Maura Murray

The Salem NH example is no different than any other NH Grand Jury. The suspect is never questioned nor present at a Grand Jury trial and that of course holds here.The prosecutor did not prosecute in this case only because the accused was dead but they considered the case solved.

Nothing different that you presented here Bill. you are smarter that that? Come on.

JWB wrote:

"A grand jury is composed of a group of individuals whose main purpose is to determine whether to issue an indictment against an individual. This process of determining whether or not to issue an indictment is commonly known as a grand jury investigation. During a grand jury investigation, the grand jury makes no decision or conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of an individual. It only determines whether there is probable cause, or enough evidence to suggest, that an individual may have committed a crime."
All one in the same thing

It is entirely possible that the Grand Jury was convened for a crime committed BY Maura and not against Maura. Per Renner, other crimes were uncovered during the course of the investigation. It was not defined by whom these crimes were committed. It could also be the reason they did not want Fred to have all the documents. No indictment handed down since the accused is a missing person.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
It is entirely possible that the Grand Jury was convened for a crime committed BY Maura and not against Maura. Per Renner, other crimes were uncovered during the course of the investigation. It was not defined by whom these crimes were committed. It could also be the reason they did not want Fred to have all the documents. No indictment handed down since the accused is a missing person.

Agree, We don't know the details and that is why it makes for an interesting discussion one way or another. I really don't get why some get all worked up about trying to talk about the case and all possibilities.Possibly JR will answer some of these questions in his book.

JWB wrote:

The Salem NH example is no different than any other NH Grand Jury. The suspect is never questioned nor present at a Grand Jury trial and that of course holds here.The prosecutor did not prosecute in this case only because the accused was dead but they considered the case solved.
Nothing different that you presented here Bill. you are smarter that that? Come on.

yes, yes, we all read that the suspect is never questioned or present during a grand jury. The point here is clearly when they refer to the investigative grand jury they are not looking to indict. They go on to specifically say that if that suspect was alive they would have used a (separate?) grand jury to indict. That is how I read it and really wasn't interested in your opinion, that is why I addressed it Amy. I would like people with real legal expertise to weigh in like Amy and Sam. I'll now wait for people with actual legal experience to weigh in before making a final determination. To me it appears they are clearly making a distinction between the operations of the two grand jury types. I'll now let you prattle on while I wait for answers from people who might know what they are reading and talking about.

Bill

If Maura was being investigated for a felony ( GJ) then that would really be interesting and could hold more clues as to why she took off with out telling anyone except her professors ( Lie ).

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Agree, We don't know the details and that is why it makes for an interesting discussion one way or another. I really don't get why some get all worked up about trying to talk about the case and all possibilities.Possibly JR will answer some of these questions in his book.

Well I know nothing about the legal system really and I don't even know if the documents related to a crime committed by MM would even be included in the case files of her disappearance. Almost seems like it would be 2 different cases and the integrity of each would need to be maintained. It was just a thought that crossed my mind, and not for the first time. I do know that whenever someone mentions "crime" in MM's case, most jump to crimes against her but could easily be crimes she may have been involved in outside her disappearance.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
yes, yes, we all read that the suspect is never questioned or present during a grand jury. The point here is clearly when they refer to the investigative grand jury they are not looking to indict. They go on to specifically say that if that suspect was alive they would have used a (separate?) grand jury to indict. That is how I read it and really wasn't interested in your opinion, that is why I addressed it Amy. I would like people with real legal expertise to weigh in like Amy and Sam. I'll now wait for people with actual legal experience to weigh in before making a final determination. To me it appears they are clearly making a distinction between the operations of the two grand jury types. I'll now let you prattle on while I wait for answers from people who might know what they are reading and talking about.
Bill

Follow Up question to that.

Can random grand jury testimony or subpeonas be entered into this file, even if it didn't have anything to really do with the case?

Another way to ask it: Can grand jury subpeonas unrelated to MM be entered into her file?

