Where is MAURA MURRAY

"and that great statement there are no secrets only unknowns"

Although I understood and very much respected this statement from day one seeing Fred on 20/20 confirmed this.

Shack wrote:

Quija..a few days, weeks..? ago I wrote those
stops by PO Cas...of red trucks..which is why I
don't think that it is a FACT that the truck was
MAss license plate...DL states one such truck was
a NH temp. All stops in Pike Vil, area of Haverhill in those early hours of Tues.
Puhleeze, I have asked this question upside down
and backwards....How come, why, what, where did it become a part of this ...the idea of a possible
person following?...a helper..? a passenger..?
I have never heard or read a word about why this is a theory....What or why would one think that she was not alone..?

Hello Shack,

Interesting point of yours there.
I had no idea previously that all the red trucks checked out by Haverhill PD (presumably) were stopped in or near Pike (on Rte 25 towards Glencliff/Oliverian Valley). So, geographically speaking, there seems to be a possible connection line here between Pike, Glencliff and red trucks.
There must obviously have been a very clear reason for this particular geographical location.

As for your questions regarding the theory of a possible "helper" it goes like this:

A friend of Maura´s may have been driving Maura´s Saturn and may have hit Petrit Vasi in the centre of Amherst.
This friend, who then becomes more a foe than a friend, then threatens/coerces/forces Maura to help him/her to dispose of the Saturn.
He/she drives his/her own car or truck (possibly the red truck seen by witness RO in Swiftater) up to NH from Amherst as a kind of "back-up" vehicle for Maura´s unreliable Saturn.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
When I saw Sharon R. on 20/20 my immediate thought was how beautiful she is. After getting to know her on Maura's forum over the years Sharon is beautiful person both inside and out.
Quija,
Thanks for the rundown on red trucks stopped in the Grafton County area.

As I recall though, Sharon is the one who was quoted as having said Fred was thinking outloud about Maura potentially committing suicide and that there must have been more going on than the accidents in Amherst.

Lady Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Philip, if you are infering that maybe there really wasn't a call, USMass police discovered the location from which the call came but had no way to identify who made the call.

Interesting....not sure I've read/heard that prior to this. Has the location of the call been made public?

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text> Interesting....not sure I've read/heard that prior to this. Has the location of the call been made public?

looking4amoose,

Exactly me reaction as well!
I´ve never previously seen any references to the location of Maura´s upsetting call having been pinpointed. This is very interesting indeed.

It would ssem then that the telephone number in question would have been used by several people, as it was apparently not possible to ascertain who had made the upsetting call from that particular telephone number.

A public telephone of some kind (in the street, in a bar/restaurant, dorm or similar public or semi-public building), perhaps chosen by the caller on purpose for not really being tracable to a specific caller.

The phone call - according to the known time line - must have been made little over an hour after Petrit Vasi was struck by a hit-and-run driver in Amherst.

Now, the timing and the fact that the call could not be traced back to a particular person is a combination which at least can not be entirely dismissed as co-incidental.

IMHO.

Yes, a poster on MMM said there were red pick-ups pulled over at Pike Village during the night Maura went missing until 6AM. And those were a good % of the stops, several being for things like defective equipment, etc.

SO MY ABOVE DRAFT OF THE RED PICKUPS INCLUDED AT LEAST 3 INCORRECT/IRRELEVANT ONES. Below are the only ones I found down in Pike. Maybe the specifics don't even matter, just that red PUs were being pulled over?

----5:26 AM Tuesday morning, the red for PU F250 at Pike Station Store with the NH temp plates red/whi.

---- 5:50 AM, 1998 Ford PU Ranger (can't tell color) at Pike Station Store

---- 6:36 AM, red 1996 Dodg PU Vt plates, on Dartmouth College Highway

CS with 2 other officers were dispatched for suspicious person in a WHI 1999 Jeep LL Grand Cherokee, NH plates at 1:30 PM in Haverhill around Pine/Beech St. Don't know what his work schedule was, but that might explain why other officers executed the search warrant on the Saturn Tuesday A.M.(IIRC).

