that LE questioned her (see Amy's post #34805 on page 1706). Yet Renner hasn't bothered to find out her name or bothered to read her statements, instead writing her off because, uh, he didn't put any stock in her story - again, why?

I would like some proof that the red truck he is now reporting as belonging to Walter Glynn is the same truck that RO saw and how he knows that it is the same truck. RO said: "I immediately looked at the plate and noticed it was from Massachusetts" - this is very clear. I want to know why we should consider that the truck Renner is describing is the truck RO saw with Mass plates. If it is some other truck, it really has no bearing on this case IMHO.

Maruchan wrote:

Renner really needs to remove the word "investigative" from his description of himself. It is mindblowing to me how little investigation he truly does.
Example: "A local woman named Robinson Ordway claimed the driver of the truck was acting kind of weird and that the truck had Mass plates."
Sorry, but that isn't her name. Had Renner spent any time at all checking into this story, he would have figured out her actual name. I would think that the actual name of this witness would be crucial to reporting, but obviously not for Renner.
"Personally, I always suspected too much had been made of this small detail and doubted Ordway's ability of recall in hindsight."
Why? Small detail? You don't even know her name, but you doubt her ability of recall? Based on what?
"Graves says a red truck was seen pulling into the Stage Shop but it wasn't from Mass. Another witness grabbed the plate number and handed it over to the family later on." What other witness? Why did you not state this witness's name? Did this other witness see the truck in the Stage Stop parking lot? If so, why would they get the license number? The truck was in the parking lot for a very short time - who was there, and what did they see that made them note down the license number?
Everybody, go back and read RO's statement that Amy provided in post #34805 on page 1706. According to her, the truck had Mass plates, the person working at the Stage Stop had not even seen the truck and the driver didn't come in the store, and the truck left when RO walked into the parking lot - not much time for somebody to get their plates. Or did the witness who got the plates get them from another place at another time? How do we know that this witness saw the truck that RO saw?
"As far as Graves knows, the men have never been questioned." Was the information even given to LE after it was "handed over to the family?" How would Graves know whether LE questioned this person?
"Keep in mind, this was probably just a guy turning around and had nothing to do with the events of that night."
Turning around? The red truck passed RO on 112 on her way uphill to the Stage Stop, then continued on towards the accident scene. It didn't turn around, it kept on in the direction it had been heading in the first place.
Renner obviously has never read RO's statements. Why is that? RO was a witness to something that happened that night that was important enough that LE questioned her (see Amy's post #34805 on page 1706). Yet Renner hasn't bothered to find out her name or bothered to read her statements, instead writing her off because, uh, he didn't put any stock in her story - again, why?
I would like some proof that the red truck he is now reporting as belonging to Walter Glynn is the same truck that RO saw and how he knows that it is the same truck. RO said: "I immediately looked at the plate and noticed it was from Massachusetts" - this is very clear. I want to know why we should consider that the truck Renner is describing is the truck RO saw with Mass plates. If it is some other truck, it really has no bearing on this case IMHO.

Very good questions Maruchan. One thing I try to remember when reading Renner's posts. The man needs to sell a book. If he gave out every tidbit and every detail, and answered every question in his blog....why would anyone want to buy the book? I am not faulting Mr. Renner for this, he has to make a living. It makes a lot of sense to leave us hanging and wanting more.

From Renner’s blog today:

"Graves says a red truck was seen pulling into the Stage Shop but it wasn't from Mass. Another witness grabbed the plate number and handed it over to the family later on. It was registered to a local man named Walter Glynn. Glynn apparently lives with his brother. As far as Graves knows, the men have never been questioned.”

When was the last time you made a concerted effort to write down the plate number of a vehicle that was just out and about?

Frostman wrote:

From Renner’s blog today:
"Graves says a red truck was seen pulling into the Stage Shop but it wasn't from Mass. Another witness grabbed the plate number and handed it over to the family later on. It was registered to a local man named Walter Glynn. Glynn apparently lives with his brother. As far as Graves knows, the men have never been questioned.”
When was the last time you made a concerted effort to write down the plate number of a vehicle that was just out and about?

Well, a few pages back citigirl stated she did it quite regularly. I doubt she is the only one but I personally know of no others that will admit it.

Frostman wrote:

From Renner’s blog today:
"Graves says a red truck was seen pulling into the Stage Shop but it wasn't from Mass. Another witness grabbed the plate number and handed it over to the family later on. It was registered to a local man named Walter Glynn. Glynn apparently lives with his brother. As far as Graves knows, the men have never been questioned.”
When was the last time you made a concerted effort to write down the plate number of a vehicle that was just out and about?

