Maura Murray

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Yes there were 2 people whom came to the hotel we were staying at and told me and my sister they heard LE arguing in the back yard as to whos jurisdiction it was. We knew nothing about this. These people sought us out. I do remember the name of one of the persons but I will not post it.

Here is the post. They sought "us" the third cousin and the third cousins sister.

Tang Zoi wrote:

<quoted text>
Through emails w/ Him I was told He had a red truck. He also mentions it on His blog.
I have not seen it in person.

Thank you.

Just FYI, I did a search on his blog for any reference to a red truck or him owning a truck of any kind and there is none. We also know pretty well by this time that we should take a lot of stuff Beagle says with a barge of salt.

So, to be clear, we have no proof whatsoever that Beagle owned a red truck at the time of Maura's disappearance.

Beagle and the red truck...I remember Beagle mentioned the red truck at a certain rental property. LADY GRAY asked Beagle who owned the truck and he stated he would never mention names on a forum.

I'm sure Beagle or Lady Gray will correct me if I am wrong. I never fully understood how this rental property fit in with MM missing. May be who owns the rental property is the point.

backspace4me wrote:

Beagle and the red truck...I remember Beagle mentioned the red truck at a certain rental property. LADY GRAY asked Beagle who owned the truck and he stated he would never mention names on a forum.
I'm sure Beagle or Lady Gray will correct me if I am wrong. I never fully understood how this rental property fit in with MM missing. May be who owns the rental property is the point.

You know, the more the years go by, I profess that my memory isn't quite what it was HOWEVER there are some things I'm very certain of. Having said that, I will admit to being wrong when I know I'm wrong so if you can find proof of my being part of such discussion, I will admit I'm wrong when I say I have absolutely zero recollection of this.. So sorry.....I hate it when I can't answer something...

Lady Gray1 wrote:

FrmLE, who has the authority to cancel a call that has been dispatched?

FrmLE, where'd you go? I look forward to hearing your answer.

From the beginning One of the family's main problems with what LE did that night was that they did not search east. THey've said this repeatedly from the start and no one from LE has EVER come out to say this isn't true. That should lead any normal person to believe that it is true, that they didn't search east.
That's a legitimate complaint that they had that does make LE look kind of bad, unless the knew something we don't and decided that looking east was a total waste of time.

My point is that if they DID look east then why wouldn't they have said that after all these years? Now that makes no sense, the family of a missing grl has a legitimate complaint about the way things were handled from the start, you would think that LE would've come out and said 'we did look east' if they really did look east.
It's pretty obvious that they did NOT look east.

The only person who's EVER said that they DID look east is FrmLE, a completely anonymous source, just some dude on the internet. Why should anyone believe some dude who said it online? If they really did look east I think we can safely assumer that LE would've come out and said it years ago, why would they NOT say it? saying they looked east could not possibly affect any sort of prosecution or the case in any sort of bad way, the only thing that it would do is tell people that they did a better job that night then the family is leading them to believe.

I think it's safe to assume they did NOT look east that night, just like has been said for 9 years now and NEVER refuted by LE when they could've easily done that. Why would they NOT do that? That makes no sense, obvioulsy they didn't look east, it doesn't matter what some anonymous dude on the internet says, it matters what the REAL cops who actually worked this case have said on the record, and none of them have ever said that they looked east.

Lady Gray1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You know, the more the years go by, I profess that my memory isn't quite what it was HOWEVER there are some things I'm very certain of. Having said that, I will admit to being wrong when I know I'm wrong so if you can find proof of my being part of such discussion, I will admit I'm wrong when I say I have absolutely zero recollection of this.. So sorry.....I hate it when I can't answer something...

Thank You Lady Gray. I will research blog.

