Maura Murray

Posted in the Franconia Forum

Comments (Page 869)

Showing posts 17,361 - 17,380 of47,062
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
jwb

Portland, ME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17683
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Frostman wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know who interviewed the witness who saw a Red Truck on BHR? Do you consider this to be a valid report?
Socco Mag talks about Champy seeing the truck it might mention the investigator Pg 80-81

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17684
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

jwb wrote:
<quoted text>
It came from Helenas forum under one of her posts. It was hard to determin if it came from the caledonian 4-2004 as she was quoting it throughout . If helpful let me know and I will post a larger version of it (not at home to do so now) or possibly frosty can do it. It was under (Timelines) I believe.
may be very helpful.But how can we attribute where the statement came from?Who saw all of this?Is it a direct quote?

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17685
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

just me wrote:
<quoted text>This pretty much fits the 15 minutes time frame where they all went out looking for "the girl"
They determined it was "The girl" and started looking pretty damn quick.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17686
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Was Williams On duty?What was he driving that night?

“"CONFUSION CENTRAL"”

Since: Dec 11

Franconia NH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17687
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Frostman wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know who interviewed the witness who saw a Red Truck on BHR? Do you consider this to be a valid report?
I do not know the identity of the person who talked to that person.

I do believe it to be valid though.

John

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17688
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:
The red truck that went by RO was the same truck She saw at the store. That was the same truck that went towards the scene just as RO went into the store before LE, FD or EMS went that way.
The truck that the witness saw on BHR in the same timeframe is more than likely the same red truck that RO saw considering the Area, timeframe and the time of night.
Odds are this IS the same Red Truck in both instances.
This still does not mean this red truck had anything to do with the disappearance of Maura Murray.
My own personal belief is that the Red truck DID have something to do with that evenings events.
John
Thank you for clarifying this.
just me

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17689
Mar 27, 2012
 
amy researches wrote:
<quoted text>
Prefacing this with a very big bold JMO. What went on in supreme court was more lazy, standard response. What went on once it was remanded back to superior court got tougher. They were basically drilled to provide a good reason, because you can't just say "we don't wanna." It doesn't work that way. The standard response would be "we can't compromise the investigation" versus "I'm concerned about that, because, again, this is, to the extent this is a small community, the people know... the people, the identity of those people is fairly well known." That is very specific. People in the community does not include Mr. Murray.
Then we have this - I've added who said what so it doesn't get too confusing:
Renner: "In his affidavit, Detective Todd Landry is hesitant to speak about the criminal records checks his office conducted."
Official document: "Identification of specific individuals regarding whom records have been requested would pinpoint the focus of our investigation, thereby damaging it....I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony."
Renner: "Also sealed is information about a "one-party intercept" which could mean a wiretap or a secret audio recording of some kind. Nancy Smith categorizes it as a:"
Official document: "one-of-a-kind type of item that the Supreme Court recognized cannot be described specifically without irreparably disclosing what it consists of. SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony."
http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2012/02/polic...
I could fill up a whole page on this board with examples to back up what I'm saying. This isn't me on a witch hunt. This is me trying to find out the truth, and I think you know that. If new evidence comes out to the contrary, I'll happily change my mind. If I turn out to be wrong, I have no problem admitting it.
We can agree to disagree as well. I just honestly don't see how anyone could read these court documents and think that that these authorities are working so hard to keep these docs from being released, and going through so much to investigate to this day with the CCU, if they don't think something bad happened to her. They can't just make stuff up. They have to be able to back up what they said in these statements to the judge. That is what the "in camera affidavit or testimony" is about.
But Amy, I took some of these statements and replys to have a double meaning. There could be a person or persons of interest or it could be to protect someone who has tried to get to the bottom of a rumor, or who went to police with what someone had done once and gotten away with, so they're saying what they know and expressing that they strongly believe so and so did something horrendous that night. Came home with blood on his shoes, and threatened that person to never ask or tell what they saw. Take for example a narc. He acts as if he does drugs. He is brought into the group. He is allowed to do drugs and other crazy things as a way to gain the ppls trust. Then, like an insider in jail, or whatever you can imagine here, voila. A confession. Or in the narcs case he finds out who the king pin is and works with police for years to get a good bust. OR........not. To let these types of details loose would/might jeopardize a persons life or reputation. We don't know and they,(the police department) cannot explain this is how I see it, and no matter how tough it got it seemed evasive. Just my opinion. Not saying it's happening here. I'm just trying my hardest to express my along the side thinking.I did watch both proceedings twice and it was frustrating to say the least. It seemed almost lame. I think police are trying their hardest to find out but cannot allow this possibly leading nowhere information to come out. Whew :(
citigirl

