Maura Murray

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree that the document was planted or fake. My guess is that the document was released to the public by mistake. If you read Renner's blog, Renner doesn't say he obtained the document through his own FOIA request. Renner says, "A few weeks ago, I discovered what appears to be a search warrant filed by Lt. Todd Landry of Troop F on this obscure website." The website he refers to belongs to Chris King. Renner goes on to say, "I spoke with Christopher King, who runs the website and, as he recalled, he was given the search warrant after filing a public records request with a lawyer who represents New Hampshire police."
http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2011/10/searc...
If this document was meant to be seen by the public, I believe that it would also have been sent to Renner as part of Renner's FOIA request to NHSP. This is what makes me think that the lawyer who sent the document to King did so either in error or without the permission of New Hampshire police. Just my opinion.

You should go and spend about five seconds on this Chris King's blog and you will quickly see that he is not operating on all cylinders. He thinks the police are all corrupt and out to get him.

This is the big source that James got the affidavit from. It was cut and paste and therefore that is why there is no letterhead or date on it.

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
You should go and spend about five seconds on this Chris King's blog and you will quickly see that he is not operating on all cylinders. He thinks the police are all corrupt and out to get him.
This is the big source that James got the affidavit from. It was cut and paste and therefore that is why there is no letterhead or date on it.

It is indeed a dubious source. However, poster Dawn claims Helena saw the entire document and believed it to be legitimate.

BillNH wrote:

LE's intention was to never have any of the files released. Why would they "plant" a fake document in those files? Calling it a red herring seems to be a red herring in itself.
Dawn's statements do back up the fact that they were looking for the number of a incoming caller, not a "ping".
She also claims that if MM's phone was off then the towers were not involved. But Sprint told Landry that a call was made from the Sprint tower in Londonderry, NH. So MM's phone was on? Was Sprint wrong? Maybe they should hire Dawn...
Dawn says on 10/11/2010 " I am just simply stating as telecomm expert that info was not correct.. which was validated by Helena. "
Yet Helena says the document is legitimate.
~Yep bringing those old posts back really cleared things up. lol

so, then, working from a document that was not released via FOIA becomes, in itself, a suspicious document. real? fake? altered? can you be certain?

and i didn't suppose we'd "clear things up"...just complete the full circle.
may it be unbroken..round n round.
swoooossshhhh. ;)

Orko Kringer wrote:

<quoted text>
I can name one thing without having to do any thinking or digging.
Maura's car.
Why was this car not sercured if police were truly investigating some sort of crime?
Her car sat in a parking lot off a main highway for over a year before police took custody of it.
If you have a crime,(And you don't know if it took place around the car, at the car or further down the road, I would think you would want to preserve evidence if you truly suspected foul play. Espeically if you believe one of these wacko theories that Maura wasn't really driving the car or Maura was meeting up with someone.

Excellent observation. Of course it will be said that it is just one more example of the incompetence of NHLE. I don't believe this myself, but if I say it first, the opportunity for a zinger from the naysayers is gone..

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
It is indeed a dubious source. However, poster Dawn claims Helena saw the entire document and believed it to be legitimate.

As I posted yesterday, Helena herself posted on the MMM Facebook page that she saw the document:

Maruchan wrote:

For the last quote, this was the question Helena was responding to:
"Helena, the affidavit from Landry - do you know if that in itself legit? Is that something you have seen yourself or verified to be real? I figured if anything useful came of it that it would be held by LE."
Answer again:
"I have seen the entire document. I have no reason to question its legitimacy. The single page that has circulated is only one, undated page of a multi-page document."

Snowy wrote:

Ya know bill, I studied Logic. The Logic points to a team conspiracy, committed to stealing a female from West-Point. Is this what you wanted the logic to prove?
When people think of Maura, the furthest thing from their minds is an honor violation, however you and your clan are pounding the table that Maura was an honor violator.
Could it be that the people that have disparaged her so severely over the years are the one's responsible for her murder?
Duh Kelly Ayotte, Duh!

wrong Snowy; there is only one.
apparently the same hater who posts from NY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Anyone else getting Dizzy.....?

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Just to add, I have gathered from Dawn's posts that she was a long-time employee of Verizon, does not believe the Londonderry pingthing is real, believes it was a red herring ...

