Where is MAURA MURRAY

Whiston, i'm not picking on you but..........

Didn't you attempt to contact an art gallery in Amherst via e-mail about a year ago and an employee at the galleary forwarded the e-mail to the Amherst Police Department? Didn't a detective from the Amherst Police Department reply to your e-mail?

Could you share with us what the Detective from the Amherst Police Dept wrote/stated to you in the e-mail?

Although this has nothing to do with Whiston and it is like comparing apples to oranges wasn't Beaglebart/Claysoup/Dopplegang er told to leave U-Mass campus for trespassing. At the time of the exchange he was showing a security gaurd a photo of Maura's Saturn and attempting to ask questions. Didn't he also mention receiving a visit from the PD at his home about a week after the U-Mass incident and presented with a restraining order?

I guess what I am trying to say is that Maura's is and has been an ongoing criminal investigation and I have read time and time again that NHSP is treating Maura's case as a potential homicide.

I specifically recall it being stated on MMM in early srping that NHSP and the Volunteer Investigators have followed up on ALL leads provided and they've hit a brick wall.

Anyone care to speculate on what the term 'a brick wall' means?

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
I still do not understand why you think there were "tea and crumpets" and that the old forum has anything they are willfully hiding and lying about.

Let us be honest about this FireCat. There were times on the old forum that it was clearly evident that the family knew more than they were saying. That is understandable. What I think made some people feel uncomfortable and maybe like they were played was the way the information was released. The absolute classic was the “no panties found” in the car during the search. There were several others but that one really stands out. Now if that was something that wasn’t allowed to be released then why was it released? And more importantly why was it released when it was? It served no purpose other than to try to spice up the talk at a time when the talk was literally coming to an end. If someone really thought that it was relevant why was it not released weeks or months or I suspect it was known and could have been released years earlier. It was held for a time when it could cause the most buzz and for its possible shock value. There are other things that I saw on the old forum like when members were beating their collective heads against the wall struggling with a problem, known information was withheld just so the debate could continue even though it appeared the family actually knew the real answer. Just sayin’

Bill

No really, I have never fully understood the term 'brick wall'. That's why I was asking?

Bill,

I didn't get the impression that the info about the panties was being withheld or any other info for that matter. I have always sincerely believed that the contributers who were Maura's family were relying on memory more than anything. I also believe that Maura's family is desperately trying to put the pieces of the puzzle, terrible ordeal, together just like everyone else.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

Bill,I didn't get the impression that the info about the panties was being withheld or any other info for that matter.

I believe him

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>

It served no purpose other than to try to spice up the talk at a time when the talk was literally coming to an end.

It was held for a time when it could cause the most buzz and for its possible shock value. There are other things that I saw on the old forum like when members were beating their collective heads against the wall struggling with a problem, known information was withheld just so the debate could continue even though it appeared the family actually knew the real answer. Just sayin’

Bill

Bill,

We are dealing with a human life, a tragedy, and ongoing criminal investigation (with the 75% of a conviction) and the potential of the same thing happening to someone else.

I am sincerely sorry that you actually found it within yourself to say such things about the very people trying to help find Maura and bring the person(s) responsible to justice.

BrooklynBridgeOwner wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe him

Ya, but you are just an internet troll while I am actually someone who cares.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text> Ya, but you are just an internet troll while I am actually someone who cares.

Whole lot of tip, not a lot of iceberg.

Elsewherebriefly is always Johnny on the spot when it comes to disinformation.

How you doing Johnny?

Johnny here hasn't seen the discussion your refer to WTF. He doesn't remember the broken wine box discussion. Johnny doesn't recall claims that no family members post here - when in fact three of Maura's cousins do. Johnny doesn't think it odd that any discussion of Maura's earlier life is twisted into an attack by a certain group of people.

Well here's some news Johnny boy - you aren't fooling us.

