Maura Murray

WTH-the-original wrote:

On to other business. Her little run down the road at night, if she did that. There is no reason to believe that she needed a flashlight to navigate the road. The people that think that are people who have never been out in the woods at night. I spent the better part of military career out in the woods at night as well as many walks at night going to camp. Once yours eyes adjust, in 10 to 20 minutes except on totally moonless nights, you can see quite well. There was almost a full moon out that night that rose around 8:56 the night of the accident and the clouds and snow would have produces a very diffuse light that could have easily allowed her to run the road. With a full moon that also often means that well before that time there is usually a strong undercast with the reflected light that is incredibly useful to see at night.
Don't believe me, go outside on a night with anything over a half moon and see what you can see on "pitch black" nights after yours eyes adjust.
Bill

I think I was the first to bring up the flashlight. She might not have needed one, and thank you for your info on that. I'll freely admit that I don't spend time in the woods. The only wildlife I care to interact with are fishes.:-)

But if she had a flashlight in her kit, and she took it with her, then that would give better indication that she planned to run down a road rather than walk a few hundred yards to get a cell phone signal.

Not that any of this gets anyone closer to finding Maura. It was just something I've wondered about.

Jenkins wrote:

<quoted text>
I just had to make a comment about this post.
I agree that everyone puts a little too much weight to the dogs tracking of Maura 100yds, but the dog definitely tracked someone 100yds.
Whoever frmLE is he clearly doesn't know very much about how tracking dogs work.
Saying that the dog could Have been tracking a yummy squirrel or some other smell that interested it is so wrong it's laughable. These dogs are very highly trained. They might be interested in how a squirrel smells but they will not track it, they will not give the handler the signal that it is following a trail.
If tracking dogs followed squirrels you couldn't track with them plain and simple. The handler and dog who was on scene was highly respected in her field. You don't get highly respected if your dog tracks "yummy squirrels"
FrmLE puts on a good front, he uses very official sounding words to make himself sound like LE. I'm not saying he's definitely not LE because I really don't know but when someone makes statements like this you really have to question if he was former LE. We at least know that he never had to use a tracking dog while in LE(even though he says he's been on many searches?)
The first thin any handler will tell you is that a tracking dog will no track a squirrel or any other smell it is interested in. It will only track the smell that wa presented to it by the handler.
The problem comes in with presenting the smell to the dog. The challenge is presenting the correct smell, not someone else's smell. So unless the handler presented a squirrel's smell to the dog, we know it wasn't tracking a squirrel.
That dog definitely was tracking someone for 100yds, the question is: was it Maura?

I have to ask, where does all your knowledge and experience come from? You make such bold statements, about well nearly everything, but have you ever walked a dog track?

How many times have you tracked a person through the woods?

How many wilderness searches have you participated in? How many have you led?

You say I don't know what I am talking about? I have walked dozens and dozens of tracks, I know nearly every single NHSP K9 Trooper North of Concord, for only about 24 years. You think I don't know how many factors are involved in a dog track?

Let me ask you this. In those instances where the dog tracks 'something' but nothing is found, how do you know it isn't a squirrel of other scent? Have you asked the dog? Does the dog tell you, "Yo Jenkins, I never track squirrels?"

I have spent countless hours talking to K9 Troopers about the nuances of their dogs, what factors affect the track, whether the dog gets distracted easily, what distracts the dog, every thing under the sun related to how a dog tracks a scent, and yes I am here to tell you some dogs like squirrels, lol.

Thats how I know these things, which begs the question, how do you know? Cause you read it on the internet?

Lol you are such a fool, you have ZERO time in uniform, on the steets, working a shift. Yet you claim to know everything about Law Enforcement, Criminal Investigations, and well, everything.

Buyer beware of Jenkins 'FACTS', sounds alot like ole det columbo...

hmmmmm I wonder..

Lol, aren't cops supposed to be good at reading people? Well you've obviously lost that skill since you retired if you think I'm columbo..come on

Also I've never claimed to know everything about everything, I think your confusing me with you.