I don't understand a lot of this log, but on Tuesday 10:47AM --- I think this was further south so chances are it's another case --- there was a note: "g1 advising that the commissioners office may be calling with information on a subject they are looking for... if they do get the info to #1 with out using any names." It didn't seem to be THAT far south of Glencliff, Rt. 118, etc. It was also just around the time of the search warrant and Saturn search IIRC. Can a smart person check this out? See if it might be related to Maura altho it's not right in Haverhill?

Correction --- CS and 2 other officers were dispatched at 1:30 AM, not PM, 2nd to last paragraph above.

Eurobserver wrote:

<quoted text>
looking4amoose,
Exactly me reaction as well!
I´ve never previously seen any references to the location of Maura´s upsetting call having been pinpointed. This is very interesting indeed.
It would ssem then that the telephone number in question would have been used by several people, as it was apparently not possible to ascertain who had made the upsetting call from that particular telephone number.
A public telephone of some kind (in the street, in a bar/restaurant, dorm or similar public or semi-public building), perhaps chosen by the caller on purpose for not really being tracable to a specific caller.
The phone call - according to the known time line - must have been made little over an hour after Petrit Vasi was struck by a hit-and-run driver in Amherst.
Now, the timing and the fact that the call could not be traced back to a particular person is a combination which at least can not be entirely dismissed as co-incidental.
IMHO.

I've definitely heard it before, quite a while ago. This is far from new info. But it does go to show that this forum does still serve at least one purpose, which is to clarify the facts and make sure everyone has all of them, and all of them right.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>
As I recall though, Sharon is the one who was quoted as having said Fred was thinking outloud about Maura potentially committing suicide and that there must have been more going on than the accidents in Amherst.

Hmm, Don't recall.

I do recall that Fred bent over backwards to be helpful/agreeable with LE and not to get in their way during those first days of the investigation.

Are you referencing the 'Squaw Walk' statement that was taken out of context and used against Fred? It's been a long 4+ years and I am still disgusted by the mentality of this. The suicide thoery in general!

Shack was a second home owner in Woodsville while I was a second home owner in Montgomery. Given that Shack was such a great voice for MMM.com and there were so many active members from the immediate NH area I chose to be a more active member on Brianna's site.

I'll admit I missed a bit of reading on the first forum.

I don't recall that other statement about accidents in Amherst. Maybe it as said?

And your point is?

Lady Gray wrote:

I strongly disagree with this. Your statement infers that reports are open to the interpretation of the writer. It "ought" to be mandatory for statements to be uniform so there isn't any MISinterpretation to it. Officers change forces, move out of state, pass away. Anyone reading that report should be able to decipher it without having to go to the writer for interpretation. Reports are consistently viewed by other officers, district/county attorneys, defense attorneys. It's absurd for you to say that they can't read a report and take it for face value.
You are blowing smoke, WTF.

Blowing smoke. Really? I guess I’ll have to stop teaching the documentation course that I do. I teach documentation among other things. Of course I’m no lawyer so we have a lawyer on staff that reviews what I teach. We also have a consultant lawyer who specializes in this type of documentation who also reviews what I teach. What you are saying would have a lot more meaning if whenever a document is used in court they don’t first take a deposition from the person who writes the document. And if it is a stand alone document why are the writers always called into court to testify on the stand about the documents. I mean if the document is self explanatory they would never need to do this yet 99% of the time they do. Okay, 100% of the time, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can ever find two lawyers that look at the same document and they agree on what it says I’ll kiss your xxx. Don’t worry, I won’t be puckering up anytime soon.:)

Bill

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>
Long Pond Rd is open during the winter, weather permitting. During snowy winters it is often closed though. As I remember it, that winter, we had a camp in Lisbon and by February we had about 3 feet of snow on the ground as we didn't plow.

Hello looking4amoose,

Thanks for that information.

Would you consider it likely that the Long Pond Road would have been open for traffic on the 9th/10 February 2004 with a reported (at Benton) snow cover of 7 inches and no precipitation.

Thanks!