Can a grand jury investigating a serial killer in CA that happens to ask " do you know MM" can they be considered Grand Jury subpeonas?

If you people are in denial, let me remind you conspiracy is a crime all day. I see no one has left this prison on topix. All the better to serve you the summons. AKA WANTED: Y'ALL.

Real prison needs you.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>Follow Up question to that.

Can random grand jury testimony or subpeonas be entered into this file, even if it didn't have anything to really do with the case?

Another way to ask it: Can grand jury subpeonas unrelated to MM be entered into her file?

Can a grand jury investigating a serial killer in CA that happens to ask " do you know MM" can they be considered Grand Jury subpeonas?

I think they are referencing grand jury subpoenas specifically for this case. The court transcripts reference the grand jury subpoenas a few times:

"all the ones that have been withheld are Grand Jury subpoenas" (page 7)
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7_atAFvowRhZ...

Then later the state explains why they don't want the subpoenas released:

"And you indicate that you're also concerned that revealing the withheld information in this case, to the extent that it concerns warrants or subpoenas, could indicate the focus of your investigation. Is that a concern?

Yes.

In this case in particular?

Yes."

source: page 16
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7_atAFvowRhZ...

Hopefully this post goes through. My last post with links addressing Bill's question didn't show up so I emailed it to him.

Great post AMY

Warrents and supoenas interesting!

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
It is entirely possible that the Grand Jury was convened for a crime committed BY Maura and not against Maura. Per Renner, other crimes were uncovered during the course of the investigation. It was not defined by whom these crimes were committed. It could also be the reason they did not want Fred to have all the documents. No indictment handed down since the accused is a missing person.

excellent point made; in any event, the details have not been made public, and further speculation does not lead to any valid conclusions.

Amy in a nutshell can you share your email that you sent to WTH? Interested in your take on his Salem NH example.

WTH

I am interested if you have changed your mind now that you have read Amys' response (email and post) to at least now consider it possibly was a regular ole grand jury with a person of interest in Mauras case.

Amy made a strong case that suggests it.

JWB wrote:

Amy in a nutshell can you share your email that you sent to WTH? Interested in your take on his Salem NH example.

Here's the part without the links:

Here's what I don't understand. FrmLE's posts say there is no suspect or even POI that he knows of. He has also said he thinks Maura is in the woods, which I assume would exclude there being any evidence of foul play in the case. No crime means no witnesses to the crime. So what is the investigative grand jury investigating? As much as some of the other stuff FrmLE said sounded right, this just doesn't add up to me. Especially since the court papers reference persons of interest - so there obviously were some at the time of the court hearings. The grand jury subpoenas were referenced in a list of the documents denied to Fred, which means the grand jury happened before the court hearings. Unless a legit lawyer from NH tells me otherwise, my best guess is that a grand jury was used in the traditional manner but there was not enough probable cause to indict anyone.

Thank you Amy. Great job creating your point with facts from the court papers.

Good discussion on grand jury. Posters can dig up facts and engange in civil and fruitful (coming to a fact based conclusion) conversation if they want to.

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's the part without the links:
Here's what I don't understand. FrmLE's posts say there is no suspect or even POI that he knows of. He has also said he thinks Maura is in the woods, which I assume would exclude there being any evidence of foul play in the case. No crime means no witnesses to the crime. So what is the investigative grand jury investigating? As much as some of the other stuff FrmLE said sounded right, this just doesn't add up to me. Especially since the court papers reference persons of interest - so there obviously were some at the time of the court hearings. The grand jury subpoenas were referenced in a list of the documents denied to Fred, which means the grand jury happened before the court hearings. Unless a legit lawyer from NH tells me otherwise, my best guess is that a grand jury was used in the traditional manner but there was not enough probable cause to indict anyone.

To incorporate what I got out of what WTH stated, is it possible to use a Grand Jury to evoke testimony from a reluctant witness? Answering questions of LE showing up at your door, it would be somewhat simple to be less forthcoming if you choose. But giving evidence before a Grand Jury, under oath, may impel someone to give a more truthful or more complete witness account.