Jenkins wrote:

From the beginning One of the family's main problems with what LE did that night was that they did not search east. THey've said this repeatedly from the start and no one from LE has EVER come out to say this isn't true. That should lead any normal person to believe that it is true, that they didn't search east.
That's a legitimate complaint that they had that does make LE look kind of bad, unless the knew something we don't and decided that looking east was a total waste of time.
My point is that if they DID look east then why wouldn't they have said that after all these years? Now that makes no sense, the family of a missing grl has a legitimate complaint about the way things were handled from the start, you would think that LE would've come out and said 'we did look east' if they really did look east.
It's pretty obvious that they did NOT look east.
The only person who's EVER said that they DID look east is FrmLE, a completely anonymous source, just some dude on the internet. Why should anyone believe some dude who said it online? If they really did look east I think we can safely assumer that LE would've come out and said it years ago, why would they NOT say it? saying they looked east could not possibly affect any sort of prosecution or the case in any sort of bad way, the only thing that it would do is tell people that they did a better job that night then the family is leading them to believe.
I think it's safe to assume they did NOT look east that night, just like has been said for 9 years now and NEVER refuted by LE when they could've easily done that. Why would they NOT do that? That makes no sense, obvioulsy they didn't look east, it doesn't matter what some anonymous dude on the internet says, it matters what the REAL cops who actually worked this case have said on the record, and none of them have ever said that they looked east.

ExACtLy

Jenkins wrote:

From the beginning One of the family's main problems with what LE did that night was that they did not search east. THey've said this repeatedly from the start and no one from LE has EVER come out to say this isn't true. That should lead any normal person to believe that it is true, that they didn't search east.
That's a legitimate complaint that they had that does make LE look kind of bad, unless the knew something we don't and decided that looking east was a total waste of time.
My point is that if they DID look east then why wouldn't they have said that after all these years? Now that makes no sense, the family of a missing grl has a legitimate complaint about the way things were handled from the start, you would think that LE would've come out and said 'we did look east' if they really did look east.
It's pretty obvious that they did NOT look east.
The only person who's EVER said that they DID look east is FrmLE, a completely anonymous source, just some dude on the internet. Why should anyone believe some dude who said it online? If they really did look east I think we can safely assumer that LE would've come out and said it years ago, why would they NOT say it? saying they looked east could not possibly affect any sort of prosecution or the case in any sort of bad way, the only thing that it would do is tell people that they did a better job that night then the family is leading them to believe.
I think it's safe to assume they did NOT look east that night, just like has been said for 9 years now and NEVER refuted by LE when they could've easily done that. Why would they NOT do that? That makes no sense, obvioulsy they didn't look east, it doesn't matter what some anonymous dude on the internet says, it matters what the REAL cops who actually worked this case have said on the record, and none of them have ever said that they looked east.

Jenkins wrote:**a completely anonymous source, just some dude on the internet. Why should anyone believe some dude who said it online?**
I guess this means that we shouldn't believe someone that assumes, guesses, theorizes,states things are obvious, states things as "facts" and repeats their words over and over again in hopes that if it's said enough times people will eventually believe it because after all you also are just a completely anonymous source, just some dude on the internet and why should anyone believe some dude who said it online?**

As for the argument about jurisdiction- Why would these people actively search out the family to tell them if they didn't truly believe that's what they heard? Why would citigirl make this up? THere never been anything else that she's been accused or anyone thought she made up so why would she make this up?
Lighthouse's criticism of her being a third cousin doesn't apply here at all, at that time she was at the wells river motel which was known to be the family's 'headquarters' so to speak, for their search for maura. So this witness who says they heard this argument was searching out the family, and citi just happened to be the family member that received the info bc she was there at the time.
Lighthouse- your critique of citi applies to how well she knew maura, she only met her 2 or 3 times iirc, but it does not apply here. She didn't know her well but she is technically family but more than that she was up there searching for her, talking to people and staying at the wells river hotel with the rest of the family that was searching for her too. Sounds like now you're just being a bitch, no offense.