I'm not an expert dog tracker by any means, im friends w one person who is a professional sar dog handler and know a few more, but not well.

This is basic dog tracking information that I'm talking about. Any dog handler will tell you that the dog is trained to only search for the smell that is presented to it, that is a fact plain and simple. They are specifically trained not to track other smells, such as "yummy squirrels", that is laughable, & if you really know every dog handler in Nh(which I seriously doubt), you would know that. If a dog can't differentiate between a squirrel and the smell it is tracking it would never make it out of tracking school. That is something they specifically train for and test for.

Dogs do have bad days but that's not because they were following a squirrel. Most dog handlers will tell you that it's not really even the dog having a bad day, it's generally either how the smell was presented to the dog, or the conditions that are present during the search.
If the smell is presented properly and the conditions are right the dog will generally not have a bad day,
The problem usually comes in with how the smell is presented to the dog. Dogs noses are extremely sensitive so it is difficult to give the dog the proper scent without contaminating it with Someone else's scent. This is most likely the problem the dog had in this case.
What if Maura never even actually wore the glove? And what if smith touched the glove while searching the car?
It very well could have been smiths scent that the dog was tracking.

This is very basic, if a dog gets distracted by a squirrel, then it is not an acceptable dog to do searches. The dog and handler in question are highly respected, this is not the kind of dog that's gonna follow a squirrel, unless a squirrel was rolling around on the glove before it was presented to the dog.
These dogs are highly trained, they do not just follow "yummy squirrels", that's ridiculous to say.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
let me ask you a question
Who determines if a scent was successfully tracked ? Is it the handler or Le that is with them? That might help
thanks

Without question, the only person that should be able to tell if their dog is on track is the handler.

But don't think that ego and other human foibles don't come into play. They certainly can.

Bill

FrmLE wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol you are such a fool, you have ZERO time in uniform, on the steets, working a shift. Yet you claim to know everything about Law Enforcement, Criminal Investigations, and well, everything.
Buyer beware of Jenkins 'FACTS', sounds alot like ole det columbo...
hmmmmm I wonder..

FrmLE, please stop being a cyber-bully. I think that most of us agree that YOU are the one with delusions of grandeur, who has probably spent zero time in uniform.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Without question, the only person that should be able to tell if their dog is on track is the handler.
But don't think that ego and other human foibles don't come into play. They certainly can.
Bill

Thanks for your response.

Do you have any reason to believe the tracking was tainted ? I mean anything can be questioned, even the police report can be questioned but do you have any knowledge that says the tracking can be discounted or are you just saying that it is not always 100%? Thanks

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Without question, the only person that should be able to tell if their dog is on track is the handler.
But don't think that ego and other human foibles don't come into play. They certainly can.
Bill

WTH you mention ego coming into play regarding tracking. Do you think ego might have played a role in not requesting NHSP assistance in the initial search and Not asking the FBI for assistance in the case?

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for your response.
Do you have any reason to believe the tracking was tainted ? I mean anything can be questioned, even the police report can be questioned but do you have any knowledge that says the tracking can be discounted or are you just saying that it is not always 100%? Thanks

I don't how to answer your question because I don't know for certain. My only point is that I have never heard the actual handlers interpret what they thought the dogs actions meant.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't how to answer your question because I don't know for certain. My only point is that I have never heard the actual handlers interpret what they thought the dogs actions meant.
Bill

What good are they then?

SnowyB wrote:

<quoted text>
huh? i was quoting myself. lol
please, let's not continue. we'll just skip ahead. there's always tomorrow.

I was replying to your posting that you quoted me on with your response to my posting. I agree lets not continue.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
WTH you mention ego coming into play regarding tracking. Do you think ego might have played a role in not requesting NHSP assistance in the initial search and Not asking the FBI for assistance in the case?

