Where is MAURA MURRAY

sophie, i don't think you'd get a factual answer to that question unless you were talking to someone involved with whatever crime you're suggesting was happening, or a local authority that was aware of these apparent crimes.

i've heard rumors, sure... but rumors they were.

but, what's your point?

illegal activities
would result in what Sophie Bean???

yet again you have no facts but hear say

some of us are more concerned by the current owners than the past but guess what
Sophie Bean that comes under

personal beliefs and thoughts

just like those you offer up as illegical acts

sophie bean wrote:

And even more interesting.
Asking questions - reasonable questions - is "pot stirring" and "trouble making."
I'm not the one who's screaming.
I'm not ordering others to "SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!!!"
Yet I am a "troublemaker" - apparently I am. Good for me. If that's what it takes to find Maura, I'm delighted to be a "troublemaker."
Let's try the original question again.
Does anyone here know for a fact that the "restaurant" in Woodsville was not running illegal activities within a stone's throw of an elementary school?
Or is that a "troublemaking" questio?
If so, is "troublemaking" actually a good thing in this case?
That was my original, as yet unanswered question.
No, I do not consider "how dare you ask that question? shut up!!!" to be an "answer."
"No, it was not running illegal activities and it is slanderous to suggest it!" would be an answer.
"Yes, we know that they were running illegal activities there" would be an answer.

sophie bean wrote:

Here's a rhetorical question for anyone here. God forbid that it should ever happen to any father's child in Grafton county.
Your daughter goes missing. She's 20 years old, an "adult" so she's entitled to go missing. Local LE does not search, barely investigates, and hides what police report exists, though it isn't much. They go on to conceal ALL information about the case, refuse to discuss it with you in any way, accuse you in the media of being a crank and your daughter of being a suicidal runaway.
Is anyone here seriously telling me that you WOULDN'T do what Fred has done, or more, if it were YOUR daughter who was missing?
If you say, "yes, of course I would" - then you had best not be quite so disdainful and resentful toward Fred and Maura's whole family.
If you say, "no, I wouldn't do that" - well, I guess I need to leave that right where it falls.
What would YOU do to protect / find your child?

These types of questions are asinine, immature and childish, and go to pot stirring/trouble making.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, at least this confirms the (73) property crimes,(33) of which were burglaries, reported in 2004 Uniform Crime Report and none reported the year before.

How so?

sophie bean wrote:

Since the state of NH was found to be unlawfully witholding this access to citizens.

And this is why I hate responding to your fantasies. You make them sound reasonable when they are not. I actually read the judgment. What it said was simply that the brush the government was using was too broad. They absolutely had the right to refuse releasing any of the information but they need to justify what things they are not releasing to the satisfaction of a lower court. No where did I read they did anything unlawful. No one was charged with a crime. No one was even accused of wrong doing. Now I read that a while ago so someone correct me if I am remembering it wrong.

I really don’t want to have to read it again.

B.

get real wrote:

<quoted text>
How so?

http://www.disastercenter.com/newhamp/crime/7...

Oh and get real,

Those are facts that cannot be argued, dowplayed, denied, or contradicted.

Not only do you make them sound reasonable but you also usually string several of them together so I need to pick which of the most incorrect things you said needs to be addressed and then some slip through. Fortunately there are others watching also. Unfortunately that makes it looks like piling on which I hate but your mistruths’ really need to be kept in check.

B.

White Wash wrote:

What I am actually saying without you twisting it is this!
Those of us researching this CASE have obtained
public information simply by requesting it!
Once it became a LAW SUIT then a CRIMINAL CASE
it CHANGES PUBLIC INFORMATION!
I don't give a RODENTS RUMP what you think cause you what FRED MURRAY HAD ACCESS TO IT ALL and the plain and simple FACT HE didn't want it or do anything with it when had is really is who's FAULT?
Come on Seriously Fred was told by FBI to GET THE CAR he requests it be crushed!
Fred has the computer doesn't copy the hard drive!
Kathleen has all her PERSONAL BELONGS FROM THE CAR AND SCHOOL.
So they do NOTHING with these ITEMS and IT'S who's fault??
Take your SOAP BOX and try choking it down someone else's throat it ain't this one!
<quoted text>

Ok, THAT'S out of line. That's blaming the family. "Ain't" no "subtext" there.

If Fred had access to all the information that the police did, why did he have to sue the state of NH? "Those of us researching the CASE" did not have access to public information. "We" had to SUE to get it. Because "we" don't have people "near and dear to us" who are willing to find information in the county clerk's office when "we" (who aren't allegedly reporters who should be able to find things in county clerk's offices without a problem) can't find them on our own once the even GET to the public record.

I'm sure I don't need to remind you, White Wash, that the police have TRAINING, ACCESS to information, LABS, TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE, and all sorts of other goodies that the average citizen does not. They are CIVIL SERVANTS. That means they provide the public with a SERVICE. That means that they EARN their paychecks, which I understand in Haverhill are abominably low for the work they do.

How is A CIVILIAN supposed to know what to do with all the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that has been summarily given back to him by the law enforcement officials who said they were done with it? Leading a person to believe that they had already gotten all the information out/off/from it (which obviously they didn't, or they wouldn't have asked for it back). THEY DON'T. THAT'S WHAT THE POLICE ARE THERE FOR. IT'S THEIR JOB. It's also what private investigators are there for, but as we have already been told, private investigators are prohibitively expensive and the Murrays were not able to afford one.

How dare you blame the Murray family for TRUSTING A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TO DO ITS JOB CORRECTLY? That is absolutely the most outrageous thing I have read on these 600 pages of discussion. At least Alden acknowledges his behaviour by calling himself Sybil. You jsut take the cake.