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
Dawn wrote:
<quoted text>
MY PESONAL OPINION>>>>> >>>>>> is that they DO have info of a call from londonderry - that called her phone. Her phone did not answer - this is INFO about another persons phone. Who's I don't know. But I think they have it. Someone else was trying to reach her. That is why I knew it couldn't be from her phone.. It is NOT her records that are in question - its someone elses phone info they have. thats why they put it out there.. to let that person know.. Gotcha - we know you were in this area... but thats probably all they could prove. police leak stuff like that all the time.

Requoting my post which you quoted above your own post above.

As I said, "I have gathered from Dawn's posts" - as that was the impression I got from reading lots of her posts. After Dawn posted your quote above, she also posted it on Topix, followed by many posts thereafter, all of which are referring to the affidavit (if she believes the affidavit is bogus, I don't know how she could believe there was a Londonderry call:

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't buy what you are selling. Lets see a copy of this on letter head.. It has never been produced.. EVER. Until I see it.. I won't believe it and because its NOT how things are done ...

Dawn wrote:

Not to mention Helena confirmed there was NOT an incoming call too.. Ask her.
Why stir the pot with red herrings? That is just mean for the people who really want to find her. Sending people off on a goose/duck chase.

Dawn wrote:

Now its interesting that Marybeth Conway has posted EVERY OTHER AFFIDAVIT except the one EWB talks about.. THE ONE that has never been produced.......... hmmm..
nancy smiths affidavit is there
strezlin's affidavit is there
multi agency meeting is there..
the phony one is NOT>

The next quote is Dawn replying to this:

Sara-Bermuda wrote:

<quoted text>
So, who do you think wrote it and why? Remember this came from Maura's file that was in public records in the library. Can anyone put papers in that?

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
NO it did not come from the file. A poster said they went to the court house and "got it". It has never been produced - ie scanned copy etc. Only the text has been written here. That is it. It has only been typed up on topix. I also got confirmation at one time from the family - they also have NEVER seen a copy on letter head ...

Dawn wrote:

... Also, I would like to add that the local LE have been helpful obviously with Peri and someone else I know that has been in communication with LE - and not me.
And what do you know - they ACTUALLY respond in a letter oN LETTERHEAD - in writing. Something that could later be used in a court of law if needed...
Now don't ya think if that affidavit was real it would be on letter head too..
Think about it.... thats what we call a bad apple.

Re: the Londonderry call, in 2009, this is what she believed:

Dawn wrote:

I wonder why police info never ended up in a newspaper article...... especially about the last person to have tried to call her.......... WHY? because it never happened.
The ENTIRE reason I brought this to light is that it is a blod face lie. CRUEL to fake last communication. WHY?
Whowever made it up should be strung up by their toe nails.

Dawn wrote:

<quoted text>
that is up for speculation obviously I can't get into the mind of the person who made up the londonderry call. It is cruel - and I ask WHY?

If anybody cares to follow that thread (there are many more posts), it starts with Dawn's "PERSONAL OPINION" post on Page 47, post 1019 (for me, it may be different for others).

On a side note, Whitewash has always stated that she is photographer not a journalist.

oo00oo wrote:

On a side note, Whitewash has always stated that she is photographer not a journalist.

Picture that.!

The affidavits from Landry, Smith and Strelzin in Fred Murray's lawsuit were not on letterhead either.

Green's new blog post today is mostly a waste of time. This teammate of Maura's sounds like she didn't really know her very well. According to the UMASS Women's Track Roster for the year Maura was on the team, there were 60 girls on the team. Since the teammate "MN" describes Maura as "friendly but private and tended to avoid detailed conversation about Billy," and MN only met Billy briefly, it does not sound to me like they were really friends, more like acquaintances. It would be nice to know if their acquaintance lasted beyond the end of the 2003 track season.

The only information that has any value or can be thought of as "facts" are:

"Maura was not running well during her one year on the team."

"During winter break 2002-03, the team returned several weeks before spring semester began to practice. They stayed in a local hotel. Billy visited Maura for a few days during which they did not socialize much with the team. MN recalls briefly meeting Billy and that 'everyone liked him.'
The team was told about Maura's disappearance on a Saturday, February 14, at a track meet."

