Where is MAURA MURRAY

Judged:

1

1

1

Wowzer wrote:

It seems that either no one wants to answer my post #11782 from Jan 7th or it has been overlooked so I'll bring it up again. Even though I know many couldn't care less if I register to the new site or not I think it's important to explain why there is spyware coming from Advocator's new site to computers that frequent it and what it is tracking. Until this is answered I'll not be going there.
Also it was brought to my attention that the PM's from this site that are supposed to be private are being forwarded to the PI's by some of the so called "team". So what's up with this new site because something sure right.

peripeteia Nova Scotia wrote:

Thinking out loud about the absence of evidence..
notable murder convictions without a body
convicted murdered
Steven Sherer Jamie Sherer
Mark Eby Theresa Eby
Ruth Neslun Rolf Neslend
Judge Joe Peel Judge Chillingworth
Katherine Rutan Logan Tucker
Hans Reiser Nina Reiser
Kim Mason Hartanto Santosa
David Schuber Julie Schuber
Casey Anthony Caylee Anthony expo facto
remains found
always a body is not necessary for charges of murder to be laid.
just thought I would place this here, as popular
belief is that no body, no conviction! Not the case, some believe no body no murder, it seems jurisprudence is changing, and what a surprize it must have been for Miller who is a Vanderbilt graduate Lawyer and Judge Peel must have been in total shock when he was convicted of murdering his colleague.

Wowzer wrote:

It seems that either no one wants to answer my post #11782 from Jan 7th or it has been overlooked so I'll bring it up again. Even though I know many couldn't care less if I register to the new site or not I think it's important to explain why there is spyware coming from Advocator's new site to computers that frequent it and what it is tracking. Until this is answered I'll not be going there.
Also it was brought to my attention that the PM's from this site that are supposed to be private are being forwarded to the PI's by some of the so called "team". So what's up with this new site because something sure right.

Judged:

6

5

4

peripeteia Nova Scotia wrote:

<quoted text>
Not what Weeper says is indisputable but he and the PI's and detectives have more access to information regarding this case than does anyone else besides law enforcement, so go with what is said here, I'll stick with what Weeper says. But sure don't believe him or anyone else, everyone's right to choose
The fact that there is no body does not prove anything?
What information do you have to dispute what Weeper says?

Judged:

1

1

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text> Should say "something sure ISN'T right".

Mason wrote:

Part 2 of 2
The causation issue may be even more problematic without a body because, assuming she's dead, there is little evidence to help us choose between suicide and murder as the cause of death. Even if her remains are found during one of the searches planned for this spring, it may not be possible to determine the cause of death from a few bones. Without a body or an obvious crime scene with copious amounts of her blood present, a prosecutor will have good reason to doubt his or her ability to prove death and causation beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another major problem is who did it? Let us suppose that next week a suspect were to confess to killing Maura. Would that confession be enough evidence of death, causation, and identity of the killer to satisfy the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard?
The answer is probably not because of the corpus delicti rule that requires evidence independent of the confession to corroborate it regarding each element of the murder charge. This rule dates back to England and the common law and its purpose is to prevent convictions when the only evidence that a crime was committed came out of the defendant's mouth.
The corpus delicti rule does not require independent evidence sufficient to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt without considering the confession. It only requires enough evidence that, if assumed to be true together with all of the reasonable inferences one might draw from that evidence, would lead a reasonable person to believe a murder was committed.
A defense motion to dismiss a murder charge, or any other charge based on an alleged violation of the corpus delicti rule would be a pretrial motion that the court would have to decide. Such a motion presents a question of law that only a judge can decide. Juries decide questions of fact.
To summarize, any prosecutor assigned to handle Maura's case will evaluate the evidence in light of the corpus delicti rule and the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. No experienced and ethical prosecutor will seek a grand jury indictment charging a suspect with murder unless he or she believes the evidence is strong enough to satisfy those rules. Without a body, or identifiable remains and a corroborating confession that rules out suicide, I do not believe a murder charge is likely.