So why did the witness feel the need to write down the plate number? Renner needs to go back to the source, namely the person who wrote the plate number down and RO. RO has moved away, but if I can find her on facebook, Renner could too.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, a few pages back citigirl stated she did it quite regularly. I doubt she is the only one but I personally know of no others that will admit it.

I think Frosty is saying that people don't often just write plate numbers down unless there is something that the driver/vehicle is doing that appears suspicious. A truck turning around at a store is not suspicious.

I personally find the manner in which Renner ‘investigates’ to be amateurish and careless. He throws names out like candy canes at the Christmas Parade, without verification or even speaking to the person who headlines his blog this week.

I am glad I am not just some local guy who gets fingered by someone who heard something from someone who saw something and told his neighbor who told Renner.

Irresponsible is the word that comes to mind.

Maruchan wrote:

Renner really needs to remove the word "investigative" from his description of himself. It is mindblowing to me how little investigation he truly does.
Example: "A local woman named Robinson Ordway claimed the driver of the truck was acting kind of weird and that the truck had Mass plates."
Sorry, but that isn't her name. Had Renner spent any time at all checking into this story, he would have figured out her actual name. I would think that the actual name of this witness would be crucial to reporting, but obviously not for Renner.
"Personally, I always suspected too much had been made of this small detail and doubted Ordway's ability of recall in hindsight."
Why? Small detail? You don't even know her name, but you doubt her ability of recall? Based on what?
"Graves says a red truck was seen pulling into the Stage Shop but it wasn't from Mass. Another witness grabbed the plate number and handed it over to the family later on." What other witness? Why did you not state this witness's name? Did this other witness see the truck in the Stage Stop parking lot? If so, why would they get the license number? The truck was in the parking lot for a very short time - who was there, and what did they see that made them note down the license number?
Everybody, go back and read RO's statement that Amy provided in post #34805 on page 1706. According to her, the truck had Mass plates, the person working at the Stage Stop had not even seen the truck and the driver didn't come in the store, and the truck left when RO walked into the parking lot - not much time for somebody to get their plates. Or did the witness who got the plates get them from another place at another time? How do we know that this witness saw the truck that RO saw?
"As far as Graves knows, the men have never been questioned." Was the information even given to LE after it was "handed over to the family?" How would Graves know whether LE questioned this person?
"Keep in mind, this was probably just a guy turning around and had nothing to do with the events of that night."
Turning around? The red truck passed RO on 112 on her way uphill to the Stage Stop, then continued on towards the accident scene. It didn't turn around, it kept on in the direction it had been heading in the first place.
Renner obviously has never read RO's statements. Why is that? RO was a witness to something that happened that night that was important enough that LE questioned her (see Amy's post #34805 on page 1706). Yet Renner hasn't bothered to find out her name or bothered to read her statements, instead writing her off because, uh, he didn't put any stock in her story - again, why?
I would like some proof that the red truck he is now reporting as belonging to Walter Glynn is the same truck that RO saw and how he knows that it is the same truck. RO said: "I immediately looked at the plate and noticed it was from Massachusetts" - this is very clear. I want to know why we should consider that the truck Renner is describing is the truck RO saw with Mass plates. If it is some other truck, it really has no bearing on this case IMHO.

Excellant questions Maruchan. I'd love to hear the answers.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text> Well, a few pages back citigirl stated she did it quite regularly. I doubt she is the only one but I personally know of no others that will admit it.

If I had been searching, in the aftermath of a missing family member, I’d be taking notes like there was no tomorrow — including plate numbers. Perhaps losing a loved one under suspicious circumstances makes you more vigilant in your day-to-day life?

To my mind if someone wrote the plate number of a red truck in the area Maura disappeared (on February 9th, 2004) they must have reckoned that the driver (and/or occupants) was acting suspiciously. Or there was some sort of altercation, perceived threat, or fender bender…

I'm not getting too excited about this new information that doesn't seem to make sense.
Not long ago it was the business owner who had a fleet of red trucks and had Maura buried in a slab of cement. There were several more before him and I'm sure there will be more in the future.
All these years posters have been wondering about this red truck and now supposedly the family (or at least Fred) knew about it? Makes no sense to me.
Does anyone else find it strange that after all these years all of a sudden it's brought to our attention that someone else saw this red truck and took the plate number down when nothing has ever been mentioned about it before?