Maura Murray

Phoebe Prince wrote:

<quoted text>
So how's that SpyPig thing working out for you? You like using that? Pretty good when it says its purpose is to see if your email has been received, but then the SpyPig website goes on to say...
"SpyPig can tell you where your recipient is located geographically when he/she opens your email. The accuracy is approximately 98% on the country level and 70% on the city level for US cities. The accuracy for non-US cities varies. This database is updated constantly to improve or maintain accuracy. The location information is based on the recipient's computer IP address. Some computer users might hide their true IP address and use a different address to appear as if they're located in a different city or even country!"
No wonder they call it SpyPig. Kind of a dual-use thing, I guess? Jenkins know about SpyPig?
http://www.spypig.com/requirements.php

Nope, never heard of it in my life. But I did know something like that exists.
But why the hell are you asking me If I ever heard of it?
What would I care about something like that?
Are you trying to imply I might use something like that? Why would u think that?

Have I ever expressed a desire to find someone's location? Have I ever said anything even remotely resembling that? Absolutely not.
I don't care where anybody's located, I have no desire to find out either.
What do u think I want to meet people who post on topix?

I just don't understand why out of all posters you would choose to ask me that question. I say a lot of shit sometimes, maybe even some stupid shit too, but I've never ever expressed any sort of desire to find anyone's location, & I have none either. That's just stupid.
Again, why would I give a shit what spypig is? Why the hell would I care where anybody is located?

Where was the nearest bus station in 2004, and did the buses run at night?

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>(snipped)
Not really.

sometimes....really.

oo00oo wrote:

<quoted text>(snipped)
Not really.

Respectfully, it's great if you're talented at telling who's a good guy and who's not. Some people would just never underestimate the skill of a cop or PI, for example. Or an aggrieved and determined family member. Or a group of ducks. Or someone with years of trolling experience. Or a bored teenager on another continent. Or down the block. May be easy for some to tell the bad actors by their posts, but not for everyone. At least not in my experience.

All I will say Jenkins is that with regard to the court case, you are just way off base. You make too many assumptions without proper background and context. Not really sure now else to put it.

It's really mute point, the court case is irrelevant to the actual fate of Maura.

No one knows what happened all we can do is speculate.

Phoebe Prince wrote:

<quoted text>Respectfully, it's great if you're talented at telling who's a good guy and who's not. Some people would just never underestimate the skill of a cop or PI, for example. Or an aggrieved and determined family member. Or a group of ducks. Or someone with years of trolling experience. Or a bored teenager on another continent. Or down the block. May be easy for some to tell the bad actors by their posts, but not for everyone. At least not in my experience.

I'm no rocket scientist by any stretch and I have been fooled. But IMO there are some with agendas that take a while to figure out, but they eventually become obvious to their motives.

EDIT: eventually their motives become obvious. (dope slap)

Phoebe Prince wrote:

So hit me up. No roaming charges apply.

Gave it a shot, very extended vacation applied, ball's in your end of the court.

FrmLE wrote:

All I will say Jenkins is that with regard to the court case, you are just way off base. You make too many assumptions without proper background and context. Not really sure now else to put it.
It's really mute point, the court case is irrelevant to the actual fate of Maura.
No one knows what happened all we can do is speculate.

How exactly am I way off base?
The judge specifically says that the state cant just seal files from the public without a compelling reason to do so, meaning they needed to show that there is a legitimate case they're working that is likely to result in charges being filed.
Otherwise there is no need to keep the file sealed.
The state clearly showed a compelling reason and that reason was not that she might be lost in the woods.
Your right that the court case has no bearing on what happened to Maura but it does clearly show that the state believes a crime was committed in which they are likely to bring charges on.
A judge agreed and supported their position.
That means the judge did not believe she simply got lost in the woods, there is nothin else it could possibly mean.

I understand the context of the court case, do you really? If the state is forced to open up criminal files in the pre-indictment stage it's an extremely slippery slope. Then they might have to open up a lot of files to the public.

But this is all based on the fact that they believe a crime was in fact committed. If they don't believe a crime tool place then there's no need to keep the file sealed.

