|
citigirl
Brockton, MA
|
JWB wrote: <quoted text>
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. I dont know if he personally inquired about the BOL only going west but I do recall him being devistated when he learned this because LE did not send a BOL out to surrounding towns. So more than likely Fred would have questioned HPD on this. His daughter was missing and one direction was ignored. He was heart broken over this as well as the fact that his daughter has vanished with out a trace.
|
|
mcsmom
Hebron, CT
|
Jenkins wrote: 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. If they had a specific POI in mind for Maura's case at the time of Brianna's disappearance, by conclusively saying the two cases aren't related, they may have had confirmed whereabouts of POI on March 19,2004. Maybe this POI was incarcerated at the time? No connection to Maura necessary for this scenario. Same scenario with Brianna's case would hold true to rule unrelated to Maura's case for specific POI if known whereabouts on Feb 9,2004.
|
|
JWB
Portland, ME
|
citigirl wrote: <quoted text>I dont know if he personally inquired about the BOL only going west but I do recall him being devistated when he learned this because LE did not send a BOL out to surrounding towns. So more than likely Fred would have questioned HPD on this. His daughter was missing and one direction was ignored. He was heart broken over this as well as the fact that his daughter has vanished with out a trace. Thank you Citigirl Your last sentance says it all
|
|
Jenkins
Astoria, NY
|
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. See this is one of the reasons that I feel totally scammed by Fred. He criticized the investigation up and down & I took his word on a lot of different things,like this, but then it turns out he was just straight up lying. The major crimes unit of the nhsp was on scene investigating on the 11th, about 12 hours after Fred got there. How much earlier did he think they were gonna get involved. He made it out like the nhsp weren't even ingestigating. Worst part about it is the fact that Fred didn't sit down with detectives for a formal interview for 2 years after the crash. So he's critizing them, all the while he's not even helping them? Then he has the nerve to bring a court case asking for the case file? Who the hell does this guy think he is? Yea his daughter is missing but that should make it all the more important that he sit down with them on day one and answer any and all questions they present him Generally in cases like this the family does anything and everythin they can to help and answer questions until they themselves are eliminated. Once the family is eliminated as suspects then LE will generally give them the inside info he was looking to get in the court case.. If they haven't been able to eliminate him then why should they tell him anything? They shouldn't, in reality he deserved to know exactly nothing more than the public knew. He makes it out like he's on this one man quest and he's the only one who can find his daughter, he even says that. He straight up said that if they dint release te info to him they won't find her, or something to that effect. Who does je think he is and why would he be that mich better than LE at finding her? In fact he completely insulted the only people who really have the means and ability to conduct a proper investigation. The whole thong stinks, he made it out like he was the only one looking for, and I stupidly believed it. Now looking back at everything we know it is clear they conducted an investigation that was probably about as good as it could be under the circumstances. My question is: how many times did je really go up ther searching for her? Its blatantly obvious that he isn't up there every wknd looking for her like he says, which is fine if he didn't say that he was. I wonder what's the total amount of times he's been up there looking in the past 8 yrs..anybody know? Do u citi?
|
|
JWB
Portland, ME
|
Jenkins wrote: <quoted text>
See this is one of the reasons that I feel totally scammed by Fred. He criticized the investigation up and down & I took his word on a lot of different things,like this, but then it turns out he was just straight up lying.
The major crimes unit of the nhsp was on scene investigating on the 11th, about 12 hours after Fred got there.
How much earlier did he think they were gonna get involved. He made it out like the nhsp weren't even ingestigating.
Worst part about it is the fact that Fred didn't sit down with detectives for a formal interview for 2 years after the crash. So he's critizing them, all the while he's not even helping them?
Then he has the nerve to bring a court case asking for the case file?
Who the hell does this guy think he is? Yea his daughter is missing but that should make it all the more important that he sit down with them on day one and answer any and all questions they present him
Generally in cases like this the family does anything and everythin they can to help and answer questions until they themselves are eliminated. Once the family is eliminated as suspects then LE will generally give them the inside info he was looking to get in the court case.. If they haven't been able to eliminate him then why should they tell him anything? They shouldn't, in reality he deserved to know exactly nothing more than the public knew.
