Where is MAURA MURRAY

Dawn wrote:

What I have found the charger DOES have a red light when it is charging. This at right at the cig adapter - so would be at opposite end of the phone cord - by the dash board.

No kidding?

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
I reviewed materials submitted to me by Helena Murray. Ms. Chaput was found fully clothed on November 22nd. She was last seen on November 15th, very close to the location where her body was found. I believe it's more likely that her body was missed during early searches rather than her having been abducted, killed somewhere else, and returned to the area from which she was abducted.
This is not unusual. It happened in a case I handled in Pierce County, WA in the late 90s. State v. Guy Rasmussen. The victim was a 10-year-old named Cynthia Allinger. Ironically, a prosecutor employed by the same office that prosecuted Rasmussen was a member of a search team that practically stepped on her body without seeing it a few days before another search team found it.
I did not see any reference to a sexual assault in Ms. Chaput's case, which is something that I would have expected to see if it happened, and this is one of the reasons why I cannot exclude her as a victim of the Connecticut River Valley Killer.
This is the best I can do with the materials Helena provided. She did not have access to police reports and the autopsy report. Neither do I.
Fred

Right, Mason. You cannot say that "there were no wounds to the abdomen and no sexual assault" without having seen the police reports or the autopsy reports. Thanks for clarifying your error - and no, it is not Helena's error for giving you information. You are the one who stated assumptions as facts.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
It's very likely that Maura had a secret woman friend or two, not necessarily in the sexual sense, whom she simply would not mention to her straight friends. Not trashing Maura at all, just saying she appears to have had some friendships that she might have kept quiet about to her regular, straight friends.

There it is, Beagle/Alden - what you've been tiptoeing around for a couple of years, implying, insinuating, suggesting, dropping inuendoes.
My next question, unsurprisingly, is if you have some reason to believe that this would be a matter of concern for anyone except the most narrow-minded even if there were the remotest proof that it was true? Remember, there is zero evidence of this, and yet you seem eager to assure that if true, you wouldn't be "trashing" Maura...your language reveals your bias.

sophie bean wrote:

<quoted text>
I expect that there's a difference between "fascination" and inquiry into possibility, especially considering that there are at least 13 unsolved and highly similar murders within 50 miles of the site of Maura's disappearance.

which dated back many years...and are not recent or clustered in location and timeframe.
nonetheless, it is reasonable to search back and rule in/rule out as some are doing...with professional insight, not fear and panic.

sophie bean wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you, jmlh, that helps. He is certainly not ruled out. I'd call him a very significant POI. I'm sorry to hear that he has been released.

Hi Sophie Bean & JMLH,

I was able to locate Riddle on the National Sex Offender Registry last night. He is serving out the remainder of his federal sentencing in facilities to aid inmates in transitioning back into society re: halfway homes. As we know, he was residing in Portland, Maine until March 5th. He has since been relocated to a 120 bed facility in Boston, MA.

"WW, stated on this forum that he [SBD] was likely told to change his story regarding the driver of the Saturn's sobriety, however she refuses to elaborate on her statement."

As I've said before, police know better than to tell a witness to change his story. That is a crime in every jurisdiction and I doubt there is a police officer in the country that doesn't know that.

On the other hand, witnesses generally want to help LE and to varying degrees they will pick up on non-verbal clues and adjust their recall to comport with what they think the police want to hear or expect to hear. They don't even think that's a form of lying. Yet, they do it and this behavioral characteristic has been identified as one of the causes of mistaken eyewitness identifications and wrongful convictions of innocent people.

The SBD appears to be guilty of adjusting his recollection to please, or not offend the person asking questions. He's probably so mixed-up now that he isn't sure what's true and what isn't. This is bad news for everyone because he is the only witness who saw and spoke to the driver.

In a way, though, he's more honest than most witnesses because he has admitted that he isn't certain. Witnesses who are certain often are mistaken. I prefer the former to the latter.

We have accept his uncertainty and rely on the rest of the evidence to reach a conclusion. As I've also said before, we should pose the question this way.

If Maura wasn't the person behind the wheel, who was? We don't necessarily have to name that person to answer the question, but we do have to identify that person by function. Was she a co-conspirator assisting another person to abduct Maura, for example?

Therefore, to identify this person by function, we need a theory and, to be viable, a theory must be consistent with the known evidence. The PIs are working on a theory involving a Maura abduction from the scene of a previous accident within 3 miles of the accident past the Weathered Barn. This theory will not fly unless the damage sustained by the Saturn could not have occurred at the site where it was found. The PIs say they have an expert who says there must have been a previous accident. The police do not agree.