Seriously, I wouldn't. There was nothing initially to make anyone think that this was any different than any other driving with alcohol on board crash and they handled the initial search in a manner consistent with other crashes I have been to. I have never been able to understand what the FBI could bring to this case. They have done some out of state interviews but I don't know what else they could really offer.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Seriously, I wouldn't. There was nothing initially to make anyone think that this was any different than any other driving with alcohol on board crash and they handled the initial search in a manner consistent with other crashes I have been to. I have never been able to understand what the FBI could bring to this case. They have done some out of state interviews but I don't know what else they could really offer.
Bill

It was not fact that Maura was drinking. It was only assumption by NH LE. The search to the east only went as far as the end of BHR because there were no footprints seen. Why was it LE focoused on the west? Local LE is limited regardless of what state you are from. If FBI was invited in they could have investigated both states.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>It was not fact that Maura was drinking. It was only assumption by NH LE. The search to the east only went as far as the end of BHR because there were no footprints seen. Why was it LE focoused on the west? Local LE is limited regardless of what state you are from. If FBI was invited in they could have investigated both states.

Citigirl, the question of Maura's drinking isn't even in dispute by Maura's father. Even he has admitted that she was likely drinking. It is also not in dispute with anyone Fire, EMS, Police that have seen situations like this hundreds of times before. It also was in the written report of the officer on the scene. The only person apparently who doesn't know it is you, and maybe Shack.

A BOLO was put out, every state has it. Anyone should know that if she pops up, LE will be aware of it. What does the FBI need to investigate in what state?

Bill

"The FBI is the investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, and its specific mission is constantly evolving. Currently, the FBI's focus is on stopping terrorism, corruption, organized crime, cyber crime and civil rights violations, as well as investigating serious crimes such as major thefts or murders. They also assist other law enforcement agencies when needed. Crimes that specifically fall under FBI jurisdiction include those in which the criminal crossed state lines, violations of federal controlled substance laws, and other violations of federal laws."
NH didn't have a cold case unit until 2009. I think additional resources may have been helpful.There are more than one state involved also since she traveled from mass. The theory has been thrown out there that the answer lies in Amherst and that is not the NHSP jurisdiction.

sorry, I meant to separate my words from the quotes.

"Detectives with the Vermont State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation, with the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, St. Johnsbury Fire Department, Hardwick Police Department, Caledonia County Sheriff's Department, St. Johnsbury Academy, and the Vermont Army National Guard, conducted an aggressive investigation into the death of Melissa Jenkins."

How did that work out?

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
Citigirl, the question of Maura's drinking isn't even in dispute by Maura's father. Even he has admitted that she was likely drinking. It is also not in dispute with anyone Fire, EMS, Police that have seen situations like this hundreds of times before. It also was in the written report of the officer on the scene. The only person apparently who doesn't know it is you, and maybe Shack.
A BOLO was put out, every state has it. Anyone should know that if she pops up, LE will be aware of it. What does the FBI need to investigate in what state?
Bill

If someone murdered her WTH a BOL is rather useless. A hasty investigation with all available resources is what was needed.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
If someone murdered her WTH a BOL is rather useless. A hasty investigation with all available resources is what was needed.

Regardless of what everyone wants to think about the FBI whether it should enter this case or not. It did review the case and did discuss the findings with the local authorities.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Regardless of what everyone wants to think about the FBI whether it should enter this case or not. It did review the case and did discuss the findings with the local authorities.

where did you get that info from lighthouse? First I have heard that.

Thanks

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Regardless of what everyone wants to think about the FBI whether it should enter this case or not. It did review the case and did discuss the findings with the local authorities.

I read the Brianna Maitland website info. I can't copy and paste the info, but it says because of the cases being so close the FBI was called in and reviewed both cases and discussed the cases with local LE and it was concluded that the disappearances were not related.

Think of this. If FBI went on record with saying that both cases weren't related they obviously had to review both cases as best they could. Also the Maura case was much older then Brianna's so they were probably looking at everything including POI's if they had any.