Where is MAURA MURRAY

peripeteia wrote:

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?

I'm just trying to ask the questions that others seem to be afraid to ask, or are afraid of looking like an inconsiderate ass when they ask. I am not really here to respect people's feelings, I am trying to get a general idea for what the people reading and posting on this board feel about the questions that are rarely asked. It's not libel, it's not gossip, it's speculation. If we cannot distinguish between these, and ask the tough questions, I am not sure we should participate in trying to find Maura.
I want to remind you all that I haven't said that I believe that Fred is a jerk, or that her family is in any way responsible, but I won't discount based on rhetorical responses that attempt to advocate for "respect of the family" because I feel that such things deter us from seeking the answers to many pertinent questions. I've only gathered pieces of information from the discussions on this board, websites, etc., that may or may not be legit, for the purpose of speculating things that are rarely speculated. It's is my opinion, however, that anyone who is interested in finding Maura will open themselves to any route of inquiry, even if it isn't pretty, even if, amongst ourselves, we question the possibility of the most absurd, and perhaps even disrespectful scenarios.

Peri, I gather through your response that you know Fred personally, correct? If you don't then you have no idea if he is an angel, and you would have no idea if he were witholding information.

In regards to the SBD, perhaps it never crossed his mind to ask Maura where she was going. They had a conversation that probably lasted a max of 5 minutes. Maybe he felt it wasn't his business where she was going. I can even see myself asking, "are you hurt? do you need help? do you need to use my phone? would you like to hide from the police?" but maybe not "where are you going?" - now, they say hindsight is always 20/20, and the SBD may have thought of hundreds of questions that he could've, should've asked.

Hey hey--Mason, been meaning to answer you at least one thing.

I don't have the documents, just my memory, because it was (say it with me now) on the old MMM site, but I recall being told that the Saturn was driven to within 100 mile radius of Amherst to be eligible for free towing through AAA, and then towed.

Anyone else could confirm this, would be most helpful.

Mason wrote:

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.

This is the internet, these are not legal proceedings, and to my knowledge, no one here is part of the current, official investigative team.

Though your experience may be similar, grief is always personalized.

While your questions may be reasonable and valid, and your strong professional skills may be greatly appreciated, it is still an individual's prerogative to refuse to respond, and/or to choose to set up boundaries.
In doing so, an individual should not be subject to name-calling.

Trespassing is not just applicable to real estate, you know.

From my perspective, such animosity toward Fred, whether earned or misunderstood, can only compound grief. Whatever he knows sensibly belongs with law enforcement authorities first before being released to the public, IMHO.

Mastermind wrote:

<quoted text> I've only gathered pieces of information from the discussions on this board, websites, etc., that may or may not be legit, for the purpose of speculating things that are rarely speculated. It's is my opinion, however, that anyone who is interested in finding Maura will open themselves to any route of inquiry, even if it isn't pretty, even if, amongst ourselves, we question the possibility of the most absurd, and perhaps even disrespectful scenarios.

Since this civilian investigation is secondary to any official investigation, and information has been gathered from unofficial sources, it is not clear to me that speculation based evidence that cannot be factually confirmed will prove useful.

It may be your right to continue to ask, but it is also the right of parties to refuse to answer.

Sorry...one word will clarify, had I proofread before posting.

"Since this civilian investigation is secondary to any official investigation, and information has been gathered from unofficial sources, it is not clear to me that speculation based ON evidence that cannot be factually confirmed will prove useful in the long run."

Hi We were told on the old forum that the car was towed into the lot at umass amherst and had sat there for several weeks.It should have been well plowed in and maybe even damaged by the plows or snow thrown against it.Peri ,great question about mrAtwood asking Maura where she was going .I know i would have asked and asked if she had local family help coming .Sharon gave Maura AAA at christmas time. She was said to have used it at least twice before the Hadley accident.AAA says they know nothing about it.Something is really up with this.When and where could she have used it.If we were allowed to know which was Mauras first day back at school it might help.Did the AAA card. come in the Mail did it come with Billy, did Maura go to Ohio over christmas break.Was the saturn sitting at Logan or Bradley airports.take care philip

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
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

Thanks Mason.

There's a material witness in another case I'm following and his photo, social security number, and license number are posted on the state police website - not NHSP.

Drugs and guns charges that resulted from a search of his residence were dropped providing he agree to return to the state to testify. He was instructed by the court not to have contact of any kind with a list of individuals re: persons of interest.

Often wondered if the SBD may be a material witness but I guess not. He appears to have been very cooperative with LE.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
Since this civilian investigation is secondary to any official investigation, and information has been gathered from unofficial sources, it is not clear to me that speculation based evidence that cannot be factually confirmed will prove useful.
It may be your right to continue to ask, but it is also the right of parties to refuse to answer.

