Maura Murray

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
where did you get that info from lighthouse? First I have heard that.
Thanks

"VERMONT STATE POLICENEW HAMPSHIRE STATE POLICE
PRESS RELEASE
CASE #: 04A201455
Date: Tuesday June 8, 2004
Location: St. Albans Vermont
Incident/Violation: Brianna Maitland
Missing Person InvestigationMontgomery Vermont
Maura Murray Missing Person Investigation
Haverhill New Hampshire
MULTI-AGENCY CASE REVIEW MEETING
For the better part of this day the Vermont State Police, the New Hampshire State Police, and the FBI, met at
the VSP Barracks in St. Albans Vermont to continue to review the Brianna Maitland and Maura Murray Missing
Person cases. This is a cooperative effort between these law enforcement agencies that has been ongoing
since the beginning of these investigations. The lead investigative agencies; the New Hampshire State Police
and the Vermont State Police, have concluded at this time that there is no connection between these cases. It
is also important to reiterate that there is also no connection whatsoever between these Missing Person cases
and the Whitney Homicide case from last week in Lamoille County.“There is no serial killer on the loose in the
area” stated Captain Bruce W. Lang, Chief Criminal Investigator of the VSPs’ Bureau of Criminal Investigation.
The Captains’ remarks were in reference to apparent speculation in the area media recently with regard to the
three cases."

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

They did not investigate in NH. I am sure they profiled the cases to come to their conclusion. The FBI did however interview Mauras family and friends in Mass. That is far different from being involved with the investigation of the case of Maura.They investigated Brianna Maitlands case.

jwb wrote:

<quoted text>
They did not investigate in NH. I am sure they profiled the cases to come to their conclusion. The FBI did however interview Mauras family and friends in Mass. That is far different from being involved with the investigation of the case of Maura.They investigated Brianna Maitlands case.

I never stated that they investigated the case. I said that they reviewed the case. Maybe after they reviewed the case they thought that NHSP were on the right track and they didn't need to investigate. Keep in mind this happened in June so the FBI reviewed four months worth of data. Also keep in mind the FBI might have looked at everything and deemed that she ran off into the woods.

In order for them to give any conclusion in the meeting that they had the FBI would have to look over the whole case and facts. Keep in mind while this case is being reviewed by the FBI all of these forum's theories like "rogue LE, not searching East, dog scent, drinking and driving possibly, running away, and red truck." The FBI would have read any and everything associated to what LE had. Had they thought anything out of the oridinary they would have entered the case.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I never stated that they investigated the case. I said that they reviewed the case. Maybe after they reviewed the case they thought that NHSP were on the right track and they didn't need to investigate. Keep in mind this happened in June so the FBI reviewed four months worth of data. Also keep in mind the FBI might have looked at everything and deemed that she ran off into the woods.
In order for them to give any conclusion in the meeting that they had the FBI would have to look over the whole case and facts. Keep in mind while this case is being reviewed by the FBI all of these forum's theories like "rogue LE, not searching East, dog scent, drinking and driving possibly, running away, and red truck." The FBI would have read any and everything associated to what LE had. Had they thought anything out of the oridinary they would have entered the case.

Still that contradicts their interest in Matthew the hunters' findings of cloth, tape and hair, which FrmLe deemed " no MM DNA".

IMO something of interest that points the investigation in a certain direction was found during the May 2004 search on Rte 112, 5 miles from the Weathered Barn post RF story/sighting. This is again IMO, the determining factor within the June timeframe that semi-stabilizes the statement Murray/Maitland cases unrelated.

The only way I can see that they can conclusively say the two cases are unrelated, while at the same time continue to process DNA from evidentiary findings in Maura's case, is that they have solved for X on March 19,2004, or Feb 9,2004.

mcsmom wrote:

The only way I can see that they can conclusively say the two cases are unrelated, while at the same time continue to process DNA from evidentiary findings in Maura's case, is that they have solved for X on March 19,2004, or Feb 9,2004.

What if the FBI looked at Maura's case and thought the same opinion the FRMLE had? If they thought she vanished or ran into the woods, that would make her case unrelated as well.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
What if the FBI looked at Maura's case and thought the same opinion the FRMLE had? If they thought she vanished or ran into the woods, that would make her case unrelated as well.

