Where is MAURA MURRAY

It is up to the public relations department of the District Attorney's department to look into the allegations by the public of a possible miscarriage of justice and possible attempt to obstruct justice by the witnesses and law enforcement.

There is likely a good reason why those accused of being untruthful have not been vindicated by law enforcement, however it remains to be seen as law enforcement refuses to address any issue related to Maura's disappearance.

Why has law enforcement refused to address the issue of witnesses reputations being tarnished by the public?

Why has law enforcement not address their public relations issues with the Murray Family?

Whether it was a member of this forum or any other member of the public, I being one who have thrown doubt on the witnesses statements and the irregularities of the investigation by law enforcement. Is it is not the responsibility of law enforcement to address public concerns and correct the public if they are misguided? To protect the public from slaunder, to provide reasurrance to the public of their suspicions?

I am not excusing my words, they are a greater part than of my own voice; there are concerns raised by the public that have found issue with the veracity of certain witnesses, and the investigational procedures of law enforcement in Maura's disappearance.

No one is blaming anyone of anything other than thus far, telling tales, changing stories, sloppy investigation...nothing out of the ordinary. What is extraordinary is that lying in a criminal investigation is poor judgement at best and worse suggestive of motive. Lying in such instances is a sure thing to throw yourself in harms way regarding your reputation.

Tragically reputations have been tarnished but at no time have I seen the accused step forward into the public realm to seek vindication. This would require an explanation for their untruths. So far none has been forthcoming. Nor have we heard the District Attorney's Office come to the defense of the discrepancies of the witnesses and procedures carried out by law enforcement in Maura's investigation.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
Who knows? Right? I haven't met Fred Murray; I see a grieving father being harshly judged.
Mason hasn't made any claim to know him, either, but believes him to be a "jerk".

Chewbacca no bargain.

Beagle wrote:

God knows how badly we need "a cage of ovulating females," as McCormack once remarked. But, hey, it was no problem then. Just go to Worcester State Hospital and you'll have all the insane patients you'll need for your cage!!!! They don't matter at all, they're insane, barely human. Just go experiment on them however you like. It will advance science, won't it????
Oh yeah, you can't do that anymore?
So why don't you just go out and kidnap some women that will suit your scientific purposes? Where do you keep your cage these days? Next to the dogs?

What you think you're some kinda Jedi, waving your hand around like that? I'm a Toydarian. Mind tricks don'ta work on me-only money.

JOB OPENING

"Proofreading traditionally means reading a proof copy of a text in order to detect and correct any errors."

Detective Columbo wrote:

JOB OPENING
"Proofreading traditionally means reading a proof copy of a text in order to detect and correct any errors."

:-p

Multiple Post

Someone I shall not name recently posted this message recently regarding his or her opinion of Fred Murray:
“Who knows? Right? I haven't met Fred Murray; I see a grieving father being harshly judged.
Mason hasn't made any claim to know him, either, but believes him to be a "jerk".

Enough is enough. There is a huge difference between saying someone "acted like a jerk" when he did X, versus saying the person is a jerk. I shouldn't have to explain that to you or anyone else, right? I doubt there is a person alive today on the planet that hasn't acted like a jerk at least once. I certainly have and I doubt that you would deny that you have too. This is what I said.

On December 19, 2008, Topix message # 10548, at page 524, I said,

"From what limited information I have available, Sgt Smith did a very good job investigating Maura's disappearance.

Fred Murray came to town determined to teach the "hicks" a lesson and he charged around shooting his mouth off about all the ways they screwed things up when, in fact, he had no basis of knowledge to make a judgment.

Let's face it. He acted like a jerk."

From: White Wash
To: Detective Columbo
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:20 am
Subject: Re: Credentialing


What a surprise!

Sadly I have checked with NHSP/HPD/GCSD none know a DC and
from your rants are glad they don't! Does it come easy having such
an EGO or do you practice at it daily? Bottom line is that any TRUE
PROFESSIONAL HAS ZERO PROBLEMS SHOWING THEIR CREDENTIALING!

GOOD DAY WHOEVER YOU ARE I am D O N E with this child like behavior
of yours so SAD FOR SOMEONE WHO COULD BE PART OF THE SOLUTION
but IS THE PROBLEM!


White Wash wrote:
No Fax as of yet.



For someone who WANTS people to have a clue who they are I
wonder why you haven't faxed your credentials yet to LE?

Interesting!

