all 9 comments

[–]BonquosGhost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seconds later on this same video, I find it strange the words used here......."We are UNABLE TO COMMENT on which store she visited." And also....."We are UNABLE TO COMMENT on the last person to see Maura at UMass." LE did not use the words....WE DON'T KNOW.....here. The words imply to me, THEY KNOW BOTH answers. OK well its their prerogative to withhold any info on an active case for sure. Totally fine. But, what reason would there be here to withhold? And this is all in Mass. They also never released the mysterious ATM video. The crappy quality has to be the stupidest answer to not show the public ever in any missing person case. So, this info has to be very important to their case. I suggest that these 3 scenarios share something. There is someone with Maura. This is their POI. Important to this case. So important that when Fred went before the State of NH, they declined documents and info to him or anyone.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The call at 4:37 PM would have been on her phone records, which both Billy and his mother would have access to. I hope they shared the info with LE since it is very important for the timeline in this case. If she checked her voicemail before leaving or after she left could change the route she took and the timeline.

[–]BonquosGhost 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also it's possible she could have been using another cell phone given to her by another person during this time. Thats why Sharon and Billy may not see all the calls placed by her.

[–]BonquosGhost 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Since LE hasn't shared any of this info, we can't make assumptions here. We have an alleged liquor store (no video), we have an ATM withdrawal (no video), LE's own words that "we are UNABLE to comment" to me says someone put a damper on this, and her voice messages got checked at 4:37. By whom? Whoever had the cell in their hands. If she "was" in these videos, we don't know for sure "who" saw her last at any point or "where" that day even. For all I know, someone stole her money and the vehicle that afternoon. Assumptions I know.... There isn't one shred Maura was even still here with us that afternoon, nor at the accident, until further proof/facts shows up.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Evidence in general

I should make a general post about evidence "quality" later.

I agree that its better for us to examine the evidence directly, rather then be told. I favor direct evidence.

However, I have also found, on numerous occasions, that second hand evidence can be shown to be valid within a larger set of second hand evidence. But its not ideal, as I have seen errors repeated based upon reliance on second hand evidence. And in this case, there is a severe deficit in corroborative evidence, to the extent that judgments about its validity, based upon corroborative second hand evidence, cannot be made.

On the other hand, its almost unreasonable to question the validity of any assertion of fact provided by law enforcement. For example: that Maura Murray was at the liquor store at 3:47 PM.

Its not difficult to assume that more then one person has looked at the evidence supporting the assertion. Groups of people tend to be honest about information that is straight forward, so long as the original evidence is examined.

Things can go wrong when the original evidence is misinterpreted. Also things can go wrong if the assertion makers do not have access to the original evidence, or decide not to examine the original evidence. This could happen if they rely upon an initial incorrect interpretation of evidence, and repeat the mistake.

4:37 Phone Call

  • I'm still looking for the ultimate source of that assertion - and it may be another newspaper article. Right now, all I know is that Marybeth Conway got the 4:37 voice mail check time from somewhere, such that she was able to include the assertion in her article.
  • Right now, I can't say that LE never asserted 4:37 as the time she checked her cell phone. Right now, I can say that they didn't make such an assertion in the answers they provided, to questions asked to them, in the podcast.

Its Not Logical To Assume Law Enforcement Knows Everything We Don't Know About the Case But Have Questions About, Not Including What Happened to Maura of Course.

"We are UNABLE to comment" can mean they are either unwilling or unable to respond.

Edit: Be more direct and add further explanation, plus clarify "Everything We Don't Know"

[–]BonquosGhost 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I agree 100%. However, language can say a lot, even alluding towards a particular hidden answer. I always assume LE can never know everything, or else there would be no unsolved cases in the world. But, the words used by them in response, are from a direct question/answer from the AG's office. Now of course, there is a slim chance they could mean they "don't know". These words would mean exactly what they mean. However, the words "unable to comment" is leaning more towards "we do know, but we are hindered to let you know". Of course for whatever reasons LE wants to use at their discretion. For example, if one asks their co-worker "hey buddy, how much does Joey in sales make a week here at this company?" If his friend says "I don't know", logically there's a slim chance he "may" know, but not quite sure to really say. If his buddy replies to him, "hey I'm unable to comment on that..." Now this implies he has knowledge, but can't divulge it to anyone for company policy reasons or whatever. "UNABLE = lacking the necessary power, ability, or authority to do something, hindered or hampered by."

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I agree they might know exactly if Maura checked her voice mail at 4:37. They might know where she was approximately at 4:37. Their answers might mean what you think they do.

But it isn't reasonable to treat these assumptions as fact.

[–]BonquosGhost 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Correct. That's the whole story with this case. We have little info, but if LE has a lot of info (that they won't divulge), how we can anyone assert any more facts or make any other connections? They are ALL assumptions by everyone until more evidence comes to light.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)