Maura Murray

Wowzer the real one wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you know for a fact that the tape/hair story was real and that LE found it? Think carefully because I might just know the answer.

Published on February 7, 2010, Article 54 of 728 found.
Murray case 'very much active'
Publication: New Hampshire Sunday News (Manchester, NH)
Page Number: 08
By NANCY WEST
New Hampshire Sunday News
Tests are being performed on possible new evidence in the mysterious disappearance six years ago of University of Massachusetts nursing student Maura Murray in Haverhill, according to Lt. James White, head of the New Hampshire State Police Major Crime Unit.
Tuesday will mark the sixth anniversary of the day Murray vanished in the North Country after crashing her car on remote and winding Route 112 during a snowstorm shortly before 7:30
Click for Full Story (486 words),$2.50

Advocate wrote:

Could the grand jury have been called regarding the credit card fraud by Maura but determined not to indict her? If so, presumably that would have been in the fall of 2003. Or, possibly she had done it again and a grand jury was called early in Feb 2004 to look into indicting her? If she knew about it, that would be reason to get away for a few days (to think) or to run.

i'd wager on RUN from and/or RUN to someone or something.

i've never bought into the 'getting away for a few days' which would have been an immense luxury given her financial resources, and disruptive to her academic life.

supplemental income from her part-time job(s) should have been sufficient to meet her needs / expenses while living on campus. so why the cc theft? how many times did it occur? over how many years? was it concurrent with a mental health and/or physical diagnosis?

if there was an established pattern of theft and, indeed, legal consequences were looming....run.
actual or peripheral involvement with the Vasi hit....run
relationship issues...run away from or to someone.
run, run, run...

Snowy wrote:

<quoted text>
i'd wager on RUN from and/or RUN to someone or something.
i've never bought into the 'getting away for a few days' which would have been an immense luxury given her financial resources, and disruptive to her academic life.
supplemental income from her part-time job(s) should have been sufficient to meet her needs / expenses while living on campus. so why the cc theft? how many times did it occur? over how many years? was it concurrent with a mental health and/or physical diagnosis?
if there was an established pattern of theft and, indeed, legal consequences were looming....run.
actual or peripheral involvement with the Vasi hit....run
relationship issues...run away from or to someone.
run, run, run...

I agree
They're to many outside negative variables going on in her life to say that she was looking to get away for a little while. They're too many outside variables to say that she was in a car accident and than was abducted. That would be way to coincidental.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree
They're to many outside negative variables going on in her life to say that she was looking to get away for a little while. They're too many outside variables to say that she was in a car accident and than was abducted. That would be way to coincidental.

I have to agree to a point on this also.
IMO she didn't need to risk credit card fraud to fund an occaisional midnight pizza.
No way.
She had so many other opportunities to secure some cash, especially in a hospital setting.
Beagle claims they "were all over the Carolla" They know Fred's prints, Maura's prints were there already in the Corolla, so were they looking for another set of prints maybe to match a set of prints found in the Saturn?

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to agree to a point on this also.
IMO she didn't need to risk credit card fraud to fund an occaisional midnight pizza.
No way.
She had so many other opportunities to secure some cash, especially in a hospital setting.
Beagle claims they "were all over the Carolla" They know Fred's prints, Maura's prints were there already in the Corolla, so were they looking for another set of prints maybe to match a set of prints found in the Saturn?

I would love to know you they tried to indict in this case. I guess this case isn't a big mystery to le if they were trying to indict someone

Made it back from Indy just fine. A little tired and frustrated but I will get over it.

Back to My Armchair Sleuthing, very comfortable though and warmer. Just wish there was a rest. around here that delivers.

John

Simply Caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
I can't back it up with a citation, can't recall where I read it, but I *think* it was Renner's blog that stated either in the blog or the comments, something along the lines of, she was obtaining the numbers from the trash room.
I had initially believed that without hesitation, because it seems easily done, and I know that the processing credit cards didn't require sec. codes back then. You did doubt it from the beginning.
Now, however, thinking about it in re: to a GJ investigation -- you could be right on the ball. She may have stated that she obtained the numbers from the trash room, to avoid angering the person who REALLY was her source for the numbers. Seems far-fetched (ooooohh, let's bring the Occam's Razor conversation, that was wince-worthy)-- but it's possible.
I wonder what other possible crimes she could have been a part of (however tangentially). I wonder if any of those could have played a part in this.