Detective Columbo wrote:
NO Thank You

Part 2

In message 10549, I said,

"We can excuse him for acting that way by reasoning that he was under a lot of stress and so on, which is true. But that doesn't mean he didn't act like a jerk.

If I'm a cop interviewing him about Maura and he makes a reference to hoping she didn't do the squaw walk, I'm going to ask him what that means because I've never heard that term. When he offers me the same explanation he told the cops, of course, I'm going to think he just admitted that he's afraid she might have committed suicide.

Then, if he's constantly yammering about how incompetent the cops are, I'm going to be asking myself why this jerk is jacking us around when there is no way that we could have prevented her from killing herself since she left the scene of the accident before we even got there.

For him to later claim that he never said [that] has to be a lie because "squaw-walk" is not a commonly used expression. Are we supposed to believe that the cops made-up that story?

That's ludicrous and this is another instance where Fred Murray acted like a jerk."

In message # 10553, I said,

"Fred Murray also has accused the cops of not trying to contact him for almost 24 hours after Maura disappeared. Sgt Smith tells a different story.

Sgt Smith kept leaving messages at a phone number in Surrey, MA, which corresponds to the address on file per the Saturn's registration. Murray, however was living in Bridgeport, CN and had neglected to update his information, or title the car in Maura's name. He probably didn't title it in her name because the insurance rate would have increased and he probably didn't register the car in CN because it would have cost more money than to keep it registered in MA.

OK, I'm willing to let him slide on that, but to accuse the cops of not trying to reach him under those circumstances is beyond the pale and yet another example of acting like a jerk.

I'm not saying he always acts like a jerk, but I believe this case would have been solved a long time ago if he had acted with grace and dignity instead of trying to set the whole county on its ear.

What in the Hell was he thinking?"

We can reasonably debate whether the facts that serve as the basis for my conclusion in each instance are correct or incorrect, and we can argue whether the facts in each example, if true, support my conclusion that he acted like a jerk on that specific occasion, but there is no point in arguing whether he is a jerk because I did not say that.

You and others have been beating me like a drum for saying Fred Murray is a jerk and it seems to me that disparaging me for saying Fred Murray is a jerk, is a quintessential example of acting like a jerk.

Part 3
The other example that particularly irks me is the claim that I said Fred Murray sexually abused Maura. Let’s review what happened.
On the other site, when a little more than half of the people who participated in the poll voted that they had a reasonable doubt whether Maura is dead, I started the topic, ETHICAL QUESTION: DISCLOSE IF MAURA IS FOUND ALIVE? I started it because I believe that, depending on the circumstances, there may be some serious moral, ethical, and legal issues that should inform a person’s decision to disclose or not disclose that Maura is alive. I never imagined that such a discussion possibly would offend anyone. I assumed that everyone would realize that the discussion necessarily had to be context specific and the only way to have a meaningful discussion of the issues would be to use hypothetical fact patterns since we do not know if she’s alive.

This is what I said on January 16, 2009,
“BTW, how should we deal with discovering that Maura is alive and well living among a new community of friends?
I vote for respecting her privacy and not posting any information about it.
Agree or disagree?
We might as well have a discussion about it before it happens, assuming it happens. Ultimately, I suppose the decision must necessarily be left up to the individual who knows that she is alive. It sure would be reassuring for the rest of us to be informed though, wouldn't it? Private messaging might work, but as the number of people who know increases, so does the likelihood that the information will be leaked by someone.
The problem is exponentially more difficult since no one registers and posts under their true name and the site may be accessed by anyone with internet access. What would happen, for example, if Maura fled Amherst because someone threatened to kill her and that person is a registered user under a phony name, or even just a lurker?
I suppose someone who knows she is alive could post that they know it without revealing the basis for the conclusion, but others might disbelieve the claim without some facts to back it up.
The NHSP should be notified first, I think.
Should the Murray family be told, if Maura objects? What about her mother who I believe is dying of cancer?