Brockton, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17690
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Just me--paris wrote:
<quoted text>You said Maura was seen at the trunk about 20 pages back, and alluded to that she was seen there 1-2 minutes before police came. I've been going with that. Irregardless of how you learned it, that's how it came out. I'm going to bed.
No just me. You misunderstood what I said. There was activity seen at the trunk by witnesses but I never stated it was Maura. It was to dark for these witnesses to say whether or not it was male or female. The only one whom could definitly say it was a female was SBD because he stopped and talked to a female in the saturn. The Westmans did not know it was a female until CS went to there house inquiring about a female. Others have stated that she was seen there 1-2 minutes before police came. Not me.
just me

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17691
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

amy researches wrote:
<quoted text>
Prefacing this with a very big bold JMO. What went on in supreme court was more lazy, standard response. What went on once it was remanded back to superior court got tougher. They were basically drilled to provide a good reason, because you can't just say "we don't wanna." It doesn't work that way. The standard response would be "we can't compromise the investigation" versus "I'm concerned about that, because, again, this is, to the extent this is a small community, the people know... the people, the identity of those people is fairly well known." That is very specific. People in the community does not include Mr. Murray.
Then we have this - I've added who said what so it doesn't get too confusing:
Renner: "In his affidavit, Detective Todd Landry is hesitant to speak about the criminal records checks his office conducted."
Official document: "Identification of specific individuals regarding whom records have been requested would pinpoint the focus of our investigation, thereby damaging it....I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony." .
I'm so sorry, I had to take out so many of your words, to make my post fit. I tried.

But Amy, I took some of these statements and replys to have a double meaning. There could be a person or persons of interest or it could be to protect someone who has tried to get to the bottom of a rumor, or who went to police with what someone had done once and gotten away with, so they're saying what they know and expressing that they strongly believe so and so did something horrendous that night. Came home with blood on his shoes, and threatened that person to never ask or tell what they saw. Take for example a narc. He acts as if he does drugs. He is brought into the group. He is allowed to do drugs and other crazy things as a way to gain the ppls trust. Then, like an insider in jail, or whatever you can imagine here, voila. A confession. Or in the narcs case he finds out who the king pin is and works with police for years to get a good bust. OR........not. To let these types of details loose would/might jeopardize a persons life or reputation. We don't know and they,(the police department) cannot explain this is how I see it, and no matter how tough it got it seemed evasive. Just my opinion. Not saying it's happening here. I'm just trying my hardest to express my along the side thinking.I did watch both proceedings twice and it was frustrating to say the least. It seemed almost lame. I think police are trying their hardest to find out but cannot allow this possibly leading nowhere information to come out. Whew :(

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17692
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Det Columbo wrote:
<quoted text>I do not know the identity of the person who talked to that person.I do believe it to be valid though.John
I truly respect your professional insight and your unrelenting commitment to this "disappearance".

I just can't shake the feeling that Red Truck grabbed Maura and turned around at BHR (hence the SAR dog losing the scent) and headed westward (back towards Woodsville) and that someone saw a suspicious vehicle (apart from RO) headed in that direction. Perhaps that's why they searched to the West and why the BOL went out to Haverhill, Lisbon and Littleton (and not Lincoln nor North Woodstock).

Unless they assumed that "the girl" would naturally head back into town on foot and that the entire mini-search was the result of a miscalculation or miscommunication FUBAR?
just me

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17693
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

citigirl wrote:
<quoted text>No just me. You misunderstood what I said. There was activity seen at the trunk by witnesses but I never stated it was Maura. It was to dark for these witnesses to say whether or not it was male or female. The only one whom could definitly say it was a female was SBD because he stopped and talked to a female in the saturn. The Westmans did not know it was a female until CS went to there house inquiring about a female. Others have stated that she was seen there 1-2 minutes before police came. Not me.
Thank you for caring enough to come back and I want to go with whatever you have to say because you are more in the loop than anyone. I just have to go back and find that post now b/c it matters to me when i find I'm wrong. Just not so sure yet that I am or not. So BRB
FrmLE

Vero Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17694
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Looks like you are going to have this solved very soon. Everyone agreeing, so sweet.