To all, if I may

With reference to documents/videotapes being accepted as evidence (Court Exhibit #132, etc.) and presented in a Trial Court, the author of that document/videotape is required to be present to “authenticate” the Exhibit. The exception to this rule is when both the State (Plaintiff in a Civil matter) and the Defense agree to its authentication a Judge will generally accept the Exhibit and introduce it into evidence. Contrary to WTF’s belief, sometimes attorneys (even apposing Counsel) will agree on the introduction of documents and or videotapes into evidence without them being authenticated to save the Courts time. Obviously a videotape (time dated) speaks for itself or “stands-alone” as you put it but, almost always has to be authenticated by the person who took the videotape or completed the document. Police Reports are always “subjective” thereby open to challenge after a thorough document evaluation by the opposing side. Police Reports/Accident Reports sometimes tend to be very much open to interpretation (as are most all writings) in that we are taught very young in life to write in a chronological order to tell a story, and that’s exactly what you read in these documents, a story. Often times, when a Police Report/Accident Report is written days (or weeks later, as in accident reports which have to be filed within 15 days of the accident) facts arise “out of order” yet appear chronologically in a Police Report. Sometimes this practice of putting “facts” out-of-the-order they are learned (or in a chronologic order to make ones story flow) can turn a case around at Trial. Example would be discovering evidence in a vehicle, then using that evidence in an “Affidavit in Support of a Search Warrant”(the legal instrument to conduct the search) to search the vehicle then re-discovering the same evidence. Police officers are not lawyers and most don’t understand “case law”. Ask any police officer what gives him/her the “authority” to stop you for speeding and they will say something like “I’m a police officer, that’s my authority.” Their “authority” is the Statue/RSA/General Law you violated not the badge on their shirts or the gun on their hip. The “story” in this accident report boils down to everyone justifying their actions or inactions. I’m sure everyone expected Maura to show up in a few days after she “sobered up”. They were wrong.

Respectfully,

Weeper

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>
Blowing smoke. Really? I guess I’ll have to stop teaching the documentation course that I do. I teach documentation among other things. Of course I’m no lawyer so we have a lawyer on staff that reviews what I teach. We also have a consultant lawyer who specializes in this type of documentation who also reviews what I teach. What you are saying would have a lot more meaning if whenever a document is used in court they don’t first take a deposition from the person who writes the document. And if it is a stand alone document why are the writers always called into court to testify on the stand about the documents. I mean if the document is self explanatory they would never need to do this yet 99% of the time they do. Okay, 100% of the time, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you can ever find two lawyers that look at the same document and they agree on what it says I’ll kiss your xxx. Don’t worry, I won’t be puckering up anytime soon.:)
Bill

Just for giggles, Bill, I'll ask. What do you do when you come across a document written by someone who's dead? Do you call HIM to the stand? Depose HIM?

My suspicion is that the FIRST thing you teach them in class is that they are to be as complete and as consistent as possible, and to fill in as much as they possibly can, so they don't have to rely on memory, notes that only they understand, and other people's interpretation?

True or false?

Ladies anf gentlemen of the message board, I'm just a Caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me. Every time I look at a Police report I ask myself, did little Deamons with magic powers put the strange graphics on it? I don't know, I'm just a caveman.

But there is one thing I do know - I don't know much.

Thank you.

Weeper wrote:

To all, if I may

You most certainly may. I hope that clears some things up for everyone.

Ask any police officer what gives him/her the “authority” to stop you for speeding and they will say something like “I’m a police officer, that’s my authority.” Their “authority” is the Statue/RSA/General Law you violated not the badge on their shirts or the gun on their hip.

Which is why driving a VW bus, for instance, is NOT probable cause when you get pulled over and they want to search your vehicle. Driving a VW bus does not in and of itself break any laws, nor is it a valid suspicion that you are therefore carrying/using drugs.(yes, I had to point this out to a police officer once. Also had to point out that what was in the vial my friend was carrying was insulin. That was a fun night.)