Without photographs and measurements from the accident scene, we lack sufficient information to reach a conclusion. We have opinions and beliefs, but we cannot say with a high degree of certainty that they are anything more than guesses at this point.

And, so it goes ...

OK, there's a whole lot going on here that is all about personal agendas, bias, assumption, and whatnot. Time to sort through the nonsense.

1) there have been things said about SBD that were not flattering if not accusatory - not by me, by the way - none the less, SBD has been caught willfully misdirected and overstating his involvement in LE, has given various versions of his statements, and generally done some things to make any reasnoable person question the accuracy of his account. Now, those inaccuracies could be forgetting, or they could be (note that I said COULD be) lies. Witnesses do lie, and by his own account, SBD was the last person to see Maura, so he is going to receive more scrutiny than others.

2) what in the name of heaven does speculation about Maura's sexuality have to do with finding Maura? what does the high level of reactivity raised by Beagle's comments tell us about how some people feel about the POSSIBILITY of someone not even being a lesbian, but having lesbian friends?
Again, this is not the first time that I've seen this sort of crap - a woman travelling alone, without the auspices of a protective guy, is immediately suspect of being, and I quote, "on the other side."
To this neaderthalish "mindset," the mere appearance of such "devaint" behavior is justification for whatever might follow. there was PLENTY of this sort of crap on hiking forums after Louise Chaput was murdered ("oh she was an INDEPENDANT woman, you know...").
WHAT THE F>>>?

sophie bean wrote:

OK, there's a whole lot going on here that is all about personal agendas, bias, assumption, and whatnot. Time to sort through the nonsense.
1) there have been things said about SBD that were not flattering if not accusatory - not by me, by the way - none the less, SBD has been caught willfully misdirected and overstating his involvement in LE, has given various versions of his statements, and generally done some things to make any reasnoable person question the accuracy of his account. Now, those inaccuracies could be forgetting, or they could be (note that I said COULD be) lies. Witnesses do lie, and by his own account, SBD was the last person to see Maura, so he is going to receive more scrutiny than others.
2) what in the name of heaven does speculation about Maura's sexuality have to do with finding Maura? what does the high level of reactivity raised by Beagle's comments tell us about how some people feel about the POSSIBILITY of someone not even being a lesbian, but having lesbian friends?
Again, this is not the first time that I've seen this sort of crap - a woman travelling alone, without the auspices of a protective guy, is immediately suspect of being, and I quote, "on the other side."
To this neaderthalish "mindset," the mere appearance of such "devaint" behavior is justification for whatever might follow. there was PLENTY of this sort of crap on hiking forums after Louise Chaput was murdered ("oh she was an INDEPENDANT woman, you know...").
WHAT THE F>>>?

on part 2 - she is not suspected by me.
Beagle introduced the topic, and perhaps he can answer.

Mason wrote:

"WW, stated on this forum that he [SBD] was likely told to change his story regarding the driver of the Saturn's sobriety, however she refuses to elaborate on her statement."
As I've said before, police know better than to tell a witness to change his story. That is a crime in every jurisdiction and I doubt there is a police officer in the country that doesn't know that.
On the other hand, witnesses generally want to help LE and to varying degrees they will pick up on non-verbal clues and adjust their recall to comport with what they think the police want to hear or expect to hear. They don't even think that's a form of lying. Yet, they do it and this behavioral characteristic has been identified as one of the causes of mistaken eyewitness identifications and wrongful convictions of innocent people.
The SBD appears to be guilty of adjusting his recollection to please, or not offend the person asking questions. He's probably so mixed-up now that he isn't sure what's true and what isn't. This is bad news for everyone because he is the only witness who saw and spoke to the driver.
In a way, though, he's more honest than most witnesses because he has admitted that he isn't certain. Witnesses who are certain often are mistaken. I prefer the former to the latter.
We have accept his uncertainty and rely on the rest of the evidence to reach a conclusion. As I've also said before, we should pose the question this way.
If Maura wasn't the person behind the wheel, who was? We don't necessarily have to name that person to answer the question, but we do have to identify that person by function. Was she a co-conspirator assisting another person to abduct Maura, for example?
Therefore, to identify this person by function, we need a theory and, to be viable, a theory must be consistent with the known evidence. The PIs are working on a theory involving a Maura abduction from the scene of a previous accident within 3 miles of the accident past the Weathered Barn. This theory will not fly unless the damage sustained by the Saturn could not have occurred at the site where it was found. The PIs say they have an expert who says there must have been a previous accident. The police do not agree.
Without photographs and measurements from the accident scene, we lack sufficient information to reach a conclusion. We have opinions and beliefs, but we cannot say with a high degree of certainty that they are anything more than guesses at this point.
And, so it goes ...