He makes it out like he's on this one man quest and he's the only one who can find his daughter, he even says that. He straight up said that if they dint release te info to him they won't find her, or something to that effect.
Who does je think he is and why would he be that mich better than LE at finding her?
In fact he completely insulted the only people who really have the means and ability to conduct a proper investigation.
The whole thong stinks, he made it out like he was the only one looking for, and I stupidly believed it.
Now looking back at everything we know it is clear they conducted an investigation that was probably about as good as it could be under the circumstances.
My question is: how many times did je really go up ther searching for her? Its blatantly obvious that he isn't up there every wknd looking for her like he says, which is fine if he didn't say that he was.
I wonder what's the total amount of times he's been up there looking in the past 8 yrs..anybody know? Do u citi? Jenkins, I was referring to JKM being in the area that night yet there is no correspondence in the logs that show HPD utilized him in any way. Again, he could have searched east. Logs show JKM was in the lisbon area around the time of the accident so he didn't come from the east to clear the east.
|
|
JWB
Portland, ME
|
Jenkins, I was referring to JKM being available the evening she disapeared yet there is no conversation between the HPD and JKM . JKM came from the west as logs show he was in Lisbon prior to the crash. I am not talking about NHSP involvement afterwards . NHSP won't release their call logs for that night.
|
|
JWB
Portland, ME
|
sorry for double post !! I thought my post got lost in the mail
|
|
mcsmom
Hebron, CT
|
Jenkins wrote: <quoted text>
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. "Tests are being performed on possible new evidence in the mysterious disappearance six years ago of University of Massachusetts nursing student Maura Murray in Haverhill, according to Lt. James White, head of the New Hampshire State Police Major Crime Unit. Tuesday will mark the sixth anniversary of the day Murray vanished in the North Country after crashing her car on remote and winding Route 112 during a snowstorm shortly before 7:30 p.m. on Feb. 9, 2004. Some time in the last two weeks, police received new information in the case, White said, though he declined to say exactly what it is. This case is very much active." he said. As a result of the new leads, White said, police collected items that are now in the process of being tested. Union Leader...Nancy West 2/7/10 "Matthew - Lincoln, NH - Feb 9, 2010 I was hunting 7.8 miles from the site of the car crash of Maura and found cloths with duct tape with hair in the tape. I called the state police they said they would call me back. Then 4 days they called me and wanted me to show them where the cloths were since the first call to the police it snowed but we found them and never heard nothing else."
|
|
citigirl
Brockton, MA
|
Jenkins wrote: <quoted text>
See this is one of the reasons that I feel totally scammed by Fred. He criticized the investigation up and down & I took his word on a lot of different things,like this, but then it turns out he was just straight up lying.
The major crimes unit of the nhsp was on scene investigating on the 11th, about 12 hours after Fred got there.
How much earlier did he think they were gonna get involved. He made it out like the nhsp weren't even ingestigating.
Worst part about it is the fact that Fred didn't sit down with detectives for a formal interview for 2 years after the crash. So he's critizing them, all the while he's not even helping them?
Then he has the nerve to bring a court case asking for the case file?
Who the hell does this guy think he is? Yea his daughter is missing but that should make it all the more important that he sit down with them on day one and answer any and all questions they present him
Generally in cases like this the family does anything and everythin they can to help and answer questions until they themselves are eliminated. Once the family is eliminated as suspects then LE will generally give them the inside info he was looking to get in the court case.. If they haven't been able to eliminate him then why should they tell him anything? They shouldn't, in reality he deserved to know exactly nothing more than the public knew.
He makes it out like he's on this one man quest and he's the only one who can find his daughter, he even says that. He straight up said that if they dint release te info to him they won't find her, or something to that effect.
Who does je think he is and why would he be that mich better than LE at finding her?