Then conclusively they could not say the two cases are unrelated if they spend time and effort, not to mention costly DNA analysis on findings that point to other nefarious circumstances, in Maura's case.
To support this, NHSP lacked interest in less suspicious findings in the same general area.

Their continued actions point in the realm of interest in investigating suspicious circumstances (Matthew's findings), but at the same time claim unrelated to Maitland case...that's quite of bit of deductive reasoning to go on......

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Then conclusively they could not say the two cases are unrelated if they spend time and effort, not to mention costly DNA analysis on findings that point to other nefarious circumstances, in Maura's case.
To support this, NHSP lacked interest in less suspicious findings in the same general area.
Their continued actions point in the realm of interest in investigating suspicious circumstances (Matthew's findings), but at the same time claim unrelated to Maitland case...that's quite of bit of deductive reasoning to go on......

Can you please clarify what you mean by "NHSP lacked interest in less suspicious findings in the same general area"?

I've read a fair amount about the Brianna Maitland case, and I don't necessarily assume that the Maitland and Murray cases are unrelated (despite what the FBI says). The two incidents occurred five weeks apart, and both involved wrecked and abandoned vehicles in remote areas. That's an awfully strange coincidence.

Based on Brianna Maitland's background profile, one possible scenario is that she was entrapped and abducted by a small group of known drug dealers from NYC who frequented North Country (and who had been convicted of drug and firearms possession). I personally believe that she could have also been a victim of human trafficking (which is a bigger problem here in NYC than people realize).

But no one knows with certainty what happened to either Maura Murray or Brianna Maitland, and if both incidents were opportunistic abductions, they could certainly be related.

TeeJay wrote:

I've read a fair amount about the Brianna Maitland case, and I don't necessarily assume that the Maitland and Murray cases are unrelated (despite what the FBI says). The two incidents occurred five weeks apart, and both involved wrecked and abandoned vehicles in remote areas. That's an awfully strange coincidence.
Based on Brianna Maitland's background profile, one possible scenario is that she was entrapped and abducted by a small group of known drug dealers from NYC who frequented North Country (and who had been convicted of drug and firearms possession). I personally believe that she could have also been a victim of human trafficking (which is a bigger problem here in NYC than people realize).
But no one knows with certainty what happened to either Maura Murray or Brianna Maitland, and if both incidents were opportunistic abductions, they could certainly be related.

I don't know enough about the Maitland case to comment. However,
Maitland's case is one of the other eleven case studies that will be debated tonight. I guess my professor (A lovely one and great one might I add) is an ID addict. I noticed that half of the cases that are being debated were on ID Discovery.

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

WTH I dont know whether or not Maura was drinking that night. Yes it was in the report but it is only assumption because the officer and others never physically saw Maura on that night. The only way it could be made a fact is if they physically saw her and where able to determine whether or not she was drinking by her actions or appearance. The only witness who saw her that night was SBD and he described her as being shook up.

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.

GCSD log 2/09/04 "H2 REQ ALL FIRE UNITS BOL FOR A FEMALE ABT 507 ON FOOT,VICTIM OF CRASH." 2/10/04 "Bol put out at 1221 on graf A, Hav,Lit and Lis locals." Why no Bols put out to local LE east of the accident scene? I dont understand why the first Bol was put out to fire units only and not put out to any other LE because they are the ones that are cruising the roads. Fire units only come out when they get a call that they have to respond to.

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

LE in surrounding towns were not aware because the BOL was only put out to fire units. The following day the BOL was only put out to LE west of the scene and nothing east. I would think if a person was missing regardless of what was thought by Haverhill LE that they would send a BOL out to all surrounding towns. So no not all towns were aware a young female was missing.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>LE in surrounding towns were not aware because the BOL was only put out to fire units. The following day the BOL was only put out to LE west of the scene and nothing east. I would think if a person was missing regardless of what was thought by Haverhill LE that they would send a BOL out to all surrounding towns. So no not all towns were aware a young female was missing.

Citigirl, Do you know if Fred ever posed this question to LE? I know he questioned why NHSP wern't involved early.

