Maura Murray

Correct samprob cause is the right term.

"In Maura's case, I think Sam is right that the grand jury did not indict anyone. My reasoning is that I think there would be record of the fact that there was an indictment, even if the records of the indictment itself are sealed. This would have been one of the records denied to Fred and Renner and anyone else who did a FOIA request, I'm assuming. I might be wrong about that, so I'm hoping Sam will weigh in with his opinion."

I agree with most of that. Charging documents (i.e., an indictment or complaint) are nearly always public records (so there would have been no denial).

I say *mostly* because there are rare cases (e.g., witness fraud or where the defendant is a minor) that the charging document might be sealed.

"Secrecy is almost always a common trait with grand jury findings.Just because nothing was heard in the mm GJ trial doesn't mean not guilty does it Amy? Had anyone even heard about a grand jury in this case prior to Renner?"

A grand jury is CONVENED in secret (this is to prevent people from running like, for example, Whitey Bulger did, when he was tipped off about his grand jury)

A grand jury makes one finding: whether there is probable cause. That's it.

A grand jury does NOT determine guilt. A fact-finder does (i.e., a jury or, at a bench trial, a judge).

If there was, in fact, a grand jury, presumably there was no indictment.

Sure, perhaps a minor was suspected of whatever the alleged crime may have been (that's another issue -- how would you ever prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Maura was murdered when intelligent people cannot agree that she is deceased). But I would't bet on it.

My point is that LE must have had an individual in mind.There must have been enough evidence to bother spending resourses of a grand Jury.So.ething must have pointed to foul play.

Maybe Not enough to show probable cause but there was obviously enough info slash evidence to have a Grand Jury.

JWB wrote:

My point is that LE must have had an individual in mind.There must have been enough evidence to bother spending resourses of a grand Jury.So.ething must have pointed to foul play.

IF, there was a grand jury, then, yes, there must have been a person who the state of New Hampshire believed committed a felony punishable by five or more years in connection with Maura's disappearance.

IF (and this is a very big if) there was a grand jury, then I would infer that LE believed that a specific person murdered her.

I am only going by JR research said there was a Grand Jury.

JWB wrote:

I am only going by JR research said there was a Grand Jury.

Do you have any more details on that?

I see what Amy was referring to.

Thanks Amy (I am not used to Topix -- there's a delay, so it's hard to carry-on a conversation).

Yes, it does appear that, according to Renner, Lt. Landry said that Maura's file includes "Grand Jury subpoenas."

Hmm ... I wonder who the witnesses were who were subpoened.

Any thoughts, JWB or Amy?

A grand jury often hears the testimony of witnesses. For example, they may have heard from Fred Murray that certain things happened. The grand jury would use this testimony to determine whether probable cause exists.

But your basic point is absolutely sound. If witnesses gave testimony before a grand jury, which, Renner says that Landry said, then there must be a lawyer, likely the DA, who believed that there was foul play.

Let me qualify my last point. Landry said that witnesses were subpoened. It's possible that the grand jury was never actually convened.

However, on the subpoena, it would say "New Hampshire v.[insert the name of the accused]." So, Landry must know the identity of the accused.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

I see what Amy was referring to.
Thanks Amy (I am not used to Topix -- there's a delay, so it's hard to carry-on a conversation).
Yes, it does appear that, according to Renner, Lt. Landry said that Maura's file includes "Grand Jury subpoenas."
Hmm ... I wonder who the witnesses were who were subpoened.
Any thoughts, JWB or Amy?

I will let Amy take that one LOL.

Here is Renners post regarding scope of investigation.
http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2012/02/recor...

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
In Maura's case, I think Sam is right that the grand jury did not indict anyone. My reasoning is that I think there would be record of the fact that there was an indictment, even if the records of the indictment itself are sealed. This would have been one of the records denied to Fred and Renner and anyone else who did a FOIA request, I'm assuming. I might be wrong about that, so I'm hoping Sam will weigh in with his opinion.

Hi Amy,

Didn't I remember FrmLE state that NH also has "investigative" grand juries whose purpose was investigation, not indictments? Or did I misunderstand?

I am not saying there was any kind of grand jury convened, just checking if you remember him saying that.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Hi Amy,
Didn't I remember FrmLE state that NH also has "investigative" grand juries whose purpose was investigation, not indictments? Or did I misunderstand?
I am not saying there was any kind of grand jury convened, just checking if you remember him saying that.
Bill

I should point out that I do not practice in NH.
I am speaking of grand juries at common law and in Massachusetts.

So, if New Hampshire expanded the function of a grand jury in a way that is not typical, then it is something that I would not know about.

Then again, I cannot see what other purpose a grand jury would serve.