Where is MAURA MURRAY

In your opinion, that is. I disagree.

FireCat wrote:

The difficulty with some of the theories posted last night is that they have no basis in fact. There are too many "if"s.
There is no evidence that Fred Murray abused Maura sexually, physically, or emotionally.
There is no evidence that they argued about her crashing his car.(in fact, the evidence points to the opposite--that he REASSURED her that crashing his car was in the grand scheme of things not a big deal.)
There is no evidence that he intended to go back on his word of buying Maura a new car.
There is no evidence that I am aware of that Fred Murray chose to stop drinking, or that such a choice was related to any sort of acoholism or alcohol abuse.
There is no evidence that Maura was about to be thrown out of UMass, for reasons related or unrelated to her transportation issues.
There is no evidence that shows Fred was aware of Maura's plans to travel to New Hampshire.
There is no evidence that shows Fred was not at work on Monday and Tuesday, 2/9 and 2/10.
There is no evidence that he had anything at all to do with her disappearance.
In short, this logical fallacy is built upon a series of suppositions that have absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. There is apparent logic in the theory, IF one is willing to suspend one's disbelief and accept all of these suppositions as fact, but it's an IF that is not supported by the reality of the facts.

There is also no evidence that Maura willingly left Amherst..........

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>Tell me, when is the last time Fred went to the Weathered Barn area?
~and~
There is also no evidence that Maura willingly left Amherst..........

I don't know when Fred went there last. If you're saying he doesn't go there now, I'm glad to be informed. As to Amherst, I agree that even the person who claims they saw Maura in the afternoon, can't be verified. It's true that for all we know Maura didn't go anywhere and the emails could have been sent from any campus computer........
Unless they see activity such as this on her personal PC, how can they say?

Mason wrote:

Meanwhile, Mr. Murray's admission did not stop Columbo from posting two messages about the knife in General Discussion stressing how incompetent the police were for refusing to accept the knife from Fred, book it into evidence, and submit it to the crime lab for testing.
In case anyone still believes anything Columbo says or still believes that Claude Moulton and the A-Frame have any connection to Maura's disappearance, this information should forever put those beliefs to rest.

Check your PM's

Gary E. Lindsley, Staff Writer for the Caledonian Record, interviewed Mr. Murray recently and reported on February 9, 2009, the fifth anniversary of Maura Murray’s disappearance,

“What has really frustrated Fred Murray is that he says he has turned over potential evidence to state police with nothing resulting.

‘One example is that a man came forward and told him that the man's relative may have been involved. The man also turned over a possible weapon.

‘Murray drove to state police headquarters in Concord, N.H., to turn it over to state police, but he said they refused to accept it. So, he mailed the potential evidence to them and said he has not received any response or acknowledgement.”

I invite Mr. Murray to explain to me and to each of you why evidence that he admitted two years ago had been "debunked," and was therefore irrelevant, suddenly was worth mentioning to Mr. Lindsley and his readers.

These are my specific questions:

1. Mr. Murray, why did you deliberately mislead Mr. Lindsley, his readers, and all of us into thinking that the knife and the A-Frame have any connection to Maura's disappearance?

2. Why isn't your statement a lie?

3. Are you accusing Mr. Moulton of stabbing Maura to death inside the A-Frame?

4. Are you telling us that the knife is a murder weapon?

5. Why do you still have the knife, if as you told the NHSP, "It's probably evidence in a capital case?"

6. I realize that you told Mr. Lindsley that you mailed the knife to the NHSP, but you never have produced the signed receipt and I have reason to believe that your statement to Mr. Lindsley is false. Please produce the receipt if, as you say, you have it.

You do not have to answer these questions and you should consult with counsel before you decide whether you to do so.

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
Mason,
I have to ask you this question. Hypothetically speaking, if FM had killed his daughter, why would he be so insistent that she did not commit suicide? LE was so convinced that she either ran away or committed suicide that all he would have to do is sit back and let them think she was depressed and upset and that would have been the end of story. Instead, from what I have read, he seems to defend Maura to no end that she would not have committed suicide or even ran away. He keeps saying that a perpetrator got to Maura and she was the victim of foul play. Now imo, that would be basically shooting yourself in the foot no? LE would have been happy to keep their theory on suicide or run away being that no evidence of foul play was found at the scene of the Saturn. How would you explain this?