In fact he completely insulted the only people who really have the means and ability to conduct a proper investigation.
The whole thong stinks, he made it out like he was the only one looking for, and I stupidly believed it.
Now looking back at everything we know it is clear they conducted an investigation that was probably about as good as it could be under the circumstances.
My question is: how many times did je really go up ther searching for her? Its blatantly obvious that he isn't up there every wknd looking for her like he says, which is fine if he didn't say that he was.
I wonder what's the total amount of times he's been up there looking in the past 8 yrs..anybody know? Do u citi? I never said NHSP were investigating this on the 11th. What I said was there was a NHSP officer that showed up on the scene that night and for some odd reason no one can seem to get any info on him.He was not doing the investigation on this night it was HPD investigating. It was at a later date that NHSP began investigating. When he did meet with NHSP the lead investigator from NHSP wasnt even aware that fire was even on the scene that night.Fred didnt sit down with investigators for 2 years is false and inaccurate info that came from a magazine article. Fred was up there every weekend for many years after Mauras disappearance and in the beginning he and others were up there for weeks searching.I personally became involved March 16,2004 as well as my sister.
|
|
mcsmom
Hebron, CT
|
Article published Dec 29, 2005 Haverhill Father keeps up hunt for daughter Sues state in case of missing woman The Associated Press Ayotte said between the state police, the Fish and Game Department, other law-enforcement agencies and her own office, thousands of hours have been spent on the investigation. "The case continues to be pursued vigorously," she said. "Mr. Murray's had frequent contact with both my office and members of the state police. In fact, I personally met with him along with lead investigators of the state police last spring and he was assigned a victim's witness advocate from my office," who has been in contact with him regularly, she said. The police also have said that they talk with Murray on a regular basis when new leads appear.
|
|
Jenkins
Astoria, NY
|
citigirl wrote: <quoted text>I never said NHSP were investigating this on the 11th. What I said was there was a NHSP officer that showed up on the scene that night and for some odd reason no one can seem to get any info on him.He was not doing the investigation on this night it was HPD investigating. It was at a later date that NHSP began investigating. When he did meet with NHSP the lead investigator from NHSP wasnt even aware that fire was even on the scene that night.Fred didnt sit down with investigators for 2 years is false and inaccurate info that came from a magazine article. Fred was up there every weekend for many years after Mauras disappearance and in the beginning he and others were up there for weeks searching.I personally became involved March 16,2004 as well as my sister. I know you didn't say they were involved on the 11th, they did. Lt scarinza was on the scene as well as investigators from the major crimes unit. It appears they were investigating this much more seriously than Fred led everyone to believe. But there is some clear examples of shoddy investigative practices, such as the cloths found by Matthew the hunter. It took them 4 days to go collect clothes that had duct tape with hair in it?!? WTH were they doing for 4 days?!! That's gotta be someone's hairs whether it's maura's or not an that's just a clear example of shoddy investigative practices by the nhsp. Any potential forensic evidence should be collected ASAP, like as fast as humanly possible. The fact they waited 4 days and it actualt snowed in those 4 days is a perfect example of why it needs to be collected ASAP. Who knows what else they could've missed that was covered in snow?? There could've been clear evidence that was missed. You would hope they went back after tw snow melted to search the scene again but judging by their response time I doubt it. Seems like there's only 2 answers here, either the cops really know what happened to Maura but have been unable to obtain the proper search warrants to find her(so they think), or they are just not that good at investigations. Who ever heard of cops taking 4 fkn days to go collect potentially extremely valuable forensic evidence? Unless they know that wasn't maura's hair, even still they should've gotten it sooner. As for Jkm being at the scene i just don understand something, why is it so damn hard to figure out if he was actually at the scene and offered any sort of assistance at all. It looks like je at least drove around and looked for maira to the west bc RO spoke to him. Why is it so hard to get an answer fromtjks guy, sounds like a perfect job for renner. To actually track down Jkm and get an interview with him and some sort of explanation. It's like we know he wasn't there officially, but we know he was there. I don't see what this guys afraid of, all people want to know is what he did. Nobody wants to accuse this guy of anything & I'm sure he did nothing wrong, but when he won't answer simple questions it leaves a lot to the imagination. It would be awesome if he'd just come out and tell the public what he did that night
