Maura Murray

Simply caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
Whoa, Beagle, you lost me here. I don't profess to know Massachusetts law backwards and forwards, but I know that the Grand Jury is NOT in front of a judge. It's 23 jurors. They do, in fact, need to have a suspect - who else would be the focus of the Grand Jury? The sole purpose of a Grand Jury is to determine whether or not to issue a criminal indictment, they utilize the probable cause standard....if they indict, Their decision is a true bill. If no indictment, no true bill. That's it,

Obviously, as Worcester County DA Conte said, there was no suspect in the Molly Bish case, but the grand jury sat for years. Never any result.

Not sure when Scooter Libby was notified that he was a target of investigation in the Valerie Plame case, but he was only indicted for lying under oath, not for any offence the grand jury was originally convened to investigate. In fact, Libby was the only person indicted.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry, but a grand jury can consist of only one juror, a judge. Not rare.

Many years ago someone use to pop in these forums about Maura from Canada complaining that they should have convened a grand jury about this case. FrmLE told me that even back in 2004 they had something called an investigative grand jury available then and apparently they used them.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Saw it before. Personally thought that there were a whole lot of words that said pretty much nothing. And nobody did ask. And God had no hand in it, shit happens because it does and sometimes it is senseless.
http://joshuatj.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/0...
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-...
http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/10/...
Bill

the poster is the most important message....it should have been featured, minus the editorializing. JMO.

WTF/Bill ~ i'm referencing the North Country News opinion piece.
your links send a good message, as well.

looking4amoose wrote:

http://content.yudu.com/Librar y/A1vhuy/NCN20312/resources/in dex.htm?referrerUrl=

thanx, much, for the link. always easier than a search......

Snowy wrote:

WTF/Bill ~ i'm referencing the North Country News opinion piece.
your links send a good message, as well.

So am I. I read that piece 2 days ago. That was what I wrote about. The posters were just an addition.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
So am I. I read that piece 2 days ago. That was what I wrote about. The posters were just an addition.
Bill

yep, i know. i was unclear.

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Nowataks logic makes sense. With fairly good certainty LE found some sort of MM evidence stemming from the CW sighting at approx 8:15pm, supported by LE continued interest in the Matthew finding at 7.8 miles.

With negative dna test results (as in NOT related to Maura) there shouldn´t be any continued LE interest in "Mathew´s" finding.

hannah_b wrote:

<quoted text>
With negative dna test results (as in NOT related to Maura) there shouldn´t be any continued LE interest in "Mathew´s" finding.

No, not the Matthew results, the findings and results from CW sighting, the May 8.2004 search, June 8,2004 press release.

It's the premise that they had continued interest in that area, as they demonstrated by their interest in the Matthew finding.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
Obviously, as Worcester County DA Conte said, there was no suspect in the Molly Bish case, but the grand jury sat for years. Never any result.
Not sure when Scooter Libby was notified that he was a target of investigation in the Valerie Plame case, but he was only indicted for lying under oath, not for any offence the grand jury was originally convened to investigate. In fact, Libby was the only person indicted.

Beagle, this is incorrect. A grand jury is SOLELY convened for the purpose of returning an indictment.
And, the Molly Bish grand jury WAS attempting to return an indictment against a POI.....that's the only thing grand juries DO. I'm sorry to be snippy, but this is what I do for a living.
Here's a link by the Associated Press re: Molly Bish grand jury. I hate to go off-topic but what you stated was inaccurate.
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/local/story.aspx...
Worcester District Attorney John Conte has dismissed a special grand jury that heard evidence in the case for nearly two-and-a-half years. No indictments were returned. The DA says the grand jurors wanted to stay on because they felt they were close to solving the case. But Conte says he dismissed the panel because he had no further evidence to present them. Molly disappeared from her post at Comins Pond in Warren in June 2000. Her remains were found about three years later by a hunter in the woods of Palmer. Conte says investigators are "so close, and yet so far." He says advances in DNA technology could yield new clues. Conte is retiring next month after 30 years as DA. He'll be succeeded by Joseph Early, Junior. John Bish says the family is disappointed that the grand jury was not able to return indictments, but also grateful for all the work the panel did. He remains hopeful that the case will eventually be solved. Magi Bish says her daughter's absence is particularly tough around the holidays.

She's either a skeleton in the mountains (and may never be recovered) or a grown woman who, for whatever reason (and quite within her rights) did a bunk.