Yes, I have lost my temper, and yes I will get flamed for it.

And no, I'm not sorry I've said any of it.

I see, Bill/WTF - no suggestion of anything illegal, not even unintentional wrongdoing they just "had to justify it." Huh. That's interesting.

My question about the "restaurant" was and is about illegal activities taking place on the premises.
"Oh I've heard rumors..."
Has anyone investigated this or are they simply idle, malicious rumors?
If anyone knows that there's a factual basis for these "rumors" - why not investigate?
I'm still trying to get my head around "rumors" that are "we heard that they're running drugs / prostitution out of there, but we don't know it, so best not to do anything."
I have to say that if I heard rumors like that in my town about a place that is that close to an elementary school, I would damn well be demanding some real answers.

Then again, I'm a "troublemaker."

So, WW, you are saying that Maura's family is responsible for her disappearance. If not, please correct me.

Also, WTF and WW, you're saying that if you suspect / hear that criminal activity is taking place close to an elementary school, you'd say that it's "just a rumor" and you wouldn't think about it any more, and do nothing about it? You woudn't ask LE about it?

To put it more bluntly, if necessary, if you'd heard that Maura was the victim of foul play in or near Woodsville - "just a rumor" - as people in the area have repeatedly said they HAVE heard, you would do nothing more than shrug it off?

get real wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm not WW, but I'll answer anyway, just like Firecat is always answering for someone else.
Your questions are asinine.
That you would even ask them just goes to being a pot stirrer and a trouble maker.

Hey, you make a mistake or ask a question on a public forum, that's a risk you take.

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>
And this is why I hate responding to your fantasies. You make them sound reasonable when they are not. I actually read the judgment. What it said was simply that the brush the government was using was too broad. They absolutely had the right to refuse releasing any of the information but they need to justify what things they are not releasing to the satisfaction of a lower court. No where did I read they did anything unlawful. No one was charged with a crime. No one was even accused of wrong doing. Now I read that a while ago so someone correct me if I am remembering it wrong.
I really don’t want to have to read it again.
B.

In case you change your mind, here it is:

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinion...

It's 2006-113, under December 20. Frederick J. Murray v. Special Investigation Unit.....

(which, last I checked my dictionary, isn't ACTUALLY the whole State of New Hampshire. But I digress.)

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.disastercenter.com/newhamp/crime/7...

No, that's not what I was asking, how does WW's post confirm that?

I guess you must live in a place where no crime happens?

Bacon, thank you for attempting to honestly answer my question, and for recognizing it as a real question. It's very refreshing. If local LE is aware of rumors of a crime being committed, I'd hope that they would be as forthright as possible with local citizens. If there was any possibility that the rumors could be true, I'd hope that they would investigate them to the point that they could reasonably conclude that a crime had or hadn't been committed.

I've said it until I almost can't anymore: if there are dangerous criminals in the immediate area, I'm every bit as concerned for local citizens and their safety as I am about what happened to Maura. Admittedly, I'm more concerned if both possibilities are connected.
Why is concern for local citizens, young women, and children viewed and judged as "mean" and "incendiary" - both anonymously and by posters like WW and WTF?

sophie bean wrote:

I see, Bill/WTF - no suggestion of anything illegal, not even unintentional wrongdoing they just "had to justify it." Huh. That's interesting.
My question about the "restaurant" was and is about illegal activities taking place on the premises.
"Oh I've heard rumors..."
Has anyone investigated this or are they simply idle, malicious rumors?
If anyone knows that there's a factual basis for these "rumors" - why not investigate?
I'm still trying to get my head around "rumors" that are "we heard that they're running drugs / prostitution out of there, but we don't know it, so best not to do anything."

yeah, i heard rumors. but sophie, i am not a police officer. i am a female in my early 20's. you want me to go investigate illegal activity? did i understand that correctly?
i don't know how involved local authorities were with that establishment... ive never heard the prostitution or drug rumors about that place, so i guess you know more than i.
did YOU ever report the rumors you heard to local authorities??? just wondering.

get real wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that's not what I was asking, how does WW's post confirm that?
I guess you must live in a place where no crime happens?

Oh, she was saying that she wanted to live in a place where no crime happened. According the report, there wasn't any one year. Obviously, that either means there was none REPORTED, or there was....a data glitch.

I'm not weighing in on that, because it's not my concern here and frankly I have no opinion on it.

get real wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that's not what I was asking, how does WW's post confirm that?
I guess you must live in a place where no crime happens?

Nope, I do but the crime rate didn't go from nil (AS WHITEWASH POINTED OUT) to (8) rapes and (50+) burglaries in two years!

sorry sophie, i thought the post i quoted was a response to me.

Firecat, I've lost my temper, too. To be told to "SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE!!!" for asking simple, reasonable questions is fairly unprecedented in my experience. These were NOT questions that I initially asked earlier this week. I simpy said "I understand Fred's desire for all the information that he could get" - and it ALL hit the fan.

WHY? Someone, I mean someone in addition to WW, does not want ANY questions asked, and has NO problem telliing ANYONE who would ask questions to shut up and go away...haven't heard "or else" yet in a public forum, but that feels like the "subtext."

If I'm mistaken about that, you - WW and WTF - can tell me exactly why you have a problem with anything that I'm saying.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, she was saying that she wanted to live in a place where no crime happened. According the report, there wasn't any one year. Obviously, that either means there was none REPORTED, or there was....a data glitch.
I'm not weighing in on that, because it's not my concern here and frankly I have no opinion on it.

Then why reply?