Mason, can you address Sara's posting?

Mason wrote:

Gary E. Lindsley, Staff Writer for the Caledonian Record, interviewed Mr. Murray recently and reported on February 9, 2009, the fifth anniversary of Maura Murray’s disappearance,
“What has really frustrated Fred Murray is that he says he has turned over potential evidence to state police with nothing resulting.
‘One example is that a man came forward and told him that the man's relative may have been involved. The man also turned over a possible weapon.
‘Murray drove to state police headquarters in Concord, N.H., to turn it over to state police, but he said they refused to accept it. So, he mailed the potential evidence to them and said he has not received any response or acknowledgement.”
I invite Mr. Murray to explain to me and to each of you why evidence that he admitted two years ago had been "debunked," and was therefore irrelevant, suddenly was worth mentioning to Mr. Lindsley and his readers.
These are my specific questions:
1. Mr. Murray, why did you deliberately mislead Mr. Lindsley, his readers, and all of us into thinking that the knife and the A-Frame have any connection to Maura's disappearance?
2. Why isn't your statement a lie?
3. Are you accusing Mr. Moulton of stabbing Maura to death inside the A-Frame?
4. Are you telling us that the knife is a murder weapon?
5. Why do you still have the knife, if as you told the NHSP, "It's probably evidence in a capital case?"
6. I realize that you told Mr. Lindsley that you mailed the knife to the NHSP, but you never have produced the signed receipt and I have reason to believe that your statement to Mr. Lindsley is false. Please produce the receipt if, as you say, you have it.
You do not have to answer these questions and you should consult with counsel before you decide whether you to do so.

I invite Mr. Murray to explain to me and to each of you why evidence that he admitted two years ago had been "debunked," and was therefore irrelevant, suddenly was worth mentioning to Mr. Lindsley and his readers.

Questions for Mason:

1. Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers?

2. Since there is an obvious discrepancy between what the UL reports and what FM says in subsequent articles, why do you suppose that it's FM who's lying?

2. Why do you pose questions to someone who doesn't read Topix - or anything on the Internet?

3. In continuing to post questions to FM, aren't you setting him up for failure in light of the fact that he doesn't and won't read Topix? It's a unfair inquisition.

4. Why don't you answer the question that Sara posed to you?

Mason wrote:

The stories about the bloodstained knife that Fred Murray collected from Claude Moulton's brother in Keene, NH who told him Claude killed Maura with the knife in the A-Frame and the story about the cadaver dogs going bonkers at the A-Frame during a search in October, 2006, should be dismissed as irrelevant and disregarded for the following reason.
On October 30, 2007, the New Hampshire Union Leader published an article written by reporter Nancy West in which she stated,
“Murray talks with people on the street, private investigators and psychics and goes to local bars to find any tidbit of information to lead him to a new search. Many have led nowhere -- like a stained knife someone turned over to Murray, and a search [that] volunteer private investigators conducted of a vacant A-frame.
‘That's been debunked,’ he said.”

That is a misquote. Fred vehemently denies ever saying this. He was quite upset about it.

Lady Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
I invite Mr. Murray to explain to me and to each of you why evidence that he admitted two years ago had been "debunked," and was therefore irrelevant, suddenly was worth mentioning to Mr. Lindsley and his readers.
Questions for Mason:
1. Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers?
2. Since there is an obvious discrepancy between what the UL reports and what FM says in subsequent articles, why do you suppose that it's FM who's lying?
2. Why do you pose questions to someone who doesn't read Topix - or anything on the Internet?
3. In continuing to post questions to FM, aren't you setting him up for failure in light of the fact that he doesn't and won't read Topix? It's a unfair inquisition.
4. Why don't you answer the question that Sara posed to you?

Lady Gray, Mason addresses question three on the other forum in his post originating the thread of allegedly inconsistent statements by Fred Murray:

"No one is permitted to speculate or draw any conclusion regarding a person's refusal to answer."

Kind of puts a crimp in things, doesn't it.

