Where is MAURA MURRAY

Part 2 of 2

No one, including members of a person's family, has a right to know where another person is living and what that person is doing. Issues having to do with the distribution of a missing person's property arise from time to time and all of the states have a legal procedure to enable that process.
These legal rules have unintentionally created a zone of limbo for adults reported missing, but not believed to be endangered or suspected of having committed or been a victim of a crime. Law enforcement agencies rarely devote attention to reports of missing persons. In the Green River serial murder case in Seattle, for example, the King County Sheriff’s Department refused to accept several missing person reports that family members attempted to file on behalf of a missing family member whose remains were later found. They were told that the department would not accept the report unless more than 30 days had passed since the missing person was last seen or heard from. Even then they did little or nothing to find the missing person. Law enforcement agencies claim that most people reported missing turn up alive eventually and their primary responsibility to enforce the laws would be compromised if they assigned officers to chase down missing people.
Maura Murray entered this limbo zone when she disappeared on February 9, 2004, and all efforts to find her were unsuccessful. Paradoxically, when the searches to find her ended without success, the legal justification to continue searching for her (i.e., endangerment) ended. In the usual course of events, the matter would have been officially closed absent probable cause to believe she was a victim of a crime.
Although we are not privy to the information and evidence gathered by the police, we know from an Assistant Attorney General representing the NH State Police in Fred Murray's lawsuit that NHSP has not closed the case and its unwillingness to share information suggests circumstantially that, as of the date the statement was made, the agency believed it probable cause to believe Maura Murray was a homicide victim, but not enough evidence to constitute probable cause to arrest anyone for the homicide.
If Maura had contacted the police and asked them to stop looking for her, they certainly would have agreed to her request after they satisfied themselves that Maura, not someone pretending to be Maura, freely and voluntarily made the request. They would not have had a legal obligation to disclose or not to disclose her contact and whereabouts, but probably would honor her request. If they had determined that she was not a victim of a homicide or any other crime (e.g., kidnapping), they would have officially closed the case. I am not aware of and have no reason to believe that the New Hampshire State Police or any other law enforcement agency in this country would not officially close the investigation after determining that a missing person was alive and not a victim of a crime. Given the Assistant Attorney General’s statements during the litigation two years ago, I believe we can reasonably conclude that the State of New Hampshire is unofficially handling Maura’s case as an unsolved homicide.

RE: The difference between a person of interest in a police investigation and a suspect.
Police are fond of distinguishing between a person of interest (POI) and a suspect. There is no difference in their minds, however, because as with a rose, a suspect is a suspect. The basis for this distinction has to do with the Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to incriminate oneself, the Sixth Amendment right to be represented by an attorney, and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona that interpreted both amendments to require police to admonish suspects in custody that they had a right to remain silent and to have an attorney present to represent them during a custodial interrogation. The Miranda-warning requirement and the exclusionary rule that courts impose to exclude statements by suspects during custodial interrogations produced a substantial number of cases in which prosecution and defense disputed the meaning of the term custodial interrogation. No one disputed that a person under arrest is in custody, but what happens if the police never tell the suspect that he is under arrest? What happens if the suspect blurts out a confession without having been asked a question?
The United States Supreme Court eventually decided on an objective totality-of-the-circumstances test to decide whether a person was under arrest (custody). Anticipating clever defense arguments, the Court held that the officer’s subjective intent was not a relevant consideration and defined the test as the officer was not required to advise the person that he was free to leave at any time. With those two significant caveats, the Court defined the test as follows: Considering the totality of the circumstances, would a reasonable person in the same situation as the person being questioned believe that he was free to terminate the contact with police and go about his business.
By referring to a suspect as a person of interest rather than a suspect, by describing the interrogation as an interview rather than an interrogation, and by conducting the interview in a less confining environment than a small locked room at the police station, the police sought to avoid Mirandizing suspects and to elicit damaging admissions and confessions that would not be subject to the exclusionary rule. The strategy has been very successful.
I mention this law enforcement tactic because I wonder if the police have referred to anyone in Maura’s case as a person of interest.