It's actually very simple in that respect, show a crime most likely occurred, keep the file sealed. Show that she got lost in the woods, file gets released to the public.

Btw, I think you meant it was a "moot" point, not a "mute" point

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
Btw, I think you meant it was a "moot" point, not a "mute" point

holy crap! i saw that, but let it go.
good for you, Jenkins!:)

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
How exactly am I way off base?
The judge specifically says that the state cant just seal files from the public without a compelling reason to do so, meaning they needed to show that there is a legitimate case they're working that is likely to result in charges being filed.
Otherwise there is no need to keep the file sealed.
The state clearly showed a compelling reason and that reason was not that she might be lost in the woods.
Your right that the court case has no bearing on what happened to Maura but it does clearly show that the state believes a crime was committed in which they are likely to bring charges on.
A judge agreed and supported their position.
That means the judge did not believe she simply got lost in the woods, there is nothin else it could possibly mean.
I understand the context of the court case, do you really? If the state is forced to open up criminal files in the pre-indictment stage it's an extremely slippery slope. Then they might have to open up a lot of files to the public.
But this is all based on the fact that they believe a crime was in fact committed. If they don't believe a crime tool place then there's no need to keep the file sealed.
It's actually very simple in that respect, show a crime most likely occurred, keep the file sealed. Show that she got lost in the woods, file gets released to the public.
Btw, I think you meant it was a "moot" point, not a "mute" point

Not to speak for FrmLE, and I'm sure he'll jump in from Georgia or San Diego or wherever to correct me if I'm wrong. LOL

But I think another way to look at this court case is that they used these leads they had worked on as an excuse. They were looking for any excuse or justification to not release these files, not because they really plan to convict someone one day but because they don't want to open up the file or set a precedent for future active case files to be released to the public.

As an excuse/justification - or to put it another way, a so-called "legitimate reason" - to convince the judge not to release the files, they brought up leads they had investigated in the past. For example, that lead they had recently worked on with the remains found in Ohio. They may have already known that wasn't Maura, but that was an excuse to not release the files. Maybe they wire-tapped Fred or the bus driver, or they had to investigate that A-frame house, so they looked at some locals one time. So, they used these things to say to the judge "Hey, we are investigating a criminal case here. 75% chance of conviction, your honor. We are working really hard on this!" They didn't have to make stuff up. They just manipulated things to their advantage, to keep from releasing the files.

It doesn't still mean they are looking at these POIs now, today. Or that they know what happened but are waiting on a body. I thought so too at one time, until FrmLE answered my questions. His answers prompted me to ask a couple lawyers who I do know in real life and I trust that they know what they're talking about. Apparently this shit happens all the time.

Now, this doesn't mean that every guy at NHSP thinks Maura is in the woods. We have no way to know that. She could very well have been killed, and I personally still think that is a thorough possibility. But the court case doesn't mean as much as I once thought it did.

Not trying to tell you what to believe. Just offering a different possible way to look at this since I doubt FrmLE is going to come right out and say it this way.

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
So many of your assumptive statements in this post are just not correct. You are very prone to extreme embellishment and spin.
Understand, that no one knows what happened to Maura, so for you to make statements such as "Not only did LE feel a crime occurred, a judge agreed." it is just not accurate.
I have tried many times to explain that there was much more to the court case than you are aware, but honestly since you have no background in the system it is hard to convey those points to you.
<quoted text>
For instance, this is just not true, I think you lose credibility when you try to force your point. Not every professional who has reviewed the case feels that foul play is involved. Not by a long shot, in fact I will say the opposite is true.
It is just not true at all. You lose credibility when you force facts and over spin, I suggest you stick to stating your opinion and leave it to that, because no one knows what really happened.
And for the record, yes I am smarter than most 'pros' who worked the case. lol, way smarter.:)

Were you LE in the Haverill area?Local or NHSP?You were involved in investigating this case?

Good explanation, Amy -- thank you!

Quote from saag:

"Knowing exactly where we determined the last place she was could be valuable information to that person."