Part 4 -- FINAL

What if Maura were to disclose that her father had sexually abused her when she was growing up and so dominated her that she is afraid of him and under no circumstances will she agree to anyone being told that she is alive because she fears he will find out and do something bad to her? I suspect, for example, that he posts messages on topix under several different names all linked to Tampa, FL.
What if the stress and fear of being outed caused her to commit suicide, or run again?
What if she's married with one or two children? What about her husband's wishes?
Ethical and moral issues abound, don't they?
We can have a poll on it after we discuss it for awhile. Or maybe we shouldn't have a poll. I honestly don't know the answers, but I believe a thorough discussion beforehand is a good idea to minimize, if not prevent an if-only-I'd-thought-of-that-be fore-I-said-X_and-she-did-Y afterthought.”
My statement was,“What if Maura were to disclose that her father had sexually abused her when she was growing up and so dominated her that she is afraid of him and under no circumstances will she agree to anyone being told that she is alive because she fears he will find out and do something bad to her?”
Why is this not a reasonable and legitimate question to ask and how can anyone read the question and conclude that it’s an assertion that Fred Murray sexually abused Maura? How can a discussion about the moral, ethical, and legal issues that should be considered before revealing that Maura is alive not include consideration of those issues in the context of a hypothetical sexual assault? No other hypothetical in my mind illustrates those issues more dramatically and clearly. It serves as an excellent teaching and learning tool precisely because it is an extreme situation.
The reaction was as if I had detonated a nuclear bomb and hardly a day has passed without someone expressing disgust about my “claim” that Fred Murray sexually abused Maura. I did not say that and I do not see how what I said can reasonably be construed as an assertion that Fred Murray sexually abused Maura.
I believe there is a group of people who post here and regularly communicate with each other via back channels. Discussions take place and decisions are made to present a coordinated response to something someone purportedly said, and in some cases, the decision includes attacking the poster’s motives and character. I’ve noticed that one person leads off with a nasty post and the rest of the group repeats the message until the false statement or accusation buries the original post and replaces it in reader’s minds. This is how many people have come to believe that I said Fred Murray is a jerk and that I accused him of sexually abusing Maura. If I were a new person who visited these forums and I formed my opinion of the person posting as Mason based on the avalanche of criticism regarding his jerk and sex abuse accusations against Fred Murray, I would think Mason is a terrible and disgusting person. I would be predisposed not to believe anything he said, assuming I bothered to read it.
I can assure everyone that it’s painful and disheartening to be on the receiving end of a concerted effort to trash my character and credibility. This odious method of presenting falsehoods as the truth until most people believe the false statement is true has become an accepted part of our culture and political process, and many people with good intentions have been hurt and in some cases destroyed by it. I’ve survived it and I feel great. Because I do not plan to revisit this issue since I want all of us to move forward, I have refrained from pointing fingers. Now is as good a time as any to put an end to this practice in our lives and on these forums so that we can focus on finding out what happened to Maura. I urge all of us to do so.

Peace,
Fred Leatherman

Private can refer to:
Privacy, the ability of a person to control the availability and path of information about himself or herself and exposure of himself or herself.
***PLUS***
A detective is an investigator, either a member of a police agency or a private person. The latter may be known as private investigators (P.I.s or "Private I's", hence the play-on-words, "Private Eyes").
***EQUALS***
"Private Detective"
I being a licensed PI live and work within 15 miles of the acc. scene, in Bethlehem, NH. I was born and raised here. I worked for the Littleton PD about 30 yrs ago and in doing so acquired many friends, both fellow employees as well as local townspeople. I have much respect for LE, but on the same note I am not fond of the hypocritical way in which SOME LE (Worldwide) conduct themselves. In FACT the 2cd. Chief I worked for was fired for misconduct and in shame left town, I wonder where he is working today.
Hence.... seeing I am local and lots of people know me (Not as a detective), Personally, it is very difficult to keep the fact that I am a PI under my hat, so to speak.
So on this note I choose to remain annonymous so as to keep my identity Private. That's why I became a Private Detective.
Thank You.....
Respectfully....
Columbo

From: White Wash
To: Detective Columbo
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:20 am
Subject: Re: Credentialing
ADDITIONAL RESPONSE BY DET C -- MOVED FROM PREVIOUS TOPIC BY ADMIN

What a surprise!

Sadly I have checked with NHSP/HPD/GCSD none know a DC and
from your rants are glad they don't! Does it come easy having such
an EGO or do you practice at it daily? Bottom line is that any TRUE
PROFESSIONAL HAS ZERO PROBLEMS SHOWING THEIR CREDENTIALING!

GOOD DAY WHOEVER YOU ARE I am D O N E with this child like behavior
of yours so SAD FOR SOMEONE WHO COULD BE PART OF THE SOLUTION
but IS THE PROBLEM!

**********Why I Am Here*****

LE obtained my first 3 posts from the Websleuths forum better than 4 yrs. ago and they are part of the investigation and in the Murray case files. This is part of the info released to Fred Murray through the FOIA. If LE went as far as taking my posts and making them part of the investigation I find it hard to believe that they don't know my identity. NHSP does know my identity, but because this is an ongoing investigation that info cannot be released.