Shack wrote:

Haven't really had a chance to really get into the New MMM Forum. Been "under the weather" literally and figuratively. How nice it is
to read the names of those who were in the first and second Form.
Hi NH Jane!....Someone spoke of our ol' Bob..have often wondered if he still comes to read. Is Weeper's FIT back on track...? Yeh, Firecat...lol..the "Judging"....Phfftt! .not on context, but on the author posting.....ignorance personified. Advocate, TX for directing me to "Links" for that article. Yes...a Toast in the Tent...to Silky and the MMM Forum
rejuvenated....Det. C. I did see your name listed...Nice to see y'all....

***The MMM forum rejuvenated*** with Weeper's FIT and Bob the pretend bartender that serves pretend drinks. How disappointing.
Thanks Shack for letting us know this is a rejuvenated MMM forum where there was no room for new ideas if they didn't quite agree with what the FIT thought happened and the same group of people went over the same few ideas for almost 5 years while new people were accused of being red herrings if they happened to have a new idea.
I will not waste my time even going there as I know what the MMM forum was and it sounds like this is going to be the same.
I just hope Advocator will not allow you to turn it into another bashing site against the state of NH and the locals.
How sad to see what it is becoming in such a very short time. It was supposed to be a good thing for everyone but from your post it's evident it will be the same old clique.
I'll stay here on Topix where everyone is equal and some are truly trying to find answers to what happened to Maura. We won't have a tent, bartender, drinks in the tent or attack ducks but we will have a place for our ideas where locals and non locals will be welcome to post their ideas without fears of getting Phfftt'd by you.
Thanks again Shack.My time is valuable and you've saved me from wasting it.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
***The MMM forum rejuvenated*** with Weeper's FIT and Bob the pretend bartender that serves pretend drinks. How disappointing.
Thanks Shack for letting us know this is a rejuvenated MMM forum where there was no room for new ideas if they didn't quite agree with what the FIT thought happened and the same group of people went over the same few ideas for almost 5 years while new people were accused of being red herrings if they happened to have a new idea.
I will not waste my time even going there as I know what the MMM forum was and it sounds like this is going to be the same.
I just hope Advocator will not allow you to turn it into another bashing site against the state of NH and the locals.
How sad to see what it is becoming in such a very short time. It was supposed to be a good thing for everyone but from your post it's evident it will be the same old clique.
I'll stay here on Topix where everyone is equal and some are truly trying to find answers to what happened to Maura. We won't have a tent, bartender, drinks in the tent or attack ducks but we will have a place for our ideas where locals and non locals will be welcome to post their ideas without fears of getting Phfftt'd by you.
Thanks again Shack.My time is valuable and you've saved me from wasting it.

Hey, Wowzer ~

Advocator has done a nice job....a fantastic job...the new forum is clean/searchable and organized.
Although I don't have allegiances from the past, the lines of division are becoming clearer to me.

Recent talk about Fred's being a "jerk" is unacceptable to me. I maintain that Maura and Fred are the tragic victims of her disappearance, regardless of the family dynamics. Most families are 'dysfunctional'- such an overused word.

By observing the group dynamics, I am unconvinced that this new endeavor will prove to be anything more than yet another exercise in attempting to skewer Maura and Fred...and probably the "locals", too. My opinion is a very strong sentiment, I know.

For all I know, it is possible Fred was "controlling" and Maura's was the "family from hell"...but more likely, I believe this is cruel libel.
The constant "digging" into the family's privacy by a group of strangers is reason enough to withhold information from them, in my opinion...as this can easily turn into a lynch mob mentality. Blame the victims.

I cannot and will not participate in hanging Fred and Maura out to dry....fact and fiction here are so intertwined.
Speculation running wild is gossip, in my opinion, and I am uncomfortable with the intensity of such intrusion, if it were my family member.

All this said, I am in no hurry to register for the new forum...nor have I ever felt particularly 'welcome', here or there.

I've often wondered what the difference is between a witness and a material witness?

Bill ~

As promised, I had an opportunity to show your post #8869 to Tom this eve...the WP grad, and our "in-law/out-law" ;-) by virtue of his son's marriage to our daughter.