|
|
Jenkins
Astoria, NY
|
I think that smith must have known something that night. There has to be a reason he was on the scene for 2 hrs, that is not normal for a one car accident that time of year. Also there just has to be a reason they only searched west, There just has to be. There was more than enough resources on scene, more than enough. If you include Jkm that's like 4 vehicles that all searched west. they searched French pnd road but not 112east? They only had to drive a few mile to get past were she could've made it on foot. Somebody saw something that caused him to send everyone west, there has to be a reason, unless it was just really really really bad police work. But idk, that would be like soooo bad that I can believe it. Send everyone in one direction, & in addition to that only send out the bol in that directions as well? & while he's at it how bout we just send the bol to the fire departments west. Think about it, smith either knew something that night that we don't or he is just an awful police officer. I don't think he was that bad, I think he had a damn good reason to send everyone west. Somewhere between him being on scene, LE pulling over all trucks that night and when the family arrived someone in the pd made the concious decision to pretend that they thought it was a 61yr old man that left his car to go snowmobiling after he spun out around the curve. So much of that statement is so obviously wrong that there's no way smith didn't know that that night. We have one documented definite lie told to the family so we know they aren't above lying..they clearly knew a lot more that night than they ever told us.
|
|
Jenkins
Astoria, NY
|
citigirl wrote: <quoted text>I never said NHSP were investigating this on the 11th. What I said was there was a NHSP officer that showed up on the scene that night and for some odd reason no one can seem to get any info on him.He was not doing the investigation on this night it was HPD investigating. It was at a later date that NHSP began investigating. When he did meet with NHSP the lead investigator from NHSP wasnt even aware that fire was even on the scene that night.Fred didnt sit down with investigators for 2 years is false and inaccurate info that came from a magazine article. Fred was up there every weekend for many years after Mauras disappearance and in the beginning he and others were up there for weeks searching.I personally became involved March 16,2004 as well as my sister. I got the information about him not sitting down with investigators for 2 years from an interview renner did with one of the lt's that have been assigned to the case. He def spoke to police but according to the nhsp he refused to sit down for a formal interview until about 2 years after the accident, & when he did finally sit down with them he brought not one but 2 lawyers with him. This is his right to do so and maybe it was smart to brung his lawyers but this is not going to help find his daughter. It's just ridiculous that he brought a court case against the state before he sat down for a real interview? How does he expect LE to take it seriously if je won't even answe questions; his nothing before the crash matters, find her! Attitude did not help the investigation one bit and in fact likely hampered it. It just seems like he doesn't think the rules apply to him, his daughter is missing so he can do whatever the hell he wants. Which I actually agree with to a certain extent, but to not help investigators is not helping find his daughter. The first step is to make yourself available so you can be eliminated so the investigation can move forward because the sad fact that over 90% of murders are committed by people the victim is close to. That makes him a suspect by default, maybe not a true suspect but certainly top on the lost to be eliminated. I find it very interesting that the nhsp has never eliminated him as a suspect..theybe eliminated the sbd and the CW, & Billy..but not Fred.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Jenkins wrote: <quoted text>
I got the information about him not sitting down with investigators for 2 years from an interview renner did with one of the lt's that have been assigned to the case. He def spoke to police but according to the nhsp he refused to sit down for a formal interview until about 2 years after the accident, & when he did finally sit down with them he brought not one but 2 lawyers with him. This is his right to do so and maybe it was smart to brung his lawyers but this is not going to help find his daughter.
It's just ridiculous that he brought a court case against the state before he sat down for a real interview?
How does he expect LE to take it seriously if je won't even answe questions; his nothing before the crash matters, find her! Attitude did not help the investigation one bit and in fact likely hampered it.