Mason wrote:

The stories about the bloodstained knife that Fred Murray collected from Claude Moulton's brother in Keene, NH who told him Claude killed Maura with the knife in the A-Frame and the story about the cadaver dogs going bonkers at the A-Frame during a search in October, 2006, should be dismissed as irrelevant and disregarded for the following reason.
On October 30, 2007, the New Hampshire Union Leader published an article written by reporter Nancy West in which she stated,
“Murray talks with people on the street, private investigators and psychics and goes to local bars to find any tidbit of information to lead him to a new search. Many have led nowhere -- like a stained knife someone turned over to Murray, and a search [that] volunteer private investigators conducted of a vacant A-frame.
‘That's been debunked,’ he said.”

Mason, I was there when the SAR dogs went nuts at the Aframe. I found it an accurate description when it was said they went 'bonkers'. I hope this helps you keeping facts straight.

just me wrote:

<quoted text> I don't know when Fred went there last. If you're saying he doesn't go there now, I'm glad to be informed. As to Amherst, I agree that even the person who claims they saw Maura in the afternoon, can't be verified. It's true that for all we know Maura didn't go anywhere and the emails could have been sent from any campus computer........
Unless they see activity such as this on her personal PC, how can they say?

I'm not saying that he doesn't go there but when totalled, I spend about 25% of my time there and have never seen him searching the area or in the area, as so many say he does every weekend. As for her not leaving, I have no doubt she left Amherst, but I am saying it may not have been of her own free will--perhaps the crime initiates in Amherst and merely completes itself in Haverhill.

Anne wrote:

<quoted text>Mason, I was there when the SAR dogs went nuts at the Aframe. I found it an accurate description when it was said they went 'bonkers'. I hope this helps you keeping facts straight.

nid they go bonkers upon entering the house or was it after the exercise was completed? Most cadaver dogs are rewarded with heavy duty play after a search to let them know they did a god job one way or the other. Would you describe "bonkers" for me? Did anyone tape the search? I would think they would've considering LE wasn't there and they'd need to prove what they found

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>As for her not leaving, I have no doubt she left Amherst, but I am saying it may not have been of her own free will--perhaps the crime initiates in Amherst and merely completes itself in Haverhill.

I think this about right.

that would be "Did they go bonkers........

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>nid they go bonkers upon entering the house or was it after the exercise was completed? Most cadaver dogs are rewarded with heavy duty play after a search to let them know they did a god job one way or the other. Would you describe "bonkers" for me? Did anyone tape the search? I would think they would've considering LE wasn't there and they'd need to prove what they found

I do not know if it was taped. LE were informed and invited and declined. The volunteer PI team has nothing to prove, if they found anything it was turned over to LE. It is totally a one way street, as that is their obligation. Does that help?

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
This is an interesting question, Beagle, and you've asked it a couple of times in the past as I recall. Unfortunately, I can't begin to assess it and consider an answer, because I don't have any personal awareness of these people having such interest in Maura's disappearance -- is there anywhere I could go to read any articles where one/some of them have made remarks about Maura ... or are any of them posting here on Topix about her ... or do you know of any letters one/some of them have written about her case? Anything like that?

I agree that it's a difficult assertion to back up on a Topix thread. There are obvious limits as to what I can say, especially about individual people.

I can say in general terms, however, that about a half dozen of these people spend considerable time within a stone's throw of where Petrit Vasi was found. They all have a connection with Christian, pro-life groups. Most or all of them have some kind of financial interest in assisted reproduction or in life-span extension (antioxidants), but are opposed to embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). In fact, a predominate Catholic pro-life office - a very militant anti-abortion group - is located almost next to where Vasi was found.

At the very least, a concentration of people intensely interested in Maura Murray's disappearance and who are clustered, so to speak, within such a small area so close to where Vasi was found, is pretty interesting all by itself.

There is a very good possibility that someone associated with this group of a half dozen people hit Vasi, perhaps just off of Triangle St. and moved him to the exact location where he was first discovered. There may have been some kind of meeting or drop-off or pick-up that night in the area, especially at or near the Carriage Shops or on Eames, Gray, or Chestnut Streets.