Judged:

1

1

1

propaganda firetruck wrote:

<quoted text>
What reason do I have to believe Weeper? His answers seem contrived to support a very limited possibility in this case, which also helps keep the focus on Haverhill. I'm not saying that she wasn't abducted from Haverhill, I don't know. However, if he has so much more information than the rest of us, then why isn't he tracking down those leads? Is it because they are dead ends? If they are dead ends than how do they corroborate any of his evidence? How do they corroborate any of the things he claims to know? If they are dead ends, then they are dead ends, and to consider them as fact is a false pretense, is it not? He can't prove anything, can he? What information does he have to support his claim of being more "in the know" than the rest of us? If he knows something the rest of us don't then why isn't this case being solved. I don't think he is necessarily helping to cover something up (although maybe), or just lazy or whatever. No, I truly believe that he is lying and that his role is a part of a collective that wants to distract others from from questioning the relevance of Maura's private life prior to her disappearance. If those are his intentions, I don't necessarily think that it's wrong. Because at this point Maura is either dead or has disappeared of her own freewill (I suppose there is an outside chance that she has been held captive, but I doubt it). But to string people along by saying he knows stuff to support his claims is wrong. If he really knew something, some progress would have been made. I don't think he wants to make progress on the case, he just wants people to believe what he says.
What evidence is there to support that Maura ever went to NH. Her car? The SBD? What else? If LE hasn't solved the case it's because they lack sufficient evidence or they don't want to. Given that scenario what possible information could Weeper have to solve the case? What possible information could he have to focus his energy on the crash site while turning a blind eye to all other areas in her life?

Judged:

1

1

Quija wrote:

We know virtually nothing.
The few facts I know I came across by pure chance.
Repeating myself, it's hard to believe that the FBI was directed to just do routine interviews with family and friends in the Massachusetts vicinity. And that their job was of minimal importance. I can't believe I bought that for so long! Yes, NH LE will do the deep investigative work in the Haverhill area, and let's "let" the FBI do the go-fer-type routine stuff!(This is sarcasm.) And it's only my current opinion. As others have been speculating, who was Maura going up north with? Her family has stated that NEVER BEFORE HAD MAURA EVER TAKEN A TRIP LIKE THAT ALONE. Seems when she went somewhere (from the tiny amount we've been told) it was with Billy or Fred. So I'm guessing it was a guy she was traveling with.
Again, anyone know if the Saturn had power windows? I'm trying to explain the "cracked open" back window being inadvertently opened if Maura was feeling in the dark for the "lock door" button ---- IF it actually had power locks, etc.
If her car was sitting in the parking lot, not being used, did Maura meet anyone there? After a run, did she talk in the car with a fellow runner?(Particularly on warm days!) Was it a private spot to recline and visit without being easily seen? Even in January on a sunny day the solar warmth could be tolerable for a quick visit... I don't recall anyone on her dorm floor saying they knew she lived on that dorm floor... So I also never heard anyone talk about visitors coming to her room. No-one ever answered my question as to whether she was in one of the single rooms near the elevators and staircase (at the end of the floor) or a single right across from the lounge hangout area. Did she park away from overhead lighting? I'm 75%(ha) convinced she had a new boyfriend and that some of her acquaintances and perhaps even some family knew about it. I can understand why that wouldn't look good to mention because her having Billy as a fiance creates a very stable image. It also detoxifies the report that she left birth control pills in the Saturn and makes it seem like she was Almost Married. If I sound irritated it's because I am. We were duped about a lot of things. And many of those things would not have "damaged the investigation"; they are just things that might not look great. No-one is perfect. Tell it like it is!

Wowzer wrote:

It seems that either no one wants to answer my post #11782 from Jan 7th or it has been overlooked so I'll bring it up again. Even though I know many couldn't care less if I register to the new site or not I think it's important to explain why there is spyware coming from Advocator's new site to computers that frequent it and what it is tracking. Until this is answered I'll not be going there.
Also it was brought to my attention that the PM's from this site that are supposed to be private are being forwarded to the PI's by some of the so called "team". So what's up with this new site because something sure right.

propaganda firetruck wrote:

<quoted text>
However, if he has so much more information than the rest of us, then why isn't he tracking down those leads?

Judged:

2

1

1

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you presume he's not?