It just seems like he doesn't think the rules apply to him, his daughter is missing so he can do whatever the hell he wants. Which I actually agree with to a certain extent, but to not help investigators is not helping find his daughter. The first step is to make yourself available so you can be eliminated so the investigation can move forward because the sad fact that over 90% of murders are committed by people the victim is close to. That makes him a suspect by default, maybe not a true suspect but certainly top on the lost to be eliminated.
I find it very interesting that the nhsp has never eliminated him as a suspect..theybe eliminated the sbd and the CW, & Billy..but not Fred. Jenkins, Last night my class met in the lecture hall and we had some simple debates about some famous cases and some not so famous cases. With most of these cases we were assigned a side or point of view to try and get across to the audience. The audience of about 100-105 students then mark what side of the debate you think presented the best arguement on a sheet of paper and was handed in to the professor for him to breakdown and give to us as feedback. Most of the arguements were foul play vs willful disappearance. For our arguement we presented Maura being lost in the woods, by using pretty much what has been said in the last couple of days by FRMLE, and by adding her background and stated that she was having troubles and was running away. I honestly thought that the other side could present so little as to foul play but we were blindsided. The opposition for foul play decided not to make arguements based on theories of possible foul play. They mentioned their opinion on one key POI and they stuck to that. Obviously you know who the POI is who I am talking about. They mentioned pretty much everything that you just mentioned in your last couple of posts. My group wasn't prepared for that, and I have to say we couldn't argue back many of the key points. We thought that they would take a generic approach and not point it specifically at someone. That made their case stronger for the debate. Whether it is correct or not they did present a strong case. The actions of the POI that they declared do leave your head scratching. I don't know if the people on the forum want to accept foul play from certain parties, but if foul play was involved it is hard to just dismiss the possibility. My case study/debate is over and finals are around the corner. If I don't check back in thank you all for your help and patience with me and my posts.
|
|
jwb
Lincoln, NH
|
Lighthouse 101 wrote: <quoted text>
Jenkins,
Last night my class met in the lecture hall and we had some simple debates about some famous cases and some not so famous cases. With most of these cases we were assigned a side or point of view to try and get across to the audience. The audience of about 100-105 students then mark what side of the debate you think presented the best arguement on a sheet of paper and was handed in to the professor for him to breakdown and give to us as feedback. Most of the arguements were foul play vs willful disappearance.
For our arguement we presented Maura being lost in the woods, by using pretty much what has been said in the last couple of days by FRMLE, and by adding her background and stated that she was having troubles and was running away. I honestly thought that the other side could present so little as to foul play but we were blindsided.
The opposition for foul play decided not to make arguements based on theories of possible foul play. They mentioned their opinion on one key POI and they stuck to that. Obviously you know who the POI is who I am talking about. They mentioned pretty much everything that you just mentioned in your last couple of posts. My group wasn't prepared for that, and I have to say we couldn't argue back many of the key points. We thought that they would take a generic approach and not point it specifically at someone. That made their case stronger for the debate. Whether it is correct or not they did present a strong case. The actions of the POI that they declared do leave your head scratching.
I don't know if the people on the forum want to accept foul play from certain parties, but if foul play was involved it is hard to just dismiss the possibility.
My case study/debate is over and finals are around the corner. If I don't check back in thank you all for your help and patience with me and my posts. Lighthouse- Do you care to share any specifics of their case.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Lighthouse 101 wrote: <quoted text>
Jenkins,
Last night my class met in the lecture hall and we had some simple debates about some famous cases and some not so famous cases. With most of these cases we were assigned a side or point of view to try and get across to the audience. The audience of about 100-105 students then mark what side of the debate you think presented the best arguement on a sheet of paper and was handed in to the professor for him to breakdown and give to us as feedback. Most of the arguements were foul play vs willful disappearance.