How else can this possibly read except they don't believe the Saturn was her last known location. Since everyone who knows about the case knows about the crash site, they can't be talking about it. Also they wouldn't have to determine that because they already would have known it and it would not be revealing anything to the perp or anybody else for that matter.

I wonder where they're talkin about.
Is it before or after the crash?
Could they be talking about the theorized second crash site?
Coul she have been spotted somewhere in town, like did she get a ride from some kids and was seen partying somewhere or something?
This quote leaves a lot to the imagination but one thing is for sure, the state doesn't believe the crash at the wb was maura's last known location.

Jenkins, that's a good question. My thought was that they could be talking about which liquor store or ATM she was last seen at. Maybe that's why they never released that video to the family or public? Totally possible she stopped for gas someplace after that though. I don't think it necessarily means she is seen after the crash. But that's just my interpretation. I've been wrong before.:-)

Ok, I looked at videos of 112 and have a question for anybody who is up there. Do you think she could have made it five or ten miles running on this road in the dark without getting hit by a car or injuring herself?

amy researches wrote:

Ok, I looked at videos of 112 and have a question for anybody who is up there. Do you think she could have made it five or ten miles running on this road in the dark without getting hit by a car or injuring herself?

not saying this is the case but anything is possible. It is pitch black at night. I have been on 112 in a vehicle heading east at night. We pulled over and put the head lights off and you cannot see the person sitting in the front seat. BHR was the same as well as many other areas. I persnally could not see anything unless there was a street light. I also found it difficult to see with the head lights on where there were no street lights in the vicinity.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>not saying this is the case but anything is possible. It is pitch black at night. I have been on 112 in a vehicle heading east at night. We pulled over and put the head lights off and you cannot see the person sitting in the front seat. BHR was the same as well as many other areas. I persnally could not see anything unless there was a street light. I also found it difficult to see with the head lights on where there were no street lights in the vicinity.

If you are running on this road at night and a car comes at you, do you have to then jump into a snowbank to get out of the way? Or is there some space on the side of the road in this stretch from the WB heading east? It's not so easy to tell from a videos.

I am trying to picture what it would be like to run on this road at night.

Do you happen to know if there was a flashlight in Maura's emergency kit that she might have taken with her?

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
So many of your assumptive statements in this post are just not correct. You are very prone to extreme embellishment and spin.
Understand, that no one knows what happened to Maura, so for you to make statements such as "Not only did LE feel a crime occurred, a judge agreed." it is just not accurate.
I have tried many times to explain that there was much more to the court case than you are aware, but honestly since you have no background in the system it is hard to convey those points to you.
<quoted text>
For instance, this is just not true, I think you lose credibility when you try to force your point. Not every professional who has reviewed the case feels that foul play is involved. Not by a long shot, in fact I will say the opposite is true.
It is just not true at all. You lose credibility when you force facts and over spin, I suggest you stick to stating your opinion and leave it to that, because no one knows what really happened.
And for the record, yes I am smarter than most 'pros' who worked the case. lol, way smarter.:)

FrmLE-"Not every professional who has reviewed the case feels that foul play is involved. Not by a shot, in fact I will say the opposite is true." You are correct that not all LE share the same opinions. But lets not forget that there were 4 lie detector test given by LE.Obviously some believe that foul play was involved or something was not right concerning this case. Which would mean that not everyone in LE shares the same opinion as you.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>FrmLE-"Not every professional who has reviewed the case feels that foul play is involved. Not by a shot, in fact I will say the opposite is true." You are correct that not all LE share the same opinions. But lets not forget that there were 4 lie detector test given by LE.Obviously some believe that foul play was involved or something was not right concerning this case. Which would mean that not everyone in LE shares the same opinion as you.

so what? the reality is that anyone can hold their own opinions, and life plays out as it will. opinions don't influence outcome.
the silliest part of this is that you join Team A or Team B or Team C, desperately try to manipulate and control the thinking of others....whether by bullying or accusations....
and in the end,
you're no closer to whatever happened to MM.
think about it.