Can't wait to hear what your theories are!

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17695
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

FrmLE wrote:
Looks like you are going to have this solved very soon. Everyone agreeing, so sweet. Can't wait to hear what your theories are!
Are you Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde tonight?
Advocate

Glendale, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17696
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Frostman wrote:
If Red Truck and passengers were lurking around for Maura with evil intentions, they must have told her or known (overheard? at a gas station) that she was planning to take Route 112 as opposed to Route 302 which would have been the obvious choice if she was en route to Bartlett.
It's too big a coincidence, IMO, that the Red Truck was there and she went missing in a matter of minutes. They had to have known her driving plan in advance if they were waiting at the store (SSS).
But, if they knew her driving route in advance, then WHY would they go down Bunga Road?

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17697
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FrmLE wrote:
Looks like you are going to have this solved very soon. Everyone agreeing, so sweet.
Can't wait to hear what your theories are!
Have you ever shared your insights on the court proceedings? If not, would you be willing to?

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17698
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

I'm having a problem digesting the Red Truck. Why wouldn't this witness tell LE? If she did tell LE then they would be telling everyone to be on the look out for this truck? It would be all over the news. Or she should tell Fred.And he would put the info on the news.

Also, RO states the truck wasn't a crew cab which means that there would be no place for her to sit in the car if there were two individuals in the front. So she would have to be forced in. Even if they grabbed her and were able to get her into the truck without anyone seeing anything or her dropping anything in a fight. There is no way the car could be driven with a fighting passenger in the front seat.

How come Fred Murray isn't even asking people to look into the red truck? He has been on TV and had the ability to do so? I don't think he even believes the red truck theory.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17699
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>But, if they knew her driving route in advance, then WHY would they go down Bunga Road?
I believe "Red Truck" was going up the hill (on Route 112) past Bunga Road when they spotted RO. I don't recall RO saying that Red Truck was actually on Bunga. If Red Truck knew she was going to take 112 then perhaps they were waiting for her to pass by so they could follow her?
anonymousone

Plattsburgh, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17700
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Maura Murray was in the accident at approx. 7:20 and shortly thereafter was spotted but the bus driver and 7 minutes after that the trooper arrived. This is a very short window of time and additionally roughly a half dozen cars were reported to have gone by in these 7 minutes. One of these cars could have seen Maura and possibly picked her up but I find it strange that with the publicity of the case that these care did not report that they saw someone walking east on Route 112. Is it possible that she was immidiatly picked up which would correlate with the scent trail from the search dogs going 100 feet east?
jwb

Portland, ME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17701
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Frostman wrote:
<quoted text>
I truly respect your professional insight and your unrelenting commitment to this "disappearance".
I just can't shake the feeling that Red Truck grabbed Maura and turned around at BHR (hence the SAR dog losing the scent) and headed westward (back towards Woodsville) and that someone saw a suspicious vehicle (apart from RO) headed in that direction. Perhaps that's why they searched to the West and why the BOL went out to Haverhill, Lisbon and Littleton (and not Lincoln nor North Woodstock).
Unless they assumed that "the girl" would naturally head back into town on foot and that the entire mini-search was the result of a miscalculation or miscommunication FUBAR?
And Frosty , You can add Annes Comments- Left in a private vehichle.
anonymousone

Plattsburgh, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17702
Mar 27, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

You would think with the incredibly high number of people interested in this case a definitive conclusion would be made and the case practically solved.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 17,361 - 17,380 of47,062
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

34 Users are viewing the Franconia Forum right now

Search the Franconia Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
COlumbos HOuse of SPam 4 hr Habs 546
Author James Renner's Cruel Online 'Ruse' 6 hr Red October 19
Surprise Fireball Streaks Across Stunning Night... (Jul '13) 9 hr Willy Lion 16
Who do you support for U.S. House in New Hampsh... (Oct '10) Sun Habs 25
New book questions Ayotte judgment in officer s... (Sep '09) Apr 19 Red October 92
"TO TELL THE TRUTH" The Quest for True Identities Apr 17 Pointless Endeavor 57
NH law keeps murder case liars on the hook forever (Jul '09) Apr 15 SPQR 13
•••
•••
•••

Franconia Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Franconia People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••