JWB wrote:

<quoted text>
Citigirl, Do you know if Fred ever posed this question to LE? I know he questioned why NHSP wern't involved early.

Are you referring to the BOLs? If you could specifically post what you are asking then I can better answer your question.Thanks.There was a NHSP at the scene that night but Fred has been unable to find out what this NHSP officer did on this night concerning Mauras disappearance. We only know what RO has stated in the past.

Yes- I am asking if Fred inquired about the BOL being to the west only . I was curious if fred inquired with LE about this (Why).

mcsmom wrote:

<quoted text>
Still that contradicts their interest in Matthew the hunters' findings of cloth, tape and hair, which FrmLe deemed " no MM DNA".
IMO something of interest that points the investigation in a certain direction was found during the May 2004 search on Rte 112, 5 miles from the Weathered Barn post RF story/sighting. This is again IMO, the determining factor within the June timeframe that semi-stabilizes the statement Murray/Maitland cases unrelated.

Who is Matthew the hunter? Just some hunter named Matthew? & he found duct tape, hair and cloth??
Do u happen to know where he found it??

FrmLE claims that it wasn't mm's DNA, well how could he possibly know that?
He admittedly has never worked her case, has said in the past(I think) that he's seen the case file, but recently will not answer any questions as to whether he's seen it or not.
Chances are that he hasn't seen it, if he has the nhsp seriously violated the confidentiality of the case & I seriously doubt and LE who has seen it illegally would be posting online about it.

Who's hair was it on the duct tape? Think about it, it had to be somebody's, if it wasn't maura's that's kind of worse because that means there was probably another murder up there that we don't even know about.

JWB wrote:

Yes- I am asking if Fred inquired about the BOL being to the west only . I was curious if fred inquired with LE about this (Why).

Fred had learned from others that there was a BOL put out. At what point and by whom I dont recall. With learning of this info he went to Woodstock LE and they had told him that they were never notified.

Mcsmom- you just made an excellent point: if the FBI reviewed the case file and thought she was probably just lost in the woods they would have absolutely no evidence at all and therefore wouldn't be able to conclusively say the 2 cases aren't related.
When they said that at the press conference there's only 2 options, either they were just outright lying to try to not scare the public, or they had some sort of evidence pointing to someone in one of the cases. Thing is though that theoretically it would have to mean that they believe it was someone connected to Maura who is responsible. If it was just a random person how could they possibly know that they didnt have anything to do with brianna's dissapearance.

Idk, honestly I always got the sense that press conference was a big charade & they were lying.
How could they possibly say conclusively the cases are unrelated without habing suspects? If they had suspects way back then what the hell happened?
Did the suspect literally get away with the perfect crime? It's starting to appear so.

What a great idea though if you abduct someone, just abandon their car somewhere. Chances are LE are just going to have it towed, once it's towed and parked at a tow company it is completely ruined for any evidentiary value.
The car would be a huge stash of evidence potentially, but once a tow truck driver has been in it it's not at all, totally tainted.

I just get the sense that LE pretty much knows what happened to Maura, they just don't have her body so they can't prove it in court.

At any rate, you can obviously tell that LE who have worked this case do not believe she's simply lost in the woods, there is no way that's what they think.

I think it's very weird that there is someone who comes on this forum and claims to be former LE who's whole entire reason for coming to this forum is to try to convince people she's lost in the woods. It's so weird, why does every pro who we know their name think foul play is involved, yet we have someone who claims to be former LE trying to convince us otherwise...it's jst weird.
This whole case is weird, I think that's why it's kept me so interested all these years.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Fred had learned from others that there was a BOL put out. At what point and by whom I dont recall. With learning of this info he went to Woodstock LE and they had told him that they were never notified.

Interesting citigirl- Do you know if Fred inquired with the HPD and ask them why they did not include Woodstock and other Towns east in the BOL ? I can understand why Fred was upset with the investigation .

My first thought when considering why they may have issued a BOL to the west only was possible knowledge( that we are not aware) that Maura did go in that direction ,but then I start to think about RF the CW and the NHSP saying that they thought his statement was very credible that he saw Maura to the east makes me think that HPD had it wrong in the early stages.