Just why do any of you think it's your business? And Snowybeaglecolumbo? Why don't you get out more? Read a book? Take a course? Do a parachute jump for charity? Or, at least, get the whole delusions of grandeur while vicariously living your life through other people's pain thing sorted. Your level of proprietorial rage over a load of people you've never met is disturbing.

Fascinating, but disturbing.

Weirdo.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry, but a grand jury can consist of only one juror, a judge. Not rare.

I hate to argue such a minor point, but....no. It cannot. I can cite you any legal reference you'd like, but I already posted one explaining precisely how a grand jury IS made up.

And I hate to argue semantics, but, you posted above 'a grand jury can consist of only one juror, a judge...' A judge is never a juror. Not even in a bench trial. Jurors are impartial citizens. Judges are officers of the court.

---

All this being said about the grand jury - obviously, there was an indictable offense that took place in regards to Maura's disappearance. That's why the grand jury was convened. My question is....was there a POI, but a lack of evidence? OR...was Maura the one facing an indictment? Fred, perhaps?(Just theorizing, not trying to ruffle feathers).
Had Maura disappeared of her own volition, it's feasible that there were some shady dealings going on that the D.A. attempted to bring to light - and bring her to court while he was at it.
There COULD be a POI who simply is getting away with murder due to lack of evidence, or maybe a DNA sample so miniscule they are waiting for the science to advance further (hence, the 75% chance of charges being brought). Although I think this is very unlikely.
Maybe someone assisted her in her flight, and there was potential charges looming over their head?
I have no idea, but I lean away from a POI/foul play scenario. Just my two cents.

Nellie wrote:

She's either a skeleton in the mountains (and may never be recovered) or a grown woman who, for whatever reason (and quite within her rights) did a bunk.
Just why do any of you think it's your business? And Snowybeaglecolumbo? Why don't you get out more? Read a book? Take a course? Do a parachute jump for charity? Or, at least, get the whole delusions of grandeur while vicariously living your life through other people's pain thing sorted. Your level of proprietorial rage over a load of people you've never met is disturbing.
Fascinating, but disturbing.
Weirdo.

Just coming back in from The OUT. Got a great book at the Village Bookstore. Took a quick course on The UK. Too cold for the parachute today. Not living through other people's pain, have enough of My own, My age decided that. No rage here, No blind rage here, It has nothing to do with rage.

It's Tea Time. Gotta go.!

John

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
Just coming back in from The OUT. Got a great book at the Village Bookstore. Took a quick course on The UK. Too cold for the parachute today. Not living through other people's pain, have enough of My own, My age decided that. No rage here, No blind rage here, It has nothing to do with rage.
It's Tea Time. Gotta go.!
John

i have to say.....funny.:)

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
i have to say.....funny.:)

I know You don't always or ever agree with Me... soooo Thank You.

A sense of Humor is a necessity here on this forum as well as in REAL LIFE.

Are You ready for some FooTBall..?

John

Snowy wrote?....or did snow use?
" your thoughts are decisive....but you might consider taking the opportunity to slow down and develop more precise, descriptive language. as you know, the effect of written language differs from spoken language.
speaking of someone who is insightful in his written expression....where is nhwoodshome?"

Snowy,
The above is totally incongruent with anything you could come up with on your own. Therefore, if you insist on this kind of "borrowing" you might want to consider citing sources. Otherwise you may eventually be accused of plagiarism.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Saw it before. Personally thought that there were a whole lot of words that said pretty much nothing. And nobody did ask. And God had no hand in it, shit happens because it does and sometimes it is senseless.
http://joshuatj.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/0...
http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-...
http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/10/...
Bill

WTH I personally thought that there were a whole lot of words that said alot. You have a person from NH putting there heart out there with compassion on behalf of Maura. It shows that the community is kind and caring.

Det Columbo wrote:

<quoted text>
I know You don't always or ever agree with Me... soooo Thank You.
A sense of Humor is a necessity here on this forum as well as in REAL LIFE.
Are You ready for some FooTBall..?
John

how about never, right?! we didn't clash; that was a different issue, entirely.
GO PATS!!

aftermath wrote:

Snowy wrote?....or did snow use?
" your thoughts are decisive....but you might consider taking the opportunity to slow down and develop more precise, descriptive language. as you know, the effect of written language differs from spoken language.
speaking of someone who is insightful in his written expression....where is nhwoodshome?"
Snowy,
The above is totally incongruent with anything you could come up with on your own. Therefore, if you insist on this kind of "borrowing" you might want to consider citing sources. Otherwise you may eventually be accused of plagiarism.

i'll take a pass on your post. i don't need to understand it.