Contrary to what FrmLE an WTH are saying there COULD have been some sort of argument. I've always thought that Smith thought there was more to this then simply someone who got in a minor accident and left the car, something that happens every day during the winter in the north country and something that's happened many many times at the WB curve. His actions that night, what he did and didn't do seem to indicate that he thought she might have been abducted. Again it's nothing definite, but he obviously did not treat this like a normal one car accident is treated, if every one car accident was treated like this the state of NH would be broke by March.

So maybe there was some sort of argument- if there is a murder or abduction in NH the state police are supposed to have jurisdiction, they have the resources and manpower to handle a murder investigation that most towns don't. Down in Manchester they have a homicide squad so they would handle murders in their city, but in almost every other town and city in NH murders or abductions would be handled by the SP.

So if there was a debate over whether this was a regular one car accident or a possible abduction then there COULD have been an argument. Smith could've been saying that it looks like an abduction and monahan could've been saying that he doesn't see it, it looks like a one car accident and just fill out the paperwork, i'm not taking it on. That's the only way I can see there being an argument, is if Smith was saying that he didn't think this girl was going to turn up the next day to claim her car, that he thought she was abducted and that the SP should take on the case right away. Many of his actions that night indicate that's what he thought.

Something else is why the hell has Monahan consistenly just refused to answer ANY questions about what he did that night? That's sketchy;; not like 'he killed her' sketchy, but sketchy to the point of there must be SOMETHING that isn't being told here and he doesn't want to lie about it. If all this guy did was drive by the scene when he was off-duty and drive around for a few mins looking for her, stopping and talking to RO in the process, they why NOT tell the family that? There just has to be something that we don't know, and that's why he's always refused to answer q's about that night. He doesn't want to have to lie about anything so he'd rather not answer any q's at all. Maybe this argument is the thing that he doesn't want to lie about? Maybe it's bc Smith was trying to convince him that she was abducted and that the SP should start an investigation immediately?

Obviously JMO but it is possible, that's pretty much the only thing I can think of that would be an argument over jurisdiction- if one cop thinks there's foul play and the other should take it bc of it and the other cop doesn't agree. Maybe there's another reason but in NH which is a mutual aid state I can't think of another. And also this person might not have actually heard the word jurisdiction, as that word doesn't REALLY apply in NH, but he could've heard an argument to that effect and thought that was the best way to describe the argument. Bc technically in NH there isn't true 'jurisdictions' like in other states, but there certainly could be an argument over who is going to take a specific case, particularly if one believes it is a major crime but there isn't any definitive evidence and the other cop disagrees.
And the fact that JKM just flat out refuses to answer any q's about that night is very telling IMO, that just has got to be something that he doesn't want to share, otherwise why NOT tell the family of a missing girl what he did that night? If the only thing he did was drive around for a few mins looking for her why NOT tell the family that? That's just cold hearted IMO, so either he's just a cold hearted bastard, or there's some specific reason why he doesn't want to share the events of that night with this missing girl's family.

Jenkins wrote:

Something else is why the hell has Monahan consistenly just refused to answer ANY questions about what he did that night? That's sketchy;;

Refuse to answer any questions to who? When you make this absurd statement, who do you mean when you say he refused to answer any questions?

Let me answer this question for you, for what must be at least the tenth time. Please listen carefully.

This is an open, active Investigation. As per most Law Enforcement agencies policies, it is strictly prohibited for any Officer or Trooper to comment on an open case unless specifically authorized to do so by the Lead Investigator. If you violate these policies you are subject to punishment up to and including being fired.

So, you think it is 'sketchy' that Trooper Monaghan is following the written rules of his Agency? You think he should answer questions to jenky, the guy on the internet? Or should he do what he was trained to do and allow the Lead Investigator or Attorney General to comment on the case as is policy?

Are you serious here?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Shocking that you were the source. More bullshit.
No matter where you heard it, it is not true it did not happen.

I gave this info to a PI. So you are basically saying what ever those whom have lived in the area has lied to us? Your full of bull crap.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Can you clarify the importance of information that was sent to the third cousin and third cousin's sister as being important. Also keep in mind that this is "Testimony" from an unnamed source. To take this information as having any weight in the actual "reason" of why or how MM went missing doesn't even register. In my opininon.