For our arguement we presented Maura being lost in the woods, by using pretty much what has been said in the last couple of days by FRMLE, and by adding her background and stated that she was having troubles and was running away. I honestly thought that the other side could present so little as to foul play but we were blindsided.
The opposition for foul play decided not to make arguements based on theories of possible foul play. They mentioned their opinion on one key POI and they stuck to that. Obviously you know who the POI is who I am talking about. They mentioned pretty much everything that you just mentioned in your last couple of posts. My group wasn't prepared for that, and I have to say we couldn't argue back many of the key points. We thought that they would take a generic approach and not point it specifically at someone. That made their case stronger for the debate. Whether it is correct or not they did present a strong case. The actions of the POI that they declared do leave your head scratching.
I don't know if the people on the forum want to accept foul play from certain parties, but if foul play was involved it is hard to just dismiss the possibility.
My case study/debate is over and finals are around the corner. If I don't check back in thank you all for your help and patience with me and my posts. It would be interesting to hear some of the specific points made in your debates... If you are comfortable sharing them with us. Good luck with finals.:-)
|
|
Laurieisgone
Worcester, MA
|
"Matthew - Lincoln, NH - Feb 9, 2010 I was hunting 7.8 miles from the site of the car crash of Maura and found cloths with duct tape with hair in the tape. I called the state police they said they would call me back. Then 4 days they called me and wanted me to show them where the cloths were since the first call to the police it snowed but we found them and never heard nothing else." now that right there above is some GOOD police work I tellya. Really on top of things.
|
|
Since: Feb 12
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
amy researches wrote: <quoted text>
It would be interesting to hear some of the specific points made in your debates... If you are comfortable sharing them with us.
Good luck with finals.:-) For the record the class is debate specific, it was not meant to investigate or solve crimes. I know nothing more than what any of you readers know. The debate covered everything in that has been said and argued for many years on this forum. There was only one thing mentioned in the debate that the forum never looked at. Look at the Feb 10th timeline and then look at his phone records. Renner makes a point to mention that LE had to subpeona them because of the sprint intro letter and they weren't given to LE voluntary. It was common knowledge that he was traveling. At 3:20 LE calls his home and leaves a message. Between 5:00 to 5:30 Daughter calls him and tells him that other daughter is missing. looking at phone records incoming phone calls of 7.5 minutes and 10+ minutes around 5:17 seem to that time that he was informed. The alarming thing is that he doesn't make an outbound call. Not one after 5:03. A man who searches all of NH, goes on private property, asks the FBI, writes the governor, but doesn't make one call to daughters cell after she is missing after car crash. I'm not sure what any of this means but I would think the second you are told of something like this, I would expect numerous calls to her cell and some voicemails. We didn't have an answer for that. I'm hoping there is one, but we didn't have one. Maybe he stopped traveling and started making calls from payphone?
|
|
Since: Nov 08
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Lighthouse 101 wrote: <quoted text>At 3:20 LE calls his home and leaves a message. Between 5:00 to 5:30 Daughter calls him and tells him that other daughter is missing. looking at phone records incoming phone calls of 7.5 minutes and 10+ minutes around 5:17 seem to that time that he was informed.
The alarming thing is that he doesn't make an outbound call. Not one after 5:03. A man who searches all of NH, goes on private property, asks the FBI, writes the governor, but doesn't make one call to daughters cell after she is missing after car crash.
I'm not sure what any of this means but I would think the second you are told of something like this, I would expect numerous calls to her cell and some voicemails. If this is accurate. I don't know why he didn't make any calls, but I have to admit, it is an interesting question. I know I would be calling my kids cell to beat the band. I have in the past. Bill
|
|
Laurieisgone
Worcester, MA
|
Judged:
1
1
I have not said this hear before but I completely agree with Bill- if this is true why no outgoing calls to frantically find out what happened? ESPECIALLY from your own cellphone, you would think one wouldn't want to be using a payphone number to call your Daughter because she wouldn't even recognize the number and perhaps avoid the call. I don't think we knew this before, no outbound calls. very interesting.
|
|
|
Dating
