Where is MAURA MURRAY

Snowy White wrote:

<quoted text>
we report. you decide.

Did you happen to know the name Snowy White was copyrighted in 2006?

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you happen to know the name Snowy White was copyrighted in 2006?

didn't.
my reference, of course, is to the Snowy White Owl. i'm certain you've noticed.
is this about "Maura" EWB, or personal pettiness?
such a dear, you are. ;-)

Snowy White wrote:

FL/Mason has no obligation to prove his claims to any greater degree than he already has; nor is there any obligation to accept and/or embrace his statements/opinions.
again, this is a forum...not a court of law.

Snowy, That may be so,but,it was Mason/Fred L that said he would provide proof. I thought the diploma would be a very simple way to do so to end this.
Mason has now changed his mind. Yes, his choice.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Did you happen to know the name Snowy White was copyrighted in 2006?

Looks like you have a lot of extra time on your hands to look things up - that don't pertain to Maura or yourself. Would you mind calling UMass and getting clarification on what clinicals were offered in 2004? thanks in advance.

EWB
While you are at it ? Maybe you could also look for the newspaper articles that mentioned the death in the family? Thanks again - in advance. figure you must have time since your comment above.. off to a meeting.

Saturnus wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's see how this works when I replace a name:
(Fred Murray) "has no obligation to prove his claims to any greater degree than he already has; nor is there any obligation to accept and/or embrace his statements/opinions.
again, this is a forum...not a court of law."
By golly, it _does_ work.

Yes, it works like a mathematical equation, but you forget that I have proven myself to be the person I claim to be and Fred Murray only has whined and complained ad nauseum pointing the finger of blame at everyone except himself.

I led the way, but he chooses the coward's path by hiding behind the skirts of the quackless, hapless, and feckless ducks.

He could have given us his work records establishing the alibi he claims to have, but he didn't.

Only a fool would believe that the ducks did not deliver my message.

So, he now gets to twist in the wind dangling from a tree limb suspended between Heaven and Hell with a rope spun from the fibers of his own deceit wrapped around his thin and brittle neck.

If he was at work, he could end this today.

If you were innocent and Maura were your daughter, would you continue to hide behind women's skirts and allow them to fight your battles for you?

I fight my own battles.

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.

You are are right Sara, they are trained for very specific "smells". They are also rewarded in very different ways which was why I had the question of their going bonkers. I've seen cdaver dogs AFTER a search, and yes they go bonkers--that is their reward for their good work whether or not they made a hit.

jmlh wrote:

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.

No, it's not me, but I am always on the looked out for a moose--I now have dozens of sigtings under my belt, but I never stop looking when in the area.(we don't see them much in RI--a few black bear but never moose)

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.

Cadaver dogs are trained to scent on decomposing flesh--much the same as how most dogs can refind a bone they buried. Were the dogs "air scenting" or trailing?

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, it works like a mathematical equation, but you forget that I have proven myself to be the person I claim to be and Fred Murray only has whined and complained ad nauseum pointing the finger of blame at everyone except himself.
I led the way, but he chooses the coward's path by hiding behind the skirts of the quackless, hapless, and feckless ducks.
He could have given us his work records establishing the alibi he claims to have, but he didn't.
Only a fool would believe that the ducks did not deliver my message.
So, he now gets to twist in the wind dangling from a tree limb suspended between Heaven and Hell with a rope spun from the fibers of his own deceit wrapped around his thin and brittle neck.
If he was at work, he could end this today.
If you were innocent and Maura were your daughter, would you continue to hide behind women's skirts and allow them to fight your battles for you?
I fight my own battles.

Mason, if LE does consider FM a person of interest, don't you think they would know if his alibi checked out? Don't you think they would be searching Amherst for a body since one has not be found in Havervill?

Thought this article was interesting on cadaver dogs.

http://www.slate.com/id/2174177/

If, as Firecat claims, Mr. Murray vehemently denied that he said the theories about the knife and the A-Frame had been "debunked," did he write a letter demanding that Nancy West retract that quote attributed to him and did she retract it and issue an apology?

Mr. Murray now has a third opportunity to provide documentary evidence proving one of his caims.

First, he had an opportunity to establish the alibi that he claims to have by authorizing his employer to provide certified copies of business records showing the hours that he worked on February 9, 2004, and February 10, 2004.

Mr. Murray did not produce those records.