Caustic ~ believe nothing "without hesitation" or citation. the problem is that so many excuses have been suggested or made to explain MM's presumed choices such that those repeated rumors have become accepted as fact.
again, this is why i believe JR's attention to research will be the most reliable account made to the public, outside of the official LE investigation.

What James Renner posted about the LE investigation, was this made known to FM at the time of his lawsuit? If so whay would he be giving them a problem if they gathered all this information? I know they didn't give him the facts of the case, but didn't they give him the same information told to JR?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I wonder if FrmLE is around? He told me about something in NH called an investigative grand jury. I was wondering if it was an investigative grand jury? He might be able to speak to that.
Bill

I don't have time to go into every detail about how the system works, it's so complex. However a Grand Jury can be convened for investigative purposes, even when there is no suspect and no pending indictment. It's just another way to fish for information.

http://www.wmur.com/news/30309231/detail.html

WEST STEWARTSTOWN, N.H.-- A grand jury has heard testimony related to the case of a West Stewartstown girl whose body was pulled from a river a week after she disappeared from her home over the summer.

It has been six months since 11-year-old Celina Cass disappeared from her home. No suspects have been named and no arrests made.
Grand juries are secret proceedings, described by prosecutors as tools that can be used when witnesses are uncooperative with police.

Associate Attorney General Jane Young said she could not confirm whether a grand jury met last week, but she said the investigation is as active now as it was the day Celina disappeared.

Young said police continue to investigate the case seven days a week, and she said she had spoken with investigators two or three times about the case just on Wednesday.

Former Senior Assistant Attorney General Kirsten Wilson couldn't speak to the specifics of this case, but she told News 9 how grand juries work.

"Usually, if investigators are to the point that they are putting the time, effort and expense into convening a grand jury, they've come pretty far making some determination in where they think the case is going," Wilson said.

Wilson said that in an investigative grand jury, a witness is brought in and delivers sworn testimony recorded by a stenographer.

Eunice Richards is the mother of Wendell Noyes, Celina's stepfather. Richards confirmed that she was called to testify before an investigative grand jury in Lancaster last week. She said the focus of the questions seemed to be on Noyes.

She said Noye's half-sister was also called to testify, along with his half-brother and his half-brother's wife. Richards said they were all kept in separate rooms during the proceedings, and she was questioned for three and a half hours.

Obviously the article above is not about Maura, lol, but it does explain in laymans terms what an Investigative Grand Jury is and how it works.

I have presented before dozens maybe a hundred Grand Juries, for both Indictment and Investigative purposes. Every case is different, sometimes you want to get a witness on record in front of a GJ, sometimes a witness is less than cooperative and you need to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation, sometimes you just want to establish facts for an indictment.

It is not necessary to have a suspect or even POI to present before an Investigatve GJ.

I also have never heard of a one person Grand Jury? Totally obscure, that doesn't happen that I am aware of. Usually you have at least 12 people, most times you try for 23 people in a GJ.

Its best to remember that every state is a little different and does things differently. Focus on what NH does for this case.

FrmLE wrote:

Obviously the article above is not about Maura, lol, but it does explain in laymans terms what an Investigative Grand Jury is and how it works.
I have presented before dozens maybe a hundred Grand Juries, for both Indictment and Investigative purposes. Every case is different, sometimes you want to get a witness on record in front of a GJ, sometimes a witness is less than cooperative and you need to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation, sometimes you just want to establish facts for an indictment.
It is not necessary to have a suspect or even POI to present before an Investigatve GJ.
I also have never heard of a one person Grand Jury? Totally obscure, that doesn't happen that I am aware of. Usually you have at least 12 people, most times you try for 23 people in a GJ.
Its best to remember that every state is a little different and does things differently. Focus on what NH does for this case.

Thanks. And just so we don't get people telling you it doesn't work that way. You are talking about, and only about NH? Is that correct? Or do you have experience with other states?