Brilliant.

A NEW BLOG SPOT.....

http://webwhisperer.webs.com/apps/blog/

I think it's a waste of time to continue berating the SBD. His inconsistent statements are a matter of record and cannot be retracted. What's done is done because no matter what he may say in the future, it can be contradicted by what he said in the past.

We have to accept that he does not know whether he talked to Maura and does not know if the person he talked to was intoxicated. If he claims otherwise in the future, we have to assume he could be mistaken, even if insists that he isn't.

This is the way we should always deal with eyewitness testimony. Disregard it unless it's supported by other evidence.

I can't imagine how a person's sexual orientation could have any relevance to this case.

It's a non-issue.

The FIT is a non-issue.

The Holocaust is a non-issue.

Beagle just went off into deep end for awhile. He'll be back.

Excuse me while I adjust my panties for a moment. They aren't anatomically friendly.

Beagle wrote:

<quoted text>
People like this do not suddenly pop up because they are SO concerned about "finding Maura." They have latched themselves onto Maura's disappearance in the most underhanded ways imaginable.

Maura became a convenient means for 'schoolyard bullies' to self righteously channel their need to beat up the weakest 'kid' in the neighborhood who ironically enough was the only Good Samaritan who came forth to help her in her time of need.

I'm sorry, you call yourself a trained investigator and you're not advising us, you're TELLING us to disregard eyewitness testimony, however questionable -what? in favor of a fourth hand rumor that Maura might have been seen at the McD's in StJ?
Nope, not happening.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
I AGREE. First tenet of investigative principles. Textbook. Criminal Justice 101. Know your victim, her past, present, environment, habits etc.

Also know her her friends, acquaintances, colleagues, co-workers. We can't even find out the name of the gallery Maura worked at.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
i can't guess your generation, FC...but we both remember stuff that may date us. or at least i can! Quija guesses you're a younger chicken.
right - homosexuality is a non-issue for college aged kids...and for many others.
with each passing day i remain ever so committed to my conservative values and outlook, and make funny faces at liberal views. i am now, officially, old.
i don't look for these differences in orientation, and i avoid discussing them at length...again, due to my conservative outlook.
at the same time, you're absolutely correct in believing i would not separate my friends, regardless of their differences. friends are friends.
i will trail off here....

That's what I'm saying. You know that your personal views don't prevent you from being friends with someone based on that sort of thing.(I don't have a tendency to seek out someone's sexual orientation; unless I'm interested in dating them or they me, it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned.)

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Dude, nope I wasn't being nasty at all. Just very surprised to hear that every second person including married couples were gay.
I just can't seem to find the vantage point she says she's on that shows half the population being gay/lesbian.
I'd rather not get into a discussion on this since it has nothing to do with Maura IMO.

Works for me. I didn't take her comment literally, you did. Sorry I assumed you were being nasty. Residue from other comments posted by other posters last night, I suppose. Either that or general crankypants behaviour on my part.

Suzanne wrote:

<quoted text>
Maura became a convenient means for 'schoolyard bullies' to self righteously channel their need to beat up the weakest 'kid' in the neighborhood who ironically enough was the only Good Samaritan who came forth to help her in her time of need.

see 'lynch mob' above...unless one can think of a more accurate, PC word.
there are morals/ethics considerations being studied about Good Samaritans in today's climate of 'God help us all'...
kind, helpful human beings should avoid becoming inadvertently snared.

Well, I've suspected for a long time that Sophie Bean hates Ralph Nader and now I have proof.

Her own words convict her far more eloquently than anything I could ever say.

Grab the children and protect their ears!

She said,(gasp)

someone has a "neaderthalish mindset."

White Wash wrote:

Just wondering if the one who disagree with this
actually live around here?
Those who actually live here THANK YOU for
putting this as it truly is FACT!
<quoted text>

Wait, what? It's a FACT that I'd make a good Nazi? You don't know me at all, then, White Wash. Or are you referring to other parts of that post?

One of the simplest reasons I'd make a lousy Nazi is that I dislike following orders. Oh, and I also have this little thing known as a moral compass. I've worn the plastic handcuffs for participating in non-violent protest. Yesterday I taught a lesson on Mohandas K. Gandhi, for fooksake. A good Nazi? It would be laughable if it weren't so horribly, grossly offensive to so many people.