Second, Mr. Murray has a chance now to produce the receipt from a person authorized to receive and book into evidence the supposedly bloodstained jackknife that Claude Moulton allegedly used to kill Maura Murray at the A-Frame. Mr. Murray claimed that he mailed it to them and has the receipt to prove it. Where is it Mr. Murray?

Mr. Murray has never produced that receipt for anyone.

Third, Mr. Murray now has the opportunity to produce documentary evidence verifying his complaint about his debunking comment.

I will contact Nancy West to see what she has to say and report back.

Frederick Leatherman

sara wrote:

<quoted text>
Mason, if LE does consider FM a person of interest, don't you think they would know if his alibi checked out? Don't you think they would be searching Amherst for a body since one has not be found in Havervill?

Sara,

Why do you think Mr. Murray has an alibi that LE has checked out and verified?

No such announcement ever was made and I interpret LE's systematic and virtually complete denial of access to any information collected by LE as a very clear statement that Mr. Murray is a suspect in Maura's disappearance.

I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

sara wrote:

<quoted text>
Mason, if LE does consider FM a person of interest, don't you think they would know if his alibi checked out? Don't you think they would be searching Amherst for a body since one has not be found in Havervill?

Where in Amherst would you search?

Why not Bridgeport, CT?

Why not Surrey, MA?

Why not Hanson, MA?

Why not elsewhere, however briefly?

You don't call a search unless you have reason to believe that the area you're proposing to search contains what you are looking for.

Plus, we don't know that some of those areas weren't searched, although I doubt it.

Absence of searches in the many areas through which Mr. Murray may have traveled during an approximate period of 24-hours, cannot be interpreted as evidence that Mr. Murray hasw been cleared as a suspect.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Sara,
Why do you think Mr. Murray has an alibi that LE has checked out and verified?
No such announcement ever was made and I interpret LE's systematic and virtually complete denial of access to any information collected by LE as a very clear statement that Mr. Murray is a suspect in Maura's disappearance.
I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

I DID NOT say that. I said don't you think they know if his alibi checked out, meaning they did not just take his word for it. I am assuming they have already checked it out and know if it does or does not check out. My point being, IF it did not check out, then they should be searching elsewhere for a body. Perhaps Amherst is a good start, perhaps they have already done this.

sara wrote:

<quoted text>
I DID NOT say that. I said don't you think they know if his alibi checked out, meaning they did not just take his word for it. I am assuming they have already checked it out and know if it does or does not check out. My point being, IF it did not check out, then they should be searching elsewhere for a body. Perhaps Amherst is a good start, perhaps they have already done this.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I'm saying that LE would have attempted to check-out any alibi Mr. Murray would have claimed to have and either he didn't claim to have one, or the one he claimed to have didn't check out, and for either reason, he remains a suspect.

Absence of searches in Amherst, assuming none were conducted, proves nothing.

If anything, Amherst probably is the least likely place to find her body, IMHO.

I think we're saying the same thing.

I wonder if Claude Moulton knows that Mr. Murray referred to him as a "skunk on [Haverhill's] doorstep?"

Would Mr. Moulton regard that statement as fighting words?

What might he say or do if he knew that Mr. Murray's reference to him as a "skunk on Haverhill's doorstep" was an accusation that Mr. Moulton stabbed Maura to death.

I address this question to all of the people who live in the Haverhill area.

Can any of you provide me with a reason why Chief Williams and his police department, as well as Lieutenant Scarinza and the NHSP, would allow Claude Moulton to escape responsibility for abducting and murdering Maura Murray, if they had any evidence that he was responsible?

As I've said before, when you start asking the right questions in this case, the red herrings disappear and the fog lifts revealing something every one of us would prefer not to face.

Mason wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, I misunderstood.
I'm saying that LE would have attempted to check-out any alibi Mr. Murray would have claimed to have and either he didn't claim to have one, or the one he claimed to have didn't check out, and for either reason, he remains a suspect.
Absence of searches in Amherst, assuming none were conducted, proves nothing.
If anything, Amherst probably is the least likely place to find her body, IMHO.

Where would you think the best place to search iyo?

This question is for anyone who may know the answer. Is it common for LE to say publicly that they think a missing person may have run away or committed suicide when they may know otherwise? Reason I ask, as recently as this Feb. on the fifth year of Maura missing, LE had stated in a couple of news articles that they still believe she ran away. If they have a POI, would it not be hindering the case to put this false info out in the public? I would think they would plead for new tips and leads in order to rule out POI. Does this make sense or am I out in left field here?