Snowy, this is very interesting. Are you confirming that there are people who participate on this board that are willingly witholding information? If so, why would they be here? If they are not seeking questions to the answers they have, and are not trying to engage in dialogue to help find Maura Murray, am I to assume that their purpose is to deter us and distract us from finding out certain things by refusing to answer questions?

Mastermind wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy, this is very interesting. Are you confirming that there are people who participate on this board that are willingly witholding information? If so, why would they be here? If they are not seeking questions to the answers they have, and are not trying to engage in dialogue to help find Maura Murray, am I to assume that their purpose is to deter us and distract us from finding out certain things by refusing to answer questions?

I have no personal knowledge of anyone withholding information.
My statements reflect what my response would be to the incessant DEMAND for information purportedly being withheld.

I am also thinking about Benjamin F's post...it is a right to protect one's privacy, and not "sinister" to do so.

I suspect the conversation and speculation will continue, uninterrupted, with or without additional information.

In case anyone is interested, I posted a message on the curious accident in Hadley and a longer message about serial killers on the new forum.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
I have no personal knowledge of anyone withholding information.
My statements reflect what my response would be to the incessant DEMAND for information purportedly being withheld.
I am also thinking about Benjamin F's post...it is a right to protect one's privacy, and not "sinister" to do so.
I suspect the conversation and speculation will continue, uninterrupted, with or without additional information.

Snowy White,

Thank you so much for being the sound voice of reason the past few days.

Maura's is an active investigation (a potential homicide as stated by NHSP in Oct. 07)under the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire State Police Major Crimes Division.

Interesting how others are so quick and free to attack Mr. Murray and Maura's family but not so much as a peep when it comes to LE not sharing information. Interesting indeed.

I've always been contented with the information that has been shared (I believe I've only asked a total of four questions that all went answered) with the general public and I've been following her case for several years.

You and Wowzer really should re-consider your stance on the new forum.

Mason wrote:

In case anyone is interested, I posted a message on the curious accident in Hadley and a longer message about serial killers on the new forum.

I read your post on Gary Ridgeway and it was very interesting and informative.

For a number of years the NHSP had Silkyboxer's maps of unsolved homicides and missing persons posted on their official website but for some reason they've been removed.

I'd like to add those maps to that particular thread you started.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Interesting how others are so quick and free to attack Mr. Murray and Maura's family but not so much as a peep when it comes to LE not sharing information. Interesting indeed.

LE doesn't want to share the information because it may compromise their investigation. For me, that question is already answered. There is not an "if" to that question. However, IF the family were witholding information, this would also compromise LE's investigation. And IF it has happened, that MAY be why the investigation hasn't been solved.

Mason's reply was very helpful. He said that NHSP likely keeps the case open because they believe it is a homicide.

IF this is the case, it may be possible that NHSP has a good idea, or even know who killed her, but they also know that the evidence they have is too circumstantial to make an arrest or to hold up in court. In my mind, this would seem to explain why they are not actively involved in the case, since they are probably busy following through with fresh cases that have a clear trail and clear evidence to a perp.

To claim that there isn't a peep regarding LE's witholding information is absurd. I read this entire board over the past two weeks, and the number of mentions towards LE being at fault far outnumber the cases where Fred, family, and friends are at fault regarding the witholding of information. The one true fact is that it is considered an outrage on this board to question the latter and fully acceptable to question the former. If you go back and read this forum, you will also note that there are many more cases where SBD and other witnesses are cited for witholding information rather than family and friends. There is, INDEED, an effort on this board and practically every website dedicated to Maura Murray to protect her family from any type of speculation. Why?

It may be sinister, it may not be sinister, It depends on whether or not there is something to hide. Many people here seem to think that there is no possible way that the family may somehow involved, that they are incapable of it, without ever giving any kind of reason for it. This never happens with anyone else involved with this case. No, there is an intention by many on this board to keep open the possibility that LE, SBD, CW, a hospital worker driving by the scene, other witnesses, friends from UMASS, people she knew at WP, a guy in a red truck, an invisible serial killer, someone who live in an A-Frame house, and countless others are all capable of kidnapping and murdering Maura, but when the speculation moves towards her family or Maura herself, these very strange, cleverly written rhetorical statements appear to distract us from this speculation rather than help us to answer questions. Why?

Why is it we are allowed to have field day skewering these other individuals, but we are treated like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar when considering her and her family as objects of speculation?

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Snowy White,
Thank you so much for being the sound voice of reason the past few days.
Maura's is an active investigation (a potential homicide as stated by NHSP in Oct. 07)under the jurisdiction of the New Hampshire State Police Major Crimes Division.
Interesting how others are so quick and free to attack Mr. Murray and Maura's family but not so much as a peep when it comes to LE not sharing information. Interesting indeed.
I've always been contented with the information that has been shared (I believe I've only asked a total of four questions that all went answered) with the general public and I've been following her case for several years.
You and Wowzer really should re-consider your stance on the new forum.