He read thru and said you are factually 100 percent correct in assessing Maura's level of training at West Point. He didn't elaborate, of course.

I asked about his major...he stated it's much harder today, and they didn't have majors back then!

His sister walked by and said he majored in "rigidity" - LOL.

Same sister theorizes Maura ran away.
I believe she was abducted.

Bottom line...you are correct...Maura was not a highly trained West Point cadet.

Wozer and Sophie Bean...
I believe you have more than less in common. You are both realistic, fair-minded and have practical insight when responding to infuriating posts.
You are better united than divided, IMHO.

peripeteia wrote:

Greetings all, so sorry to hear of the terrible storm that crippled parts of new england...hope ya all have lights and heat...my computer cord fried IBM think pad and having a heck of a time to find a replacement....using an old mac 9.2 and the processor (whatever it is, is as slow as cold molasses) each page took 5-10 minutes to load, anyway it has been a painful morning and afternoon, sitting reading what has been written during the last few days)
Calling Fred a jerk, well that is a stretch... personally more could have been done to contact Fred, for example send the police to his address,
secondly the police should have contact the University of Mass...right away!
-given that the police considered Maura inebriated and from out of town, Maura should have been considered endangered immediately, due to darkness, cold, and remoteness of what laid ahead east on 112 the supposed direction in which she was traveling...
-the fact that the sbd never mentions that he asked maura her destination is very odd, perhaps he did and never mentioned...
Given that Maura never went on such a venture, car in poor working order, destination unknown, she told no one that we know of, I suspect that when Fred got the news he thought the worse, also the recent car accident in Hadley...
Also, given that the police came out with the statement that she likely 'came to the White Mountains to commit suicide, well that in itself is enough to send an Irishman into a tail-spin...Personally i think Fred acted rather well under the circumstances. Sharon did not find the police especially helpful, and she has first hand knowledge of the goings on at the police station.
Granted the police have not turn out to be the idiots we thought, but I thought that because of their silence and their refusal to release the accident report saying that it was evidentiary and may imped the investigation. If that were the case then we would have likely solved the mystery of what happened to Maura when the report was release, and we have not.....
Granted Fred might have won more favours with honey, however, given that the police seemed to be convinced that Maura ran away to commit suicide, I think he did what any father would do, he got mad, and if he felt that the police were holding to that theory, what was he to do, swallow it, or act on his own....
Act on his own, would be what i would do...
that being said, I don't think Fred knows tons of stuff he is hiding...
Question; Do we know that Maura was asked to leave West Point on an Honor Code violation....
Do we know what this violation was about...?
Are we sure it has nothing to do with the sexual assaults that many women soldiers experienced in the Military that Rumsfeld announced an enquiry to on Thursday, the night of the upsetting phone call
Might Maura have known something about Kathleen's boyfriend whom Kathleen had been fighting with? Was this boyfriend in the military?

Amen.
Mad, sad, frightened and determined, Fred probably thought it necessary to take matters into his own hands.
I might have chosen to do the same.

Snowy you have expressed my feelings about victimizing the victims. I personally feel that anyone who would say that has no idea what it means to be trapped in a situation like the worse nightmare of your imagination. i personally think that when the police stated to the press and to the family that Maura likely came to the white mountains to commit suicide, Fred put on his gloves so to speak. Also, Sgt. Smith telling Sharon that the police did not know Maura was missing....more than likely did not inspire confidence
in the investigation of Maura's disappearance.

Mastermind I can understand a bit that the neighbours might have been a tad ticked at Fred and friends/family invading their privacy. However, the number of missing and murdered women in the vacinity should be of grave concern to the residents of the area. Given that Pauline Clark was literally found a golf swing away says to me, be afraid, and not of Fred. It says to me also that more law enforcement is needed in the area, and that perhaps the local police should call on the FBI for assistance.

I cån state emphatically, Fred is an angel compared to how I would behave in a similar situation...no exagerating...

I have no idea what Fred told police, and it is a feeling that I believe that Fred did not hide evidence/information because Maura means the world to him, and he would do anything and give anything to find Maura. I'd rather call Fred desperate to find his daughter. You mention that many people on this forum and law enforcement think Fred to be a jerk, well God forbid that they would have to walk a mile in his shoes...