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>
Have they really determined that she wasn’t a runaway/suicidal/drunk? How would anyone know that for sure without knowing exactly what happened. Is L.E. actually saying that? I hear that there may be a criminal investigation. Wouldn’t drunk driving alone technically make it a criminal investigation? Allowing them to still investigate what currently cannot be shown to be anything more than a missing person’s case at this point. Some people may be making assumptions that they shouldn’t.
Bill

Bill, you are making assumptions that you shouldn't.
Fact is, it is.........and I will repeat, Bill, it is an ongoing criminal investigation.
If it were a driving while intoxicated, it would not have been under investigation by Major Crimes. The thought of a DUI being investigated by Major Crimes, that's a laugh.
Also, all of the court rulings to not allow Mr. Murray access to her files would not be based on a runaway or DUI basis.
Your statement of "Allowing them to still investigate what currently cannot be shown to be anything more than a missing person’s case at this point" elevates yourself to being in a position of making such a determination?
Just who are you? Are you questioning rulings made by higher courts of authority..... other than yourself?

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>We are dealing with a human life, a tragedy, and ongoing criminal investigation (with the 75% of a conviction) and the potential of the same thing happening to someone else.

About that 75% chance of a conviction. Could it be a conviction of Maura for drunk driving? My point isn’t even that Maura was drunk. I don’t know if she was or not though I have suspicions. My point is that we don’t even know what the hell that means. I am sorry you feel that I am in someway am doing something wrong by asking questions or expressing an opinion when I feel that I can back it up with observations or facts. But I will continue to do so when I see questions that need to be asked or things I feel may need to be said. I am still trying to find out if Maura ever picked up hitchhikers. That could change the “whole smoking man in the car at the accident” believability for me. Right now I consider the “eyewitness” to just be mistaken or possibly misinterpreting what they saw. A history, even once, of picking up hitchhikers could change that for me.
And I should point out that only the police are “dealing with a human life, a tragedy, and ongoing criminal investigation”. Everyone here (including weeper who I respect and am sure is skilled) is doing this as a diversion. They have no actual power to “deal with” or “investigate”.
Bill

Paul Keating wrote:

<quoted text>
Elsewherebriefly is always Johnny on the spot when it comes to disinformation.

O.K. Mr. Caveman, Sock Puppet, Brooklyn Bridge, Cajun Man, Ben Franklin,

My last comment was harsh and I apologize.

As far as me being a conveyer of disinformation, you are wrong.

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>I am still trying to find out if Maura ever picked up hitchhikers. That could change the “whole smoking man in the car at the accident” believability for me. Right now I consider the “eyewitness” to just be mistaken or possibly misinterpreting what they saw. A history, even once, of picking up hitchhikers could change that for me.
And I should point out that only the police are “dealing with a human life, a tragedy, and ongoing criminal investigation”. Everyone here (including weeper who I respect and am sure is skilled) is doing this as a diversion. They have no actual power to “deal with” or “investigate”.
Bill

Emphatically agree.

Interestingly, no comment on the question of Maura's having possibly picked up a hitchhiker, even when posed several times.

Also, panic seems to ensue within the ranks whenever there is mention of either no new information or the possible end to discussion here. It then appears as if contrived conversational exchange becomes a desperate attempt to hold onto "the process" as much as the actual ability to find Maura.

Yes, a diversion.

hi all .Shack it is important to know when the car was taken from Lavoies because it totally opens up the thought that someone found something at Lavoies after it was towed or someone attempted to get to the saturn for some reason whilst it was there.If Maura was a full time student it is very likely that she was claimed as a dependent on mrMurrays tax return which would show from a w2 where she worked.i have never called someone a liar either here or on any other forum.Elswhere when i emailed a gallery i got an email from Det. Davies who asked me why i was asking i sent him my phonee number just so he could check me out and heard nothing.as for why the Murrays will not post about Mauras prior life,they must have there reasons.i am not saying this to be disrespectful or hurt anybody ,i just don't know why.i am here to help if i can and to keep Mauras name out there. we have a witness that saw sgtSmiths car at the saturn 15-20 minutes before the Westmans called 911. whats up with that.we have a car being stored still outside in the weather.we have a search warrant for an abandoned vehicle and FD and EMS being told to stay away from it.take care philip

Excerpt from Valley News Article dated April 14, 2007

Re: 75% chance of a conviction statement. Other statements that followed while Stelzin was on the stand.