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks. And just so we don't get people telling you it doesn't work that way. You are talking about, and only about NH? Is that correct? Or do you have experience with other states?
Bill

A grand jury needs a jury. You can't be called in for jury duty just for fact finding on a case. The Grand Jury has to be pointed at a suspect. Every crime unsolved would use a grand jury if that was the case. Does anyone know anyone who served on a Grand Jury who was just helping the police investigate a case?
This is from New Hampshire's Judicial Branch speaking of what is required of a jurror for jurror duty:

"What is a "grand jury?

A grand jury hears evidence presented by the county attorney in criminal cases and decides whether or not there is enough evidence to formally charge a person with a crime. They do not decide guilt or innocence. "
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/jury/general_ju...

I only have experience in NH and the Federal System. The Feds are quirky and most of the court sork is done by Attorney Generals Office Prosecutors. I have no real experience in other states outside the Federal System.

As far as people telling it doesn't work that way, I'm not sure how to respond really. Believe me or not, all you have to do is ask anyone who does this for a living and you will get the same answer.

Unless the entire criminal justice system has changed in the last 2 years, I can say for a fact this is how it works.

I will keep my personal opinions out of the mix for this dicsussion as it seems whenever I offer my insight to this case and what I know to be fact, people get all worked up. I'll spare you that today.

Hope this helps.

FrmLE wrote:

I only have experience in NH and the Federal System. The Feds are quirky and most of the court sork is done by Attorney Generals Office Prosecutors. I have no real experience in other states outside the Federal System.
As far as people telling it doesn't work that way, I'm not sure how to respond really. Believe me or not, all you have to do is ask anyone who does this for a living and you will get the same answer.
Unless the entire criminal justice system has changed in the last 2 years, I can say for a fact this is how it works.
I will keep my personal opinions out of the mix for this dicsussion as it seems whenever I offer my insight to this case and what I know to be fact, people get all worked up. I'll spare you that today.
Hope this helps.

facts are welcomed. insight is enriching. there are no shortages of opinions.

FrmLE wrote:

Obviously the article above is not about Maura, lol, but it does explain in laymans terms what an Investigative Grand Jury is and how it works.
I have presented before dozens maybe a hundred Grand Juries, for both Indictment and Investigative purposes. Every case is different, sometimes you want to get a witness on record in front of a GJ, sometimes a witness is less than cooperative and you need to demonstrate the seriousness of the situation, sometimes you just want to establish facts for an indictment.
It is not necessary to have a suspect or even POI to present before an Investigatve GJ.
I also have never heard of a one person Grand Jury? Totally obscure, that doesn't happen that I am aware of. Usually you have at least 12 people, most times you try for 23 people in a GJ.
Its best to remember that every state is a little different and does things differently. Focus on what NH does for this case.

Thanks,FrmLE.

Essentially, grand juries perform two functions. They decided whether someone should be charged--"indicted"- -for committing a crime. They also investigated criminal activity and the conduct of public affairs. The goal of the Grand Jury is always to either render a bill or no true bill of indictment. As the link you provided clearly stated, they had a focus of the Grand Jury....but the main focus appeared, IMO, to be a form of fishing expedition trying to obtain more evidence (witness statements on the record, etc.) for their case. So I agree with you, in part.
I don't think you have specified what form of LE you were (trust me, I don't blame you! I'm just stating that I don't know the specifics) but I do believe you are precisely who you claim to be. I trust your informed opinion, but I would like to state that as a professional member of law enforcement, you are not an attorney, although you have been a witness at certain grand juries, you cannot speak as to the specifics thereof because that's not your field of expertise. I don't mean this to come across as bitchy, because I do appreciate your input and your experience.
I have not been an A.S.A. for a long period of time, I've only recently finished my schooling.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks. And just so we don't get people telling you it doesn't work that way. You are talking about, and only about NH? Is that correct? Or do you have experience with other states?
Bill

Bill:
I sincerely hope you are not referencing me, with your above post. I only ask this because of your posts yesterday to Beagle, regarding the one-man jury....I don't want to seem as if I am telling people things don't work certain ways.

