Maura Murray

Judged:

1

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Because Haverhill/Woodsville LE has been TAINTED for years and continues to be to this day. They are professionals....SUPPOSEDLY..!
John

Judged:

2

2

2

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
1st. of all I will answer or comment on any question on this forum which I desire.
2cd. LE is held to HIGH standards and they are supposed to be professional 24/7/365. Their past actions throw credence to the fact that "LE is held to a higher standard than Maura."
3rd.@ 7:46 when Cecil Smith showed up He had no clue as to who was driving or what their past was. His mission was to complete the task at hand, which He failed at that evening.
John
John

Judged:

2

2

1

JWB wrote:

Hey lighthouse- Not always agree but thanks keep it real

Judged:

1

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
The only "taint" on HPD has been from the small group of ignorant people that believe HPD should have done something different on the night MM disappeared. THERE WAS NO REASON to do anything differently than what they did. I don't know why I even write this since it will bring out the "cover-up" and conspiracy junkies, but there it is.
Anyone who thinks that HPD should have handled it differently, please tell me how and more importantly WHY they should have done anything different. You will be hard pressed to find any "why" that is based in reason, fact or reality.

Judged:

1

1

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill= I respect you lol but I really hate when you hate=women like shack- you are not a real man to treat her that that way

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
Smith did not fail. He did his job, probably went beyond what was expected and probably because he knew from SBD that it was a lone female involved in the accident. No doubt there is a higher standard for LE and there is no evidence, just ignorant blather, that he did not perform at that level.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't worry Bill. DetC is going to tell us any second what he would have done differently that night. I asked him yesterday, so he has had time to formulate a game plan. And more importantly, and this is key. WHAT HE WOULD HAVE DONE THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME.
Bill

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
Smith did not fail. He did his job, probably went beyond what was expected and probably because he knew from SBD that it was a lone female involved in the accident. No doubt there is a higher standard for LE and there is no evidence, just ignorant blather, that he did not perform at that level.

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Smith did a LITTLE bit better job that night than the VTSP officer who investigated Brianna Maitlands abandoned car.
Lights on, jewelry on the ground and 2 paychecks on the seat. NOTHING SUSPICIOUS HERE. So He went on a 3 day weekend. He NEVER WOULD HAVE MENTIONED THE CAR EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT "HE WALKED INTO THE PD WHILE BRIANNA'S PARENTS WERE THERE"
Smith even told the Murrays "He did not know the area very well" that is why He turned the wrong way on Rte 112.
How long was Smith on the PD before Feb. 9th 2004
Very poor work on behalf of LE.
What a joke...!
John

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
There is not one thing that is written that would have changed the outcome of the case. Why you are including the Maitland case is beyond me.

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Your beacon is so dull, You can't see through the FOG.!
So....let's just say Maura was hiding just around the corner about 750 ft. away or up BHR and they did not go there. This just might have changed the outcome.
THEY WERE NOT THOROUGH THAT EVENING.
John

Shack wrote:

Jenkins, I agree. When I travel up to Haverhill, NH where I have relatives and acquaintances I assume an attitude of compliance.
If I mention Maura, I listen to words of ie "she is of her own problem"....
Haverhill, NH has a history of a weak PD. One only as to check Town Report(s).

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Say whatever you want about the beacon. The fact you bring the Maitland case up when asked a direct question about LE's actions that night shows me that you have very little argument.
There is a standard operating procedure in place that should be followed do you know it? Of course you can come up with any scenario " Lets just say" but tell me where the operating procedure was wrong.

Det Columbo wrote:

http://answers.yahoo.com/quest ion/index?qid=20130601050127AA qsr0v
Just posted very recently....

vVorta wrote:

<quoted text>
Its an honor to have a god among us.

Judged:

1

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
So....let's just say Maura was hiding just around the corner about 750 ft. away or up BHR and they did not go there. This just might have changed the outcome.
THEY WERE NOT THOROUGH THAT EVENING.
John

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Buddha Thank You.....

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
John, seriously? So your contention is because they didn't search, the whole world, and that because that superset (the whole world) of the searched area is where Maura was, that was a failure on LE's part.
So if they searched 749 feet and Maura was 750 feet and they didn't see her that would also be not a thorough search, correct?
John, we really need to teach you some search theory. There will always be a trade off between manpower, time, terrain, distance, urgency, etc. The whole world cannot be checked, at least not with the resources available.
And the "they didn't search east" bullshit. Didn't NHSP have a trooper in that area? Which way did he come in from?
Now to the bigger questions. First, how strong an obligation does LE have to protect someone from their own stupid actions? I.e an adult running from a crashed car with alcohol on board.
Second, the reaction of LE was perfectly reasonable given the situation. It is how we (I have been on many of these crashes as EMS) have and would have handled the situation without a second thought.
Third, your red herring about Maitland, a total deflection. No bearing at all on this case.
Fourth, so after they did their search, and sat around for as long as they did, expecting a reasonable person to come back to the car, if she was even in the area. If she had decided, as she did to not return, how far could she have gone, how fast, in what direction? She accomplished her goal. She got away. how is that the polices fault. She decided to run. So short of helicopters and search teams etc. Which you think should happen on every crashed car with alcohol and no evidence that she was in the area. How far should they have searched to satisfy you? What directions to satisfy you? Should all the lakes be dragged? Should concrete be smashed? How many lawns should be torn up? Houses burst into?
The main question is still: How would you have changed this outcome? Even with your 20/20 hindsight there is nothing that you can say that would have ensured that there would have been a different outcome than what happened. Just as I suspect that you and shack would never be convinced that enough was done, no matter what was done. Monday morning quarterbacks, always have the answers.
Bill