My posts at Websleuths contained theories of "What happened to Maura" as well as "The LE procedure that night" Why do we suppose this was of such interest to LE, maybe because something in those posts are close to the TRUTH or are the TRUTH. Of course they were released to Fred Murray so maybe not.

I called the Murray Family in March of 2004 and offered my help in finding Maura and was told they would get back to me. Also after calling the family I was visited by NHSP and told to stay away from the Murrays. They fed them a lie about me using EXCESSIVE FORCE when I was with the LPD. This is not true and my LE records prove that. If it was true I never would have recieved my PI License. So why did LE want me to stay away? I think that is pretty clear at this point. LE does not like big waves or tsunami's because it rocks the boat.

So after this The Murrays actually found out this was false and tracked me down to help with the case. I came out of the supermarket in Franconia and lo and behold who is standing next to my car "Mr Murray". He asked me if my name was (not shown ) and I said yes. I recognized Fred the minute I saw him and my heart sank because I knew what I had to say to him. "Mr. Murray, I am sorry but I have been told by NHSP not to talk to you because I would be interfering with an investigation." I told him I would definitely like to help find Maura, but I don't want to get arrested. The look on his face is one I will never forget, it is etched in my mind. He got in the car with the rest of his family and drove away. I just wish I had done what I wanted to that day and GOT INVOLVED. Instead it was another month before we would begin our relationship in the quest to find out what happened to Maura. Although all along I was working the case behind the scenes gathering as much info as possible hoping someday to be able to give this info to the Family.

The next time the family got in touch with me, I GOT INVOLVED. I have been working WITH the Murray Family ever since that day and am proud to be part of the group of people trying to find Maura.

Thank You....Columbo
__________

peripeteia wrote:

It is up to the public relations department of the District Attorney's department to look into the allegations by the public of a possible miscarriage of justice and possible attempt to obstruct justice by the witnesses and law enforcement.
There is likely a good reason why those accused of being untruthful have not been vindicated by law enforcement, however it remains to be seen as law enforcement refuses to address any issue related to Maura's disappearance.
Why has law enforcement refused to address the issue of witnesses reputations being tarnished by the public?
Why has law enforcement not address their public relations issues with the Murray Family?
Whether it was a member of this forum or any other member of the public, I being one who have thrown doubt on the witnesses statements and the irregularities of the investigation by law enforcement. Is it is not the responsibility of law enforcement to address public concerns and correct the public if they are misguided? To protect the public from slaunder, to provide reasurrance to the public of their suspicions?
I am not excusing my words, they are a greater part than of my own voice; there are concerns raised by the public that have found issue with the veracity of certain witnesses, and the investigational procedures of law enforcement in Maura's disappearance.
No one is blaming anyone of anything other than thus far, telling tales, changing stories, sloppy investigation...nothing out of the ordinary. What is extraordinary is that lying in a criminal investigation is poor judgement at best and worse suggestive of motive. Lying in such instances is a sure thing to throw yourself in harms way regarding your reputation.
Tragically reputations have been tarnished but at no time have I seen the accused step forward into the public realm to seek vindication. This would require an explanation for their untruths. So far none has been forthcoming. Nor have we heard the District Attorney's Office come to the defense of the discrepancies of the witnesses and procedures carried out by law enforcement in Maura's investigation.

Multiple post

Peri,

We (in the US) do things differently than ya’all in Canada. Here, police are not expected or required to inform the public regarding the progress, or lack of progress in a criminal investigation. They are not even required to remain in contact with a victim or a victim’s family. Every large police department has a designated spokesperson who issues press releases and appears at press conferences to issue statements and answer questions. This activity is pure public relations.
Approximately twenty years ago, various prosecuting attorney offices made a concerted effort to improve public relations by establishing victim advocacy units to function as a buffer between the prosecutors and victims or victim families. In practice a person working in the victim advocacy unit is assigned to work with a particular victim or family and all communications between the prosecutor’s office and the victim or victim’s family run through the victim’s advocate. Some police departments have followed suit.

