Where is MAURA MURRAY

Whitman-Hanson Express
Maura is Missing Part IV
Page 5 of 8

4 Paragragh down

On the frist day, a cadaver dog searched the house and had hits on the second level;the next
day four more cadaver dogs were put to work in the house and went "bonkers", Fred said. The strongest hits by the gods where in a downstairs
closet. Cadaver dogs are skilled in sniffing for
decomposing bodies but are not able to distinguish the identities of bodies.

Though a dead boy could have been stored in this
closet, the dogs were not capable of identifying if the body was Maura.

Odd doens't appear to have been an investigation into such matter so one would have to lend to the
fact the carpet was tested and it wasn't Maura
they went "bonkers" on.

Cabin for Rent Cheap!

looking4amoose wrote:

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

Several posters on the forumer21 site have directly or indirectly accused Nancy West, the reporter who quoted Mr. Murray's debunking comment, of incompetence and unprofessionalism.

I have reviewed many articles that she wrote and have not found a single error.

Therefore, I challenge the always truth-challenged ducks, which I know from personal experience, to put-up or shut-up. Provide our readers with specific references to misstatements, sloppy reporting, sloppy writing, poor research, bias, prejudice, or unethical conduct so that we can judge for ourselves.

After you provide those examples, I will forward them to her for comment.

I will now advise you to exercise care regarding what you say lest you say something that will provoke a lawsuit. As I advised Mr. Murray, you would be wise to consult with counsel.

Frederick Leatherman

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.

Anne, were these dogs given anything of Maura's for scenting purposes? If so, when they went nuts at the Aframe, was it thought that they had scented Maura there? Or were these cadaver search dogs? If they were, and well trained, they should not have hit on "just blood" unless it was blood from a dead body. I've really never heard what sort of dogs these were and what they had specifically been trained to do, would be great to fill that in.

Mason wrote:

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

Mason, I see what you mean about 'debunked'. I do not know the results of probable lab tests on anything taken from the Aframe. As far as I know nothing has ever been said concerning results or even if they were done.

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
Anne, were these dogs given anything of Maura's for scenting purposes? If so, when they went nuts at the Aframe, was it thought that they had scented Maura there? Or were these cadaver search dogs? If they were, and well trained, they should not have hit on "just blood" unless it was blood from a dead body. I've really never heard what sort of dogs these were and what they had specifically been trained to do, would be great to fill that in.

Advocator, As far as I know the sar dogs were not given anything of Mauras for scent. They were cadaver search dogs and would not be able to define their finds. Humans would have to test what they found. They were fascinating to watch.

White Wash, I fully expected that NH LE would be at that search so consequently I asked some of the people there where they were. I was not aware, nor do I understand the legal wranglings at the time. You may be right that they would need a search warrant at the time. I just found it odd that they didn't come to participate. Maybe it was simpler than I thought.

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?

I was hoping for a description of "bonkers"

looking4amoose, Although I can't say what 'bonkers' meant to the writer, I will try to describe how they went nuts. Early in the weekend, I was quite fascinated by watching them take one dog at a time to 'scent' out something. Each dog individually went toward a certain spot where they they stopped and most were barking. When they were at the aframe they were all jumping around and barking. Does that help?

L4M, I have been thinking about this link ever since I first saw your moniker..
I even wondered if you were she..now that would be a trip.. So if you really want to see a moose..http://www.mooselandtou rs.com/
Tell her Jan sent you.

Mason wrote:

Several posters on the forumer21 site have directly or indirectly accused Nancy West, the reporter who quoted Mr. Murray's debunking comment, of incompetence and unprofessionalism.
I have reviewed many articles that she wrote and have not found a single error.

A single misquote does not incompetence or unprofessionalism make. It happens all the time, for various reasons--even with fact-checking, careful editing, etc. Nobody accused Ms. West of anything of the sort.

My understanding is that cadaver dogs are trained to sniff out decomposing bodies, not menstrual blood. I am not saying that they can not make a mistake because I don't know, but I do know that they are trained to sniff out decomposing bodies. I would think that if they could not distinguish between menstrual blood and a decomposing body it would pose a problem on the whole purpose of a cadaver trained dog. Feel free to correct me if I am out of line.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
A single misquote does not incompetence or unprofessionalism make. It happens all the time, for various reasons--even with fact-checking, careful editing, etc. Nobody accused Ms. West of anything of the sort.

FC, please find a quotation below (4/28 5:15 21forum) that supports an accusation against Nancy West's ability to accurately report information:

EWB writes:

"I specifically asked about Nancy West's article regarding Mr. Murray saying the A-Frame was debunked and I was told Mr. Murray never made that statement and I believe this.

