Maura Murray

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?

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.

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"

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?

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

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.

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.

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." .

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

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.

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!

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).

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!

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?

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?