"MN knew Hossein, saying he was 'friendly and liked to joke around.' If they were dating, MN said,'nobody knew about it' and it must have been a closely held secret as 'gossip like that would have spread quickly.'"

"During the spring season, on Maura's birthday, Kate organized a moment of silence for Maura during which her teammates released balloons."

Everything else is supposition by MN, and has as much value as any guesses made by all of the MM websleuths.

Det Columbo wrote:

Anyone else getting Dizzy.....?

Not at all.

But, I have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to reading certain "contributors". Helps when you don't want to repeatedly be reading nonsense.

Bill

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never seen anyone use letterhead for a document filed with a court. It was apparently filed with the court if White Wash obtained a copy from the courthouse.

Nor have I. The closest you could come to "letterhead" on any type of court pleadings are the name/address/phone number of the party filing the document in the top left corner of the first page, and that would not be repeated on any other pages or attachments, such as an affidavit. It appears from Fred's pleadings that they don't even include that info on pleadings in NH.

All documents that have actually been filed in court are stamped in with the court name and received date on the first page of the document. I also believe, but Amy, correct me if I am wrong, but generally affidavits are not filed by the court as separate documents, but as exhibits/attachments to different types of pleadings. Therefore, I believe that affidavits would have no "letterhead" or date stamped on them. The only time they might have an identifying stamp or date on them is if they are bate-stamped in preparation for trial. Again, Amy can correct me if I am wrong - it's been a while, and my memory is not what it used to be.

oo00oo wrote:

On a side note, Whitewash has always stated that she is photographer not a journalist.

Right - I stand corrected, and thank you for catching that!

If you guys don't think that in general different detectives handle a missing person and an endangered missing person then idk what to tell you.
Something like 4,000 people go missing a day, something crazy like that, the vast majority of those people turn up unharmed after short amount of time. The same guys that investigate murders & abductions aren't going to waste their time on cases where they don't think the person is endangered. How can you guys NOT understand that?
To me this shows a willfull decision to not admit what is blatantly obviously true, it's called denial & it is clearly evident on this forum. Not only do you deny something that is just undeniable you also attack the messenger, GREAT people you guys are. Lol

Yea that makes A LOT of sense, the same guys handling murders also waste their time handling missing persons that they don't think are endangered missing. Yea maybe Sometimes a lead might be followed by the murder guys but that would be rare. A different person holds files for suspected foul play than the missin persons where foul play is not suspected. It looks like theres some crossover in the nhsp but that's the exception not the rule. In reality you guys are showing how little you actually know about what your talkin, if you guys only knew half of what you THINK you know...

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Although there won't necessarily be a filed date stamped by the clerk onto this page, I would expect to see a signature block and then the notary block with "SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this xth day of x, 20xx" -- so that is the date I'm referring to, rather than a court stamp. Somewhere, there should be a date on this document. If several people have seen the whole document, I'm surprised no one has said when it was dated.

Yes, I agree. I would also think that Helena would have kept a copy of the affidavit as a hard copy or on a computer and would be able to take a look at it to see if it is signed, notarized and dated. Perhaps if we're lucky somebody on the MMM Facebook page might see this and ask her.

I don't see how the affidavit could have come from the court file without the notarization. If it came from the attorney's office, then I can see how it could be from an unsigned draft of the document.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
Nor have I. The closest you could come to "letterhead" on any type of court pleadings are the name/address/phone number of the party filing the document in the top left corner of the first page, and that would not be repeated on any other pages or attachments, such as an affidavit. It appears from Fred's pleadings that they don't even include that info on pleadings in NH.
All documents that have actually been filed in court are stamped in with the court name and received date on the first page of the document. I also believe, but Amy, correct me if I am wrong, but generally affidavits are not filed by the court as separate documents, but as exhibits/attachments to different types of pleadings. Therefore, I believe that affidavits would have no "letterhead" or date stamped on them. The only time they might have an identifying stamp or date on them is if they are bate-stamped in preparation for trial. Again, Amy can correct me if I am wrong - it's been a while, and my memory is not what it used to be.

Here's a link to one that is like what I would expect to see (see the back page):
http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/08-430...

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all.
But, I have learned to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to reading certain "contributors". Helps when you don't want to repeatedly be reading nonsense.
Bill

Are you saying that Columbo is worth reading? You read his post.