Given the inconsistencies in the Union Leader over the years I do not believe much of what I read with the exception of Gary Lindsey & Maribeth Conway.

People can think and believe what they want but again I only believe what is written by Gary Lindsey & Maribeth Conway."

Sara, it's certainly not a matter of out of line :-)....but I think cadaver dogs are trained to alert to any number of bodily fluids that can occur with a decomposing body. Without getting too graphic, old menstrual blood (which has all sorts of other cells in it, not being simply blood) does decompose if it's left out in the air.

It has also never been confirmed, I feel compelled to add to the general discussion, that this was in fact menstrual blood. What was said was that it was POSSIBLY menstrual blood. Meaning it could still be a number of other things as well.

Sara wrote:

My understanding is that cadaver dogs are trained to sniff out decomposing bodies, not menstrual blood. I am not saying that they can not make a mistake because I don't know, but I do know that they are trained to sniff out decomposing bodies. I would think that if they could not distinguish between menstrual blood and a decomposing body it would pose a problem on the whole purpose of a cadaver trained dog. Feel free to correct me if I am out of line.

good point. i, of course, know zero about cadaver dogs...but i, too, would think menstrual blood is in the general category of bodily fluids, and therefore part of and not necessarily a distinguishable component of a decomposing body.

FireCat wrote:

Sara, it's certainly not a matter of out of line :-)....but I think cadaver dogs are trained to alert to any number of bodily fluids that can occur with a decomposing body. Without getting too graphic, old menstrual blood (which has all sorts of other cells in it, not being simply blood) does decompose if it's left out in the air.
It has also never been confirmed, I feel compelled to add to the general discussion, that this was in fact menstrual blood. What was said was that it was POSSIBLY menstrual blood. Meaning it could still be a number of other things as well.

Thanks Firecat.

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
FC, please find a quotation below (4/28 5:15 21forum) that supports an accusation against Nancy West's ability to accurately report information:
EWB writes:

"Given the inconsistencies in the Union Leader over the years I do not believe much of what I read with the exception of Gary Lindsey & Maribeth Conway."

How does that accuse Nancy West, specifically, of incompetence or unprofessionalism? That is a general comment about a person's opinion of the UL as a newspaper, and not a specific reporter.

Sara wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks Firecat.

Yup, you're welcome. However, you should know that this is just stuff I've learned from reading the various forums dedicated to Maura over the years. I have absolutely no specialized knowledge of search dogs of any kind.:) I'm just a research geek.

Snowy,

You so enjoy quoting others, here's a quote for you.

"I hope you saw the shootout we had last night with the publisher of The New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper. If you missed it, please check out (fox news address) for details. My thesis is that most of the media in America will not help pass tough mandatory prison terms for predators who rape and molest children. I told The Union Leader guy his paper was not doing enough. He told me to stuff it."

Bill O'Reilly

I would like to point out, here and now, and having not seen some posts which have been removed, that the fact that FireCat and myself, as well as others, have asked for general confirmation of the identity of someone who stridently demands respect if not obedience because of their claimed "expertise" - confirmation which is still not forthcoming - is nothing more or less than reasonable.

Others, including Dawn and BF, have vigorously challenged Mason's identity, and have not been threatened. I find this extremely odd.

It is, however, quite an effective tactic to silence differing voices and opinions "shut up or I'll sue." It serves the purpose of derailing and silencing lines of discussion in the most summary fashion possible.
The questions which FireCat and I asked still stand, unanswered.
They were met with a level of rage and contempt which I've never encountered before in any setting, period.

I disagree significantly with many here, but that does not mean that I want to in any way stifle or inhibit their pursuit of their theories and opinions. Far from it. I see nothing whatsoever wrong with pursuing ALL lines of inquiry which have not been conclusively excluded as possibilities - and by "conclusively excluded" I mean ONLY that LE has specificlly eliminated that person as a POI. It does not mean that any poster here, however "expert," however well-informed, however belligerent insisting that "you can't think that - you aren't allowed to think that because I'm telling you not to think that." The idea that adults of free will should allow themselves to be bullied and manhandled in this fashion by anyone astonishes me. The whole ridiculous idea of "groupthink" only serves the purpose of stifling real interaction. We are individuals, with individual opinions, nothing more or less.

I find myself wondering why an internet discussion of a case that's five years old would arouse such rage and contempt. To this day, no one in this forum has accused anyone of anything - no one, that is, except Mason, who has accused Fred Murray; Chris King, who has accused Gregory Floyd; and OH MY, who has accused everyone on the planet.

WOW