“While on the stand Stelzin said releasing information could tip of perpetrators about the focus of the investigation or taint new information provided by witnesses.

“We want to know what they know first hand as opposed to what they know from the public or press”, Strelzin said.“It is a very important devise for us to tell who knows things and who is a liar.”

“Potentially every piece of evidence can be important in the future” Stelzin said.“I don’t know what the potential defendant will do”

http://news.webshots.com/photo/21870231300988...

Lady Gray wrote:

<quoted text>The thought of a DUI being investigated by Major Crimes, that's a laugh.
Also, all of the court rulings to not allow Mr. Murray access to her files would not be based on a runaway or DUI basis.
Your statement of "Allowing them to still investigate what currently cannot be shown to be anything more than a missing person’s case at this point" elevates yourself to being in a position of making such a determination? Just who are you? Are you questioning rulings made by higher courts of authority..... other than yourself?

According to their own website the major crimes unit investigates many crimes including thefts, harassment, escapes, Criminal Mischief, Indecent Exposure, false reports to police etc. Now maybe DUI doesn’t rise to the level of crime that indecent exposure, criminal mischief or harassment does but it might. Part of their responsibility includes missing persons which is what the Maura case is. Not murder, or white slavery or anything else, a missing person. She is clearly listed on their website as a missing person nothing else. So if you have a real argument with that description I suggest you take it up with them.

The court rulings not allowing Mr. Murray to access her files was based solely on the fact that it might compromise the investigation. I don’t remember reading anywhere what the investigation was other than a missing person investigation. And missing persons means missing. Not how or why she is missing.

Here is their own description of their Investigative Services Bureau also called the Major crimes unit. Inside that is the Missing Persons Section and they “are responsible for investigating missing and unidentified persons. The Missing Persons Section also maintains the State Clearinghouse for Missing and Exploited Children. The Clearinghouse is responsible for tracking all of New Hampshire’s missing person cases, dental record entry, and offers technical assistance with photo and flyer creation and distribution.”

Bill

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
She very likely would have been. I don't think it's a legal obligation, but very likely the case, if she were in fact a legal dependent. That has to do not only with student-ness, but also, of course, with age.
My question is....where is that line of thinking going? Why are we trying to determine this? I'm not questioning relevance per se so much as trying to follow.

That information will show the gallery she worked at by the FIN #.

hi Firecat and all.i want to know where Maura worked to simply know who she was around and when and wwhat her schedule was espcially for the day of feb 08 2004.take care philip

nay·say·er [ náy sày &#601;r ](plural nay·say·ers)
noun

Definition:

objector: somebody who speaks against something, especially somebody who habitually expresses contrary opinions

Want to point out that the naysayer definition is not meant to say that anyone who speaks contrary to the general belief is not listened to.

I find it interesting though when there is a repeated, consistent, habitual, ongoing resistance and postings are trivialized.

It makes me sad. Human nature makes me sad at times.

I then remind myself of all of the wonderful, caring, supportive citizens of the area where Maura Murray disappeared.

There are so many messages that are not seen here or by any other's eyes other than whom they were intended for. And they never will be seen on here unless they post themself.

They come through the MySpace page frequently in addition to direct communication or emails.

But these citizens don't dare post their thoughts due to a possible mocking by their own fellow area citizens who continue their stance, such as the posting recently, that this forum is viewed for entertainment and laughter.

How sad. The posters from the area who insist on mocking their own fellow area citizens are in a minority, trust me on this.

What's that saying about glass houses?

Just for your edification - I haven't responded about Maura picking up hitch hikers or not because I have no idea. Not a conspiracy on my part.

Has anyone else seen this?
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp...

A man from Malone in northern NY is being investigated in the disappearance of a young Quebec woman in 2004.