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>To incorporate what I got out of what WTH stated, is it possible to use a Grand Jury to evoke testimony from a reluctant witness? Answering questions of LE showing up at your door, it would be somewhat simple to be less forthcoming if you choose. But giving evidence before a Grand Jury, under oath, may impel someone to give a more truthful or more complete witness account.

Yes. What I have been wondering is, would this ever be done in a case with no evidence that a crime has been committed? If there is no evidence that a crime was committed against Maura, and no one witnessed a crime, then what is the investigative grand jury investigating? Or what are they trying to compel witnesses to say? If topix will let this post go through with the link, see this quote from an article below. Note that this case is not from NH, but it's an example of times when what you are talking about is done in cases where there is obviously a crime. I am trying to find an example of an investigative grand jury being used in a case where there is supposedly no evidence of a crime, which is what I interpret FrmLE to be talking about, but I haven't been able to find anything like that.

“The grand jury is a critically important tool to ferret out the truth,” said District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman.
The grand jury is able to subpoena witnesses and compel them to testify, she said. Also, because the grand jury proceedings are secret, the identity of potential witnesses can be better protected, Ferman added.
In addition, a change in the law last year allows investigating grand juries to become indicting grand juries, with their presentments allowed to be used as the probable cause in criminal complaints and, in some instances, to be used to bypass preliminary hearings.
“This is particularly important when we want to protect the identity of a witness who may face retaliation,” said Ferman.
Often, said Ferman, local police and county detectives will conduct the bulk of an investigation, using the grand jury only to get testimony or records from a reluctant witness.
The current grand jury has conducted 104 investigations during its life span, according to Gradel.
These investigations include homicides, arsons, drug operations and political corruption Gradel said."
http://www.phillyburbs.com/00redesign/news/cr...

amy researches wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's the part without the links:
Here's what I don't understand. FrmLE's posts say there is no suspect or even POI that he knows of. He has also said he thinks Maura is in the woods, which I assume would exclude there being any evidence of foul play in the case. No crime means no witnesses to the crime. So what is the investigative grand jury investigating? As much as some of the other stuff FrmLE said sounded right, this just doesn't add up to me. Especially since the court papers reference persons of interest - so there obviously were some at the time of the court hearings. The grand jury subpoenas were referenced in a list of the documents denied to Fred, which means the grand jury happened before the court hearings. Unless a legit lawyer from NH tells me otherwise, my best guess is that a grand jury was used in the traditional manner but there was not enough probable cause to indict anyone.

I don't want to speak for FrmLE. I haven't read everything yet so I can't speak to everything you posted but what I have read is interesting. The other thing that I thought that FrmLE pointed out was that the investigative grand jury wasn't used often.

http://doj.nh.gov/media-center/press-releases...

My only point was that the document I referenced appeared to me to make a distinction between the two grand jury types. Maybe I am the only one that reads it that way. I will try to read those documents posted by Amy tonight.

Another question Amy. I thought that a grand jury can compel someone to testify. Can someone still plead the 5th and is that the only way to escape testifying? Of course bearing in mind that the "subject" of the inquiry isn't called to testify.

Bill

JWB wrote:

WTH
I am interested if you have changed your mind now that you have read Amys' response (email and post) to at least now consider it possibly was a regular ole grand jury with a person of interest in Mauras case.
Amy made a strong case that suggests it.

I would think logically if someone was suing over a the FOI ACT, and there was an actual criminal grand jury that had gathered it would be a simple close the books to the request. The fact that FM was given a hearing and an appeal goes to show me that the grand jury subpoenas mentioned didn't give the justices the firepower to shut the request down immediately.

I also find it very interesting that the family who pushes so hard for the FBI involvement would make no reference to this "grand jury" Why are the conspiracy theorists making a bigger deal about the grand jury than the actual ones involved?