The sbd did not ask maura where she was going, and if he did it was never published in the news. How strange he does not ask Maura how far she is going, her car was obviously marche pas! Out of state plates, dark, cold, alone, allegedly intoxicated, face in an airbag, likely some shock and perhaps injured, he offered help but it does not make sense he did not ask Maura her destination. I am speculating here because we do not know what was said, and we know that sbd has given several version of what he did and what he said...but of everything I have read about this case, I find this strange, that he never asked Maura where she was going?

"How sad to see what it is becoming in such a very short time. It was supposed to be a good thing for everyone but from your post it's evident it will be the same old clique."

Have you looked at the site?

Peri..I agree..having never met Fred before Dog Search Oct.'06, I then saw a very anxious and nervous wreck of a man..(and this was 2 yrs.8 months after Maura disappeared). I would assume (having a Fire fighter/EMT in family)
that they, the Town Employees (PD, FD, EMTs were educated in their field as to this aspect of any distraught family of a victim. There shouldn't be any personal hurt feelings/anger in their chosen professions. How can one in public service fault the emotions of an aching heart. I kinda smiled to myself when you said how you would be.....Yeh, me too, if this was my daughter.
Would have written this to you at new site...but, don't know if you are there, or will be.

"By observing the group dynamics, I am unconvinced that this new endeavor will prove to be anything more than yet another exercise in attempting to skewer Maura and Fred...and probably the "locals", too. My opinion is a very strong sentiment, I know."

"Snowy you have expressed my feelings about victimizing the victims."

Nope not paranoid - sinister.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

I've often wondered what the difference is between a witness and a material witness?

A witness is anyone who perceived an event through one or more of the five senses and is competent to testify about that event in a legal proceeding.

A witness is competent to testify about an event in a legal proceeding if she (1) directly perceived the event through one or more of her five senses,(2) she can recall the event that she perceived,(3) she can express or communicate her recollection of the event that she perceived in responding to questions about the event, and (4) she understands and accepts her obligation to "tell the truth and nothing but the truth" when she responds to questions about the event.

Witnesses may or may not be subpoenaed to appear and testify in a legal proceeding. A subpoena is a legal document prepared by a lawyer representing a party to a lawsuit and served on a witness whom the lawyer wants to question under oath at the proceeding. The subpoena orders the witness to appear at a certain place, on a certain date, at a certain time to testify under oath. A witness who is not subpoenaed to testify is not legally obligated to appear at the legal proceeding and will not suffer a legal consequence if she fails to appear.

A subpoena duces tecum is a subpoena that also requires the witness to bring certain specified documents to the legal proceeding.

A material witness is a witness whose testimony is material (necessary and important to resolve an issue or issues at the legal proceeding), and the witness has indicated that she will not appear at the legal proceeding, even if subpoenaed or, in spite of having been subpoenaed, she indicates that she intends to ignore the subpoena. In either case, the lawyer who seeks to secure the presence of the witness at the legal proceeding can ask the court to issue a material witness warrant and if the court grants the request, a law enforcement officer will arrest the material witness and take her to jail where she will remain confined until the legal proceeding takes place unless arrangements can be made to depose the witness under oath before the legal proceeding takes place. Such an event is called a deposition. A court reporter prepared transcript of the witness's testimony at the deposition can be admitted into evidence at the legal proceeding, if the witness fails to appear, provided opposing counsel has been provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the deposition.

When the deposition has been completed, the material witness is released from custody.

M

Shack wrote:

Peri..I agree..having never met Fred before Dog Search Oct.'06, I then saw a very anxious and nervous wreck of a man..(and this was 2 yrs.8 months after Maura disappeared). I would assume (having a Fire fighter/EMT in family)
that they, the Town Employees (PD, FD, EMTs were educated in their field as to this aspect of any distraught family of a victim. There shouldn't be any personal hurt feelings/anger in their chosen professions. How can one in public service fault the emotions of an aching heart. I kinda smiled to myself when you said how you would be.....Yeh, me too, if this was my daughter.
Would have written this to you at new site...but, don't know if you are there, or will be.