This is also one of the many, many reasons that racial profiling is stupid and illegal. Sometimes cops confuse a badge, a uniform, and a gun with the authority itself, when really all they are is a SYMBOL of the authority they represent. That's why citizen's arrests exist, at least in theory. The law is still being broken, whether or not the cop is there to show the badge that symbolizes the extant law. The reason you don't hear about too many citizen's arrests is that people probably don't listen to you if they don't see the symbols of authority. Which is, of course, why they exist.

And this is NOT allowed to turn into another LK discussion. Cease and desist from going there on this thread, people, or I shall be very displeased.

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer wrote:

Ladies anf gentlemen of the message board, I'm just a Caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me. Every time I look at a Police report I ask myself, did little Deamons with magic powers put the strange graphics on it? I don't know, I'm just a caveman.
But there is one thing I do know - I don't know much.
Thank you.

All right, who let the spamalopes out?:)

Weeper wrote:

Police Reports are always “subjective” thereby open to challenge after a thorough document evaluation by the opposing side. Police Reports/Accident Reports sometimes tend to be very much open to interpretation (as are most all writings) in that we are taught very young in life to write in a chronological order to tell a story, and that’s exactly what you read in these documents, a story

Weeper you say that police reports are subjective as are all reports. I fully agree so I am not sure if we are agreeing or not. The only time I have seen a report admitted without any problems is when the data in the report is cursory in nature. Both sided agree that the report shows that in or around a certain time a specific person was there. Things like that. I have never, ever seen a report that was at the heart of the case or near the heart go uncontested and the writer not interrogated about it. Of course everyone is taught to document as thoroughly and as completely as possible and to try to put things in a linear manner but there is always gray in anything that is subjective and these reports are subjective as you stated. As such there are open to interpretation.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Just for giggles, Bill, I'll ask. What do you do when you come across a document written by someone who's dead? Do you call HIM to the stand? Depose HIM?
My suspicion is that the FIRST thing you teach them in class is that they are to be as complete and as consistent as possible, and to fill in as much as they possibly can, so they don't have to rely on memory, notes that only they understand, and other people's interpretation?
True or false?

Absolutely true. I have already explained part of this but in the case of the writer being dead the opposing council may request that the document not be allowed into evidence since the witness cannot be put on the stand. It would be up to the judge to determine its value and reliability.

I can’t really see the value in continuing to bang on this unless people believe its helping solve Maura’s whereabouts.

Bill

All, if I may

FireCat # 4424 post,

I can answer that question as to “what happens if the person who wrote the document is dead”? If the document is NOT a Sworn Deposition and/or Affidavit, which is a sworn statement under oath, it will NOT be admitted into evidence. Even sworn depositions (without the person being alive) can be denied into evidence simply because you can’t enforce the “…or suffer the pains and penalties of perjury” clause of a Sworn Deposition and/or Affidavit on a dead person.

Respectfully

Weeper

Bill,

We do agree as to our understanding about Document Evaluation and Examination. This discussion may not lend itself to finding Maura, per se' however, it does help to educate our esteemed posters as to acceptence of "Legal Documents and Instruments", procedural police activities (without beating up LE)and such. Thank you all in advance for educating me as well.

Respectfully,

Weeper

Weeper wrote:

The “story” in this accident report boils down to everyone justifying their actions or inactions. I’m sure everyone expected Maura to show up in a few days after she “sobered up”. They were wrong.

Hello Weeper,

I understand that you are ex-LE. As such I am certain you spent a couple ;) of years on patrol in your early career. It might be useful to give your opinion on CS’s actions that night. I have an opinion but I am not going to discuss anything you say in the forum. I’ll take it as your opinion. I am sure you must have seen one or two walk-a-ways with very similar circumstance. What would you have done in these circumstances? Especially considering the size of the department and the resources that would be available. Would you have expected Maura to show up? Do you think based upon what you would have seen and known at the time that CS’s action was appropriate? Have you ever had any walk-a-ways from an accident that didn’t show up or showed up dead? In how many years of patrol?

I am really interested in your experience in these matters. No sarcasm here, serious as a heart attack as we use to say.

And it seemed to start out with people asking questions but then it seemed to become a little more adversarial. That seems to happen when they don’t like the answers.

Thanks,
Bill