Thank you, elsewherebriefly...your kind response is appreciated.

Although I've been accused of attempting to moderate discussions and failing to be a contributor of facts to debate, I am grateful you are able to read and understand my intent.

Similarly, Sophie Bean has been accused, and I hope not to offend her if I say our thought processes seem similar.
Perhaps our best contributions are in recognizing patterns of interaction and in describing the "overview" to raise awareness.

While I stand for weighing the benefits against harm in intruding into the lives of others; likewise, Wowzer appears to stand in defense of innocents from unwarranted accusations...and more.

The presentation in the new forum is well done, and the content is excellent...but I agree with Wowzer in that the early celebration gave some pause and concern about dynamics carrying over from the past.

I will enjoy the privilege of continuing to read for now.

BTW, much of what I've stated comes from personal consideration after witnessing how public opinion on the internet can be influenced by partial information, herd mentality, and faulty conclusions ...such as in the matter of Liko Kenney/Cpl. McKay and the Floyd family.

Wild speculation can be harmful to already injured and innocent parties and their families, and the "appearance" of guilt or innocence cannot confirm that truth.

No, Ben Franklyn, it is not paranoid to be attuned to any nuance of intended or unintended defamation.

Mastermind,

I don't know what to say. I've been following Maura's disappearance for almost five years and the idea of Mr. Murray or any of Maura's relatives being involved is just plain ludicrous to me.

If people want to hammer away demanding information from sources that are obviously unavailable to us so bit it.

I've noticed Lady Gray has stopped posting and for this I certainly cannot blame her.

Lady Gray has been nothing but informative and helpful and look at the way she was recently treated.

Snowy White wrote:

BTW, much of what I've stated comes from personal consideration after witnessing how public opinion on the internet can be influenced by partial information, herd mentality, and faulty conclusions ...such as in the matter of Liko Kenney/Cpl. McKay and the Floyd family.
Wild speculation can be harmful to already injured and innocent parties and their families, and the "appearance" of guilt or innocence cannot confirm that truth.
No, Ben Franklyn, it is not paranoid to be attuned to any nuance of intended or unintended defamation.

Snowy White,

Liko Kenny helped Mr. Murray during physical searches for Maura as have a number of locals.

Just trying to find a glimmer of good in a number of tragic circumstances all around, this forum included.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

Mastermind,
I don't know what to say. I've been following Maura's disappearance for almost five years and the idea of Mr. Murray or any of Maura's relatives being involved is just plain ludicrous to me.
If people want to hammer away demanding information from sources that are obviously unavailable to us so bit it.
I've noticed Lady Gray has stopped posting and for this I certainly cannot blame her.
Lady Gray has been nothing but informative and helpful and look at the way she was recently treated.

Whey you say such things are "ludicrous" you are either suggesting that you know something the rest of us don't, or you are engaging in a rhetoric to deter others from participating in speculation. I've raised a number of questions regarding the reasons why Maura's family is off-limits to any type of speculation, and why it is anything that Fred says is gospel and must be considered the truth, when in fact their statements are just as contradictory and suspect as some of the other witnesses. But no one wants to answer that. Instead, I just receive these answers filled with empty rhetoric as to why it's "ludicrous" to think such a thing w/o giving any substantial reasons as to why it is "ludicrous", and on and on and on.

While on the subject, why is it not ok to hammer out pieces of information surrounding the family that are "obviously unavailble", but it's ok to hammer out pieces of information surrounding the witnesses, Petrit, or anyone else involved. To me, it seems like a very clever attempt to cover something up. The only reason I have to believe that the family is in any way involved with her disappearance, or involved with witholding information is because of the clever attempts to distract and deter us from speculating in this area. That's all. There is a strange psychological discourse going on in this forum, and I am doing my best to pierce it's veil.

I just wonder if many of you are very crafty liars that are heavily invested in a cover up because you have personal information to withhold, or know the extent of someone's involvement and are personally invested in making sure that such information doesn't get out. When you so passionately try to deter us from asking certain questions, I certainly begin to feel this way. It's like a job for some of you to have a very specific stance that is to protect the family's integrity at all cost. Why?

Snowy White wrote:

BTW, much of what I've stated comes from personal consideration after witnessing how public opinion on the internet can be influenced by partial information, herd mentality, and faulty conclusions ...such as in the matter of Liko Kenney/Cpl. McKay and the Floyd family.
Wild speculation can be harmful to already injured and innocent parties and their families, and the "appearance" of guilt or innocence cannot confirm that truth.
No, Ben Franklyn, it is not paranoid to be attuned to any nuance of intended or unintended defamation.

Yes, weren't you a huge supporter of LK/cop killer?

Also, weren't you a huge supporter of CK?(such a lovely person, now isn't he?)

I wouldn't put any credence in anything a supporter of LK/CK had to say.