I have a different perspective because I have lost someone I love and I also have suffered the pain of searching until I dropped from exhaustion only to resume searching after an hour or two of sleep. And, like Fred Murray, I still don't know what happened. Therefore, I do not feel any obligation to excuse the specific things that I mentioned in the message that I posted.

I managed to conduct myself with grace and dignity in that situation so I feel no guilt for holding him to the same standard that I required for myself.

Therefore, I stand by what I said.

I'm going to say this one more time because a lot of people posting here obviously don't get it.

No subject matter is off limits in a homicide investigation, so long as the questions asked are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. This is a long recognized rule of law and all of the questions that I have posted on this forum were well within the boundaries of the rule.

If this were a legal proceeding, I long ago would have filed a motion for an order compelling certain people to answer the questions I have posed. If they still refused to answer, I would ask the court to hold them in contempt and jail them until they answered the questions.

Since an investigation is on-going and this is a public forum rather than a secret grand jury, I have conceded that no one is obliged to answer any question I ask or offer an explanation for their refusal. The power to decide whether to answer resides with the person questioned.

Nevertheless, I always have explained why the questions that I asked were relevant and why I believed they did not invade privacy.

Here's an example. I have asked what condition the Saturn was in when it was in Bridgeport during the Christmas break. I asked whether it was driven or towed to Amherst and if it was driven, who drove it. I asked if the car was repaired in Bridgeport or Amherst and I have asked if any of the visible and mechanical damage to the Saturn as depicted in the post-accident photographs, existed before the Saturn left Amherst, or when the person last saw the vehicle.

These are simple questions that have simple answers and the answers should resolve the endless speculation about a possible earlier accident on Rte 112 before the Stage Stop. The answers also may end the endless speculation regarding the possibility that the someone driving the Saturn hit Mr. Vasi. The answers also should help us to evaluate the risk that Maura took when she decided to drive north.

I don't get to decide whether those questions invade privacy, but I can't see how they do.

I have asked several times for anyone to try and explain why those questions invade privacy or slam Maura and the Murray family. No one has posted an answer to my question.

I reject the claim that I am victimizing the victims because it is absurd. More and more I feel like some people who post here do not want this case solved.

Mastermind wrote:

<quoted text>
ITA peripeteia. I would also say it is likely that she wasn't attempting to ditch her car.

Depends on where she might have intended to ditch the car. For example, if it could be dumped into a body of water like a lake, there would be little likelihood that anyone would ever find it. If a friend followed her to the site, assisted her to sink the car, and gave her a ride back to campus, she could wait a day or so and report it stole to Amherst PD. An officer comes out to take her statement and asks her when she last drove the car or saw it in the lot. She scratches her head and says, " I'm not sure because I don't drive it much. Must be a couple of days, maybe a week."

Voila! Problem solved.

If you are referring to me...I am not Petrit and I do live in St. Paul.

Paris wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't sound the same Petrit. Hopefully you are aware that I am watching every single SOM there is. If you are Petrit, please write to me tonight.
Thank you

May it please your Honours, and you Gentlemen of the Jury, I am for the yet to be prisoner(s) of the barr.

I yesterday afternoon asked my future trial opponent to produce his questions now for my client later, and he did not answer, nor participate in the Discovery process,because if he had, he'd know that I'm not really a lawyer. I submit to the jury's candor and ask that you find my future client not guilty.

Excuse me for being a bit off topic, but

Peri:
re: "We seem to forget the number of murders that have occured in the area, actually one just down Old Saint Peter's Road, Pauline found face down in the brook." I might be uninformed but I was under the impression Pauline Clark was found at the base of the ski area in mountain lakes in the stream/brook that runs over there. Conincidentally or not, right in the area of the A frame. I was told previously that when the dogs made the hit, that it was actually Pauline they were rediscovering. Wasn't it confirmed that her husband killed her?(I don't intend to turn this into a whole new arm of dicussion so if you want to email me then send a response to looking4amoose@charter.net)