Part 2

The reality is that most prosecutors and police hate talking to victim’s or victim families because they consider it a distraction and a waste of time. When they do, they say as little as possible. It’s virtually impossible to get any information about an investigation from a prosecutor or a cop before a suspect has been identified and arrested other than we’re working on it and we’ll let you know as soon as we have something to report. If they identify a suspect or person of interest but cannot locate that person, they will issue a press release describing the person they are looking for, but that’s about it.
Most police departments have an internal investigation department that handles all citizen complaints about the conduct of police officers. The investigations and their results are confidential and in most cases it’s next to impossible for a citizen to find out if a particular police officer has been disciplined for improper conduct.
Police departments hate dealing with missing person complaints because they are focused on investigating crimes that have been committed and arresting the perpetrators. If and when they have some extra time, they might do some work on a missing person case. Then again, they might take some time off instead. As callous as this may seem, statistics tend to support a wait-and-see approach because most missing people eventually show-up alive and well. As the results of our poll confirm, there does not appear to be a clear consensus whether Maura is alive or dead and, if she’s dead, whether she committed suicide or was a victim of foul play. Therefore, it’s not likely that that the police investigation ever was a high priority, notwithstanding what has been said to the contrary by various police officials whose comments should be regarded as public relations damage control. The speakers were more concerned about defending the department’s image than anything else.

Part 3

Fred Murray’s lawsuit sought a court order releasing the police investigation files to review what was done or not done and proceed from there. I regard the end result as little more than a token gesture because I haven’t seen anything that’s particularly useful and without more information, such as (1) who did they interview and what did they say,(2) what evidence did they seize and test and what were the results,(3) which experts did they consult and what were their opinions, and (4) what photographs did they take and what do they show, it’s not possible to form a strong opinion about what happened to Maura or about the quality of the investigation.
The lawsuit forced the State of New Hampshire to fish or cut bait regarding whether to classify her case as a missing person investigation or a homicide investigation and no one should be surprised that it chose the latter because that choice guaranteed that the practical result of the lawsuit would be to release very little information. We will never know whether anything changed regarding priorities and how the investigation was conducted. The infamous 75% remark was, I think, just a spur of the moment figure made up to appease the Court’s desire for a basis to write an opinion in essence, restricting access to the useful information in the file.
We do not have a procedure for establishing special inquiry boards to review police investigations, although Congress or a state legislature could pass a statute providing a mechanism to do that, but this is extremely unlikely in my opinion, given the current political climate.
In conclusion, I do not believe there is a realistic chance that we will ever know what the police did or did not do because even if they arrest and prosecute someone in Maura’s case, only the defendant’s attorney will be provided with a copy of the investigation file and he or she will be prohibited by law from releasing any information or documents in the file, except as needed to share with defense investigators and experts to prepare for trial.
I’m sorry to report that’s the present state of affairs in the USA and I’m sure lots of people will disagree with me because it sounds so depressing. You might hear a lot of bull shit, but my version is the unvarnished truth presented by a criminal defense attorney who worked in this system for 30 years.

Fred Leatherman

So carry on DC, while the perp may be sitting in his living room tonight, near WNEC, watching TV after reading this thread and laughing like hell.

What's the matter Det. Columbo, can't be bothered to discover some things about the guy near WNEC? The guy who was hanging around SW? The guy who knew about the bus route Feb 9? The guy who bought model railroad items in Warren, MA and near Woodsville, NH?

Or are you too busy, Det. Columbo, taking orders from a PI in western MA?

Or ARE you a PI from western MA?

Mason/Fred ~ I quoted you at my post (#15052) because the assumptions you made about Fred's parenting are subjective judgements, likely incorrect, and are stated as facts. Sarcasm is evident in the last phrase; and overall, there is strong animosity against Fred Murray.

I am to conclude, then, that you are blaming Fred Murray for Maura's disappearance...in part, for putting her at risk by not providing her with a mechanically sound or new car.

You don't know, with any certainty, however, about Fred's circumstances...she was not his only child, and he likely made financial decisions based on his obligations and the needs of his family. It wasn't necessary for Fred to provide a car for his daughter at all...she could have earned one with savings from a summer job. There are a myriad of possibilities....as they exist in our family.

That said, I'd found my way back to p. 524 about a month ago after searching for three hours one evening about "jerk".
You've done me the favor of selectively quoting some of the passages.
I maintain that observations are one thing...drawing accurate conclusions are another.

I don't have a particular need to protect Fred Murray....although I am sensitive to a father's loss and believe it is cruel to bash him without cause.
I don't have ties to any established group, and respond favorably/unfavorably or in agreement according to my own beliefs. I know of at least three others who function similarly.

As to points of law, I'll trust your expertise in the matter of predicting the future behavior of the state based on the past, the classification of the case then and now, and the likelihood of information being released regarding the investigation.
Glad to see you back.