I believe that the Londonderry call was almost certainly from a pharmacist associated with this group.

It is definitely possible that the Vasi hit is pure coincidence. At this point, in my mind, the Vasi hit is nearly a coin toss.

But the connections, and the sheer volume of coincidences, among the Bish, Murray, and Ferguson cases are almost impossible to explain away.

I believe that the Bish, Murray, and Ferguson cases are all related to each other through the business of life extension - that is, the business of vitamins, nutritional supplements, antioxidants, and the like.

Sadly, that part of LE not living in the dark ages has its loyalties misplaced.

Mr. Murray's remarks and comments speak for themselves and I will not comment about them.

I will, however, comment on related issues from time to time and I will do so now to address L4M's question about what constitutes "bonkers" behavior in dogs.

I have no idea what that means except to say the dogs alerted to the odor they are trained to detect and signal in some unmistakable way.

However, the dogs will alert to blood, teeth, and bone, as well as a complete decomposing body. I believe the presence of a relatively small volume of menstrual blood, such as Weeper described, satisfactorily accounts for the behavior of the dogs.

The important question is to identify the source of the blood and Maribeth Conway reported in July, 2007, that the PI's sent their half of the bloodstained carpet to a medical lab that already had Maura's DNA profile for comparison purposes.

A report from the lab excluding Maura as the source of the bloodstain is a possible explanation for Mr. Murray stating that the theory about the A-Frame had been "debunked." The same might true about the knife.

I'm not going to take a position.

Please make up your own minds.

Frederick Leatherman

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
Mason,
I have to ask you this question. Hypothetically speaking, if FM had killed his daughter, why would he be so insistent that she did not commit suicide? LE was so convinced that she either ran away or committed suicide that all he would have to do is sit back and let them think she was depressed and upset and that would have been the end of story. Instead, from what I have read, he seems to defend Maura to no end that she would not have committed suicide or even ran away. He keeps saying that a perpetrator got to Maura and she was the victim of foul play. Now imo, that would be basically shooting yourself in the foot no? LE would have been happy to keep their theory on suicide or run away being that no evidence of foul play was found at the scene of the Saturn. How would you explain this?

Sometimes a smash-mouth ball-control offense is the best defense and the possibility of an exclusion barring recovery for suicide under a life insurance contract is another consideration.

There are other possibilities as well, but I'm going to keep my answer short and not comment further or respond to comments about my answer.

How do we know LE where invited?

Could they even go without a warrant given the
fact they where in a law suit and Fred was there?
What are the rules for being sued and hanging out?

I thought the PI's had one job to prove Anne
to find Maura where LE has not.

www.caledonianrecoed.com/pages/top news/story/44452b77a5
Late Sunday afternoon Nason said K-9 teams had several hits, but nothing that warrant forwarding to state police.

Wmur 10/23/06
Mason said they picked up scents, but nothing
conclusive.

Whitman-Hanson Express Part IV'
Investigators took trash bags and
2 carpet samples. "We don't have the proper
storage. NHSP where sent one (hope someone
kept the receipt).The other carpet was said to
be lost then all of sudden found in the cusody
of an investigator who no longer "has business relations" with the group!

The article also states it was on the market and
Fred permission for the search pretty sure since
it was a related of Shack's and she said on line
she got the key.
So Anne who is lying Whitman-Hanson Express,Fred,Shack?

My second question is how many remember Shack
telling exactly what TYPE OF BLOOD was on THE CARPET.

If nothing was found out as stated then how
does Shack know what kind of blood it was?

Now I'm asking for a receipt for the knife and
the carpet sample.

Fred has given up hope on the effectriveness of the police,believing "shoddy work" is likely the
reason they won't release records. "They didn't do what they where supposed to do, and they've
been covering up ever since." He is also disillusioned with the leaque of private investigators.

Good thing they didn't have anything to prove but
Fred certainly doesn't feel that way according to the Whitman-Hanson Express.

Anne wrote:

<quoted text>I do not know if it was taped. LE were informed and invited and declined. The volunteer PI team has nothing to prove, if they found anything it was turned over to LE. It is totally a one way street, as that is their obligation. Does that help?