Since you seem to value FrmLE's opinion, he concurred with the one-man jury being unheard of. I disagree with his opining that GJ's don't need a focus (POI, or a crime) because they do, by definition, but that's my opinion.

I also value FrmLE's opinion and input - but I also recognize that he is an experienced member of a branch of LE, not an attorney.

If I'm coming across bitchy or annoying in any fashion, I do apologize. Not my intent.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
A grand jury needs a jury. You can't be called in for jury duty just for fact finding on a case. The Grand Jury has to be pointed at a suspect. Every crime unsolved would use a grand jury if that was the case. Does anyone know anyone who served on a Grand Jury who was just helping the police investigate a case?
This is from New Hampshire's Judicial Branch speaking of what is required of a jurror for jurror duty:
"What is a "grand jury?
A grand jury hears evidence presented by the county attorney in criminal cases and decides whether or not there is enough evidence to formally charge a person with a crime. They do not decide guilt or innocence. "
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/jury/general_ju...

Mmmmmm, yes and no. In regards to the GJ, yes, the purpose is a true bill of indictment. However, there are times when the GJ is convened with the purposes of cementing witness statements, so that if the witness then changes their testimony at the petit jury trial - well, then their grand jury testimony can be used to impeach that witness at trial. In those instances, it's more of a fishing expedition, but there is still a crime they are attempting to decipher. It's akin to trying to get confirmation from that GJ that a crime was in fact committed: It's been my experience that these GJ's have a POI in the background, although they are not necessarily called to testify at the GJ....it can merely be a matter of cementing the known facts about the case and the attempt to get more information....en route to charging that individual.

My two cents and all that.

Simply Caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
Mmmmmm, yes and no. In regards to the GJ, yes, the purpose is a true bill of indictment. However, there are times when the GJ is convened with the purposes of cementing witness statements, so that if the witness then changes their testimony at the petit jury trial - well, then their grand jury testimony can be used to impeach that witness at trial. In those instances, it's more of a fishing expedition, but there is still a crime they are attempting to decipher. It's akin to trying to get confirmation from that GJ that a crime was in fact committed: It's been my experience that these GJ's have a POI in the background, although they are not necessarily called to testify at the GJ....it can merely be a matter of cementing the known facts about the case and the attempt to get more information....en route to charging that individual.
My two cents and all that.

Grand Juries can be investigative, but a POI or company has to be named to point there investigation. Eventually at some point the grand jury has to give an answer about something being indictable. If it is just investigative then they're still 12-23 grand jury's acting as investigators to the Maura Murray case because there would be no POI for them to give a yes or no answer. I highly doubt that.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
A grand jury needs a jury. You can't be called in for jury duty just for fact finding on a case. The Grand Jury has to be pointed at a suspect.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. You can google copy/paste all you want, it doesn't make it true.

But hey, don't let being wrong stop you from posting incorrect stuff, this is Topix after all.

Simply Caustic wrote:

<quoted text>
I trust your informed opinion, but I would like to state that as a professional member of law enforcement, you are not an attorney, although you have been a witness at certain grand juries, you cannot speak as to the specifics thereof because that's not your field of expertise. I don't mean this to come across as bitchy, because I do appreciate your input and your experience.

No offense taken. However you should know that New Hampshire is unique in that although I am not an attorney I did in fact act as a prosecutor for the State. NH allows sworn police officers to prosecute cases up to District Court level and conduct all motions, hearings, pre trial hearings, as well as conduct all activities at Trial. I have done this thousands of times, many thousands of times.

Also understand that as a Criminal Investigator, I was often the person who conducted the questioning of witnesses at Investigative Grand Jury sessions. I also personally presented all evidence to Grand Jury members for indictment, in NH either the County Attorney or the Police Officer can seek a Grand Jury Indictment. I have done this hundreds of times.

So you are correct, I am not nor do I ever wish to be an attorney, however I would say I know more about the process than most 'attorneys' you will ever meet, anyone short of a County Attorney or Police Prosecutor.

NH is very unique in this way, Police perform many functions in the Prosecutorial realm.

FYI