No where have I ever stated it was how and why Maura was missing. There is a name of the source but sorry I will not post it on a public forum. The info was not sent I personally talked to this person after they sought us out.

Let me clear a few jenky-isms up ok?

First, as I have said repeatedly, this is an active, open investigation. No one here knows what is contained in that very thick case file.

So to say that "if they searched East it would have come out by now..." is nothing more than ignorant babble. Since the case file remains closed no one here knows what those reports say, no one here knows where Trooper Monaghan went, or where Smith went for that matter.

Now, this does not consider the fact that regardless of who went where, East West North South, the fact remains that Maura was not lost, she was hiding. A person who is hiding is not going to wave the car down and say,“Whew I sure am glad you found me!” Because if Maura wanted to be found she would have stayed at her car and not gotten lost.

Can you understand that simple fact?

Regarding this bullshit about jurisdiction, that is nothing more than the typical red herring thrown out by shack or citigirl or whoever to distract from the facts and place blame on anyone other than Maura.

There was no jurisdictional argument, because that’s not how it works in NH. Simply put, if the accident is in Haverhill it is a Haverhill case, period. The State Police often help out with local cases and local cops often help the Troopers with their cases, it is all very simple and seamless.

If as you suggest, Smith thought it was an abduction or whatever, it would still be a Haverhill case. If it was a Murder it would still be a Haverhill case. No matter what it was it would be a Haverhill case that night and far into the future.

Now at some point in the future if it was an abduction or missing person, as it has turned out to be, then the NHSP would perhaps at some point far in the future either assist Haverhill PD or perhaps they would have NHSP Major Crimes work the case out of Troop F, as they did in this case.

All that is very seamless as well, it happens days or months later at the level of the Haverhill Chief of Police and NHSP Major Crimes or Troop Detectives. None of that gets discussed on scene, lol, the thought of it is so completely ridiculous I can’t even begin to explain.

So whoever said this nonsense about jurisdiction was either lying or can not hear and made this up.

Your ignorance of how Law Enforcement works is so ridiculous it is only exceeded by your arrogance believing you know how things work with your absolutely ZERO Law Enforcement experience.

I repeat, you have absolutely ZERO experience in anything relating to Law Enforcement. Period.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>I gave this info to a PI. So you are basically saying what ever those whom have lived in the area has lied to us? Your full of bull crap.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, either they are lying or you are lying.

Just curious, who is this PI you gave the info to? Why not the NHSP?

Wowzer- There is a MAJOR difference between the stuff I say and some of the crap that FrmLE writes, mainly that I'm NEVER trying to introduce NEW FACTS. My posts are analyzing known facts and offering up my opinion of said facts, I'm never trying to offer up new facts.

Not only has FrmLE tried to offer up new facts from time to time, saying that they did search east if a perfect example, but he's also offered up facts that directly contradict what the real cops who've actually worked the case have said on the record.

See the difference? You're not an idiot, you must see what I'm saying here. I'm just some dude on the internet too, and if I try to offer up new facts, something I'm not gong to do anyways, but if I DID then damn right people should question the shit out of it, i'm just some dude on the internet!!

It's been known for years that they never searched east, this has NEVER been challenged by LE ever, except for now, 9 years later by some random dude on the internet who's claiming to be ex-NHSP. Come on, he wrote it on the interwebs so it just MUST be true. lol

backspace4me wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank You Lady Gray. I will research blog.

You're welcome :)

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, either they are lying or you are lying.
Just curious, who is this PI you gave the info to? Why not the NHSP?

I have no reason to lie. But if you were personally involved in the case Or knew what was going on concerning the case you would not be asking me these questions.

Jenkins wrote:

Wowzer- There is a MAJOR difference between the stuff I say and some of the crap that FrmLE writes,

I think most people, including myself, would agree that there is a major difference between what you write and what I write.

Now THERE is something we can all agree with! lolol