Maura Murray

Judged:

2

1

aftermath wrote:

Tom wrote:
"I'm not trying to insult you, but you are throwing away a key fact that Maura was drinking and she did have a problem drinking. You are throwing that fact away and creating a NH "Hero" that scoops up stray drivers. It is more likely that Maura crashed her car drinking and took off/fled to avoid police. The focus on alcohol is deserved because we know she drank it before her first accident and she purchased some before she went away."
Tom,
If you look around here in America Land many use and abuse alcohol. It's a global thing. It is the preferred social lubricant of many. It affects judgment in a negative way and it is basically a liquid depressant. Many use it on a long-term basis and many even use a significant amount of it to bolster that oft' times needed(?) courage during the final last hour or so in order to suicide. Many who drink do NOT commit suicide but often end up dead via motor vehicle and other types of accidents. Still, many "accidents" are often suicides. The interesting aspect of MM's accident in MA prior to driving to NH involved an officer arriving at the scene. Evidentally, he did not believe she had been drinking or was intoxicated because no breathalyzer was administered. He believed her to be inattentive.... No one assessed her blood alcohol level that evening. In fact, based on my understanding her mind appeared to be focused on something else in those early morning hours prior to her leaving the party. No one assessed whether or not she had been drinking the night of the accident in NH, nor did she refuse a breathalyzer. She was not on scene when the officer arrived. Having spilled alcohol in or around one's vehicle does not determine BAC. Therefore, it is impossible to have determined if she had been "under the influence" or intoxicated. Also, we do not know if she was clincially depressed. She would have needed to be assessed by a licensed, clinician to make that assessment/to arrive at that diagnosis. Everything else, including gossip and rumor is nothing but hogwash. Period.

WTH-the-original wrote:

From Renners site:
- Fred Murray's cell phone records
- phone records of family members and friends
- personnel records
- military records
- Grand Jury subpoenas
- search warrants
- credit card info
- criminal record checks
- witness interviews (including 19 written statements and 3 transcribed interviews)
- 2-page statement of Fred Murray
- lab reports
- unknown photographs
- copies of Websleuths forum conversations
- one-party intercept memoranda (possible wire taps)
And, most interestingly, 4 polygraph examinations."

Judged:

2

2

1

hannah_b wrote:

Re REnner´s latest blogpost: Grand Jury? Was there a Grand Jury? Wouldn´t that indicate there are suspect/s in the case?

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
Your making it seem like it is the El Paso, TX and Mexico border. What could be lost trying is a lot of wasted FBI resources.

Judged:

1

1

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, first thing that caught my eye, too. It would also explain the silence. Not sure about NH, but in MA a grand jury can consist of a single judge. Doesn't have to be a bunch of regular citizens. Grand jury proceedings are, of course, secret.
However, a grand jury doesn't mean the police have actual suspects. It's often used to make a case more secure for a potential trial and to keep people from talking. In many cases, there may not be a suspect, but the use of the grand jury alone can smoke someone out. Providing testimony before a grand jury is not always like testifying at a regular trial.
It would be interesting to know in how many other cold cases a grand jury was convened. That alone might say something.

Judged:

1

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
Aftermath: Do you still think the FBI is needed here. Please note they did a lot of investagating into Maura's past as well.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps the FBI would be better off starting in MA first? I think we should get the whole story on the girl and her family that may tell us more about her disapearance.

Judged:

1

1

1

mcsmom wrote:

Originally Posted by Unscripted
I have to agree "Mr. Noatak", when all else fails we have to go back to the facts. The tracking dog (a bloodhound) followed MM's scent 100 yards down the road on Wednesday, February 11, 2004. The next day a Belgian Malinois was unable to track any scent of MM in the bush near the crash location at WB corner or leading away from that site. Tracking dogs can follow a scent even when the missing subject was inside a moving vehicle.
So that would lead one to conclude that MM got into a vehicle either because she was being picked up pursuant to a pre-arranged plan, she accepted a ride from an unknown passerby or she was unwillingly abducted from the accident site. JMO.

Judged:

1

1

1

aftermath wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy,
You appear to be not only fixated, but actually perseverating on that word: emotion. I'm serious about you speaking with your primary care physician to determine if you might benefit from a referral. Also, it is my understanding that the Cold Case unit launched its investigation long ago. Maybe its time to update your notes and take a deep breath?

Judged:

1

aftermath wrote:

Tom wrote:
<quoted text>
You never know what if he finds out Maura was pregnant and someone points to the father of the child. It might get us moving in the right direction. Or at least we will have enough into to create a logical account of what happened.
Tom,
Given the fact MM was involved in track, possibly she had a foot problem? Possibly if we could find her podiatrist, if she had even been seen by one, he could point everyone in the right direction? Sound ridiculous? This is because it and similar mud-raking ventures ARE ridiculous.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
Tom, you were the one that thought the FBI should investigate not aftermath (Busted)
Tom posts from cell phone
aftermath from computer = Different ip adress
entertaining however
<quoted text>

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not sure if you can abuse the powers of a grand jury. It does have to be focussed on bringing a case to trial.

aftermath wrote:

Tom wrote:
"I'm not trying to insult you, but you are throwing away a key fact that Maura was drinking and she did have a problem drinking. You are throwing that fact away and creating a NH "Hero" that scoops up stray drivers. It is more likely that Maura crashed her car drinking and took off/fled to avoid police. The focus on alcohol is deserved because we know she drank it before her first accident and she purchased some before she went away."
Tom,
If you look around here in America Land many use and abuse alcohol. It's a global thing. It is the preferred social lubricant of many. It affects judgment in a negative way and it is basically a liquid depressant. Many use it on a long-term basis and many even use a significant amount of it to bolster that oft' times needed(?) courage during the final last hour or so in order to suicide. Many who drink do NOT commit suicide but often end up dead via motor vehicle and other types of accidents. Still, many "accidents" are often suicides. The interesting aspect of MM's accident in MA prior to driving to NH involved an officer arriving at the scene. Evidentally, he did not believe she had been drinking or was intoxicated because no breathalyzer was administered. He believed her to be inattentive.... No one assessed her blood alcohol level that evening. In fact, based on my understanding her mind appeared to be focused on something else in those early morning hours prior to her leaving the party. No one assessed whether or not she had been drinking the night of the accident in NH, nor did she refuse a breathalyzer. She was not on scene when the officer arrived. Having spilled alcohol in or around one's vehicle does not determine BAC. Therefore, it is impossible to have determined if she had been "under the influence" or intoxicated. Also, we do not know if she was clincially depressed. She would have needed to be assessed by a licensed, clinician to make that assessment/to arrive at that diagnosis. Everything else, including gossip and rumor is nothing but hogwash. Period.

Beagle wrote:

I'm not sure, however, whether NH can compel anyone from out-of-state to testify before a grand jury. There was a case a few years ago regarding the improper use of a trash transfer facility in NH on or near the MA border. Residents of a MA town - Warwick, IIRC - were pressured into testifying by police, but the judge gave police holy heck.
I am pretty sure that if you're not in NH, you don't have to testify unless you make the mistake of setting foot inside the state. Of course, if you won the NH sweepstakes, you might take that risk.