Transcript - Murray vs New Hampshire

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:54:29+00:00

AKA Murray 005-1

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
Docket No. 05-E-383
Frederick J. Murray
vs
Special investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriffs Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John l Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain;·New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2;. and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

Frederick J. Murray, petitioner, has brought an action seeking an injunction ordering respondents to disclose documents pursuant to RSA 91-A (The Right-to-Know Law) relating to an ongoing investigation into the disappearance of his daughter, Maura Murray.

While the government respondents (hereinafter referred collectively as the "State") understand the concern of any parent or relative of a missing person, the motive and identity of the person requesting records under RSA 91-A cannot be considered in determining whether the records should be released under RSA 91-A[1]. J,jans v. Lebanon School Board, 112 N.H. 160, 162 (1972).

Respondents denied Mr. Murray's requests because the records requested are investigative in nature and therefore fall under the exception to RSA 91-A created by the New (Continued)

[1] There is one exception to this rule - if the only basis for withholding the records are that they are personal records of an individual that has a privacy interest in those records, if the person making the request is the person that the records are about, then that individual may have a right to see their own records that are in government hands, unless some other exemption also applies.
1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:55:48+00:00

(Continued)
Hampshire Supreme Court, see Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574 (1978), or alternatively fall under other exemptions to RSA 91-A. This court upheld the state's decision after hearing based on the law enforcement exemption.

Petitioner appealed and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has remanded for a further determination. The Supreme Court described the standard to be applied on remand as:

In cases such as this one, generic determinations of likely interference often will suffice. Id.; see also Robbins Tire, 437 U.S. at 236. When generic determinations are used, the withholding "should be justified category-of-document by category of-document not file-by-file." Curran, 813 F.2d at 475 (quotation and ellipses omitted); see also Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 789 F.2d 64,66-67 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The categorization should be clear enough to permit a court to ascertain how each category of documents, if disclosed, could interfere with the investigation. Curran, 813 F.2d at 475. The categories must be distinct enough to allow meaningful judicial review, yet not so distinct as to reveal the nature and scope of the investigation. Id.

Murray v. NH Division of State Police, et. al., N. H., 913A.2d 737 (2006).

In the order on remand the Supreme Court emphasized two points as guidance for trial courts. First, that under the standard adopted from Curran, some types of categories, when coupled with careful explanation to the trial court as to how interference with enforcement proceedings could occur, will satisfy the standard. Examples include: "details regarding initial allegations giving rise to th[e] investigation; interviews with witnesses and subjects; investigative reports furnished to the prosecuting attorneys; contacts with prosecutive attorneys regarding allegations, subsequent progress of investigations, and prosecutive opinions ...." Curran, 813 F,2d at 476.

Second, in the case of one-of-a-kind records, Curran would not preclude application of the exemption if an enforcement agency made limited use of a "miscellaneous" category to avoid having to set forth a precise - and potentially compromising - description of the record(s), See Id.
2
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:56:07+00:00

(Continued)
The New Hampshire Supreme Court went on to state that, although Respondents' categorization of documents might be sufficient to meet the standard set out above, "the respondents offered no affidavits, testimony, or other evidence which, for example: (1) defined these categories more precisely; (2) explained how disclosure of the information within these categories could interfere with any investigation or enforcement; or (3) explained why "there was no reasonably segregable" portion of any of the withheld material suitable for release ...."

The Respondents submit this supplemental memorandum in support of their objection to the petition of injunctive relief to supply the further information that the Supreme Court has indicated is required and to reiterate the additional grounds for objection to the RSA 91-A request that the trial court did not previously address.

I. ARGUMENT

1. Additional Description Of Documents By Category
The following additional descriptions of the twenty categories of documents in Exhibit A attached to the Respondents objection to the motion for preliminary injunction is hereby provided. See affidavits of Detective Todd Landry, Exhibit B[2] , Senior Assistant Attorney General Andy J. Smith, Exhibit C, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Jeffery Strelzin, Exhibit D, attached hereto.

A. Phone records: Telephone records related to Maura Murray or records obtained from family members, friends, or other persons that are, or may have been of interest or that may be relevant to Maura Murray's activities at or around the time of her disappearance. Except for record of Mr. Murray, copies of which have been provided, there are no reasonably segregable records in this category. See Affidavit of Nancy J. Smith, Exhibit C.

[2] As this is a supplement to the original objection, Respondents have started the numb~ring of Exhibits with "B" as Exhibit A is attached to the original objection.
3
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:56:21+00:00

(Continued)
B. Subpoenas (including search warrants): To the extent there are any subpoenas that are not grand jury subpoenas these materials will be produced. See Affidavit of Nancy Smith, Exhibit C, with list of documents produced. There are grand jury subpoenas that are not public and which would pinpoint the focus of the investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. There are also search warrants that are not public and which would pinpoint the focus of the investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits Band D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony. See Affidavits B and Exhibit D, attached hereto.

C. Credit card information: To the extent that any credit card information has been sought or obtained from any person, including Maura Murray, in addition to the privacy rights of those individuals as well as Ms. Murray, revealing that information would pinpoint the focus of the investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. There are no reasonable segregable records in this category.

D. Criminal record checks: Criminal Records checks are confidential and may not be disclosed except to the individual involved or law enforcement under RSA I06-B: 14 and are therefore not subject to RSA 91-A. Furthermore, identification of specific individuals regarding whom records have been requested would pinpoint the focus of the investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. There are no reasonable segregable records in this category.

E. Narrative reports by the investigators: These documents comprise the majority of the file. They include reports from approximately 66 law enforcement officials including local police, sheriffs, out of state police, and the FBI, as well as State police and Fish and Game. See
4
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:56:47+00:00

(Continued)
Affidavit of Landry, Exhibit B. The majority of the reports are by Del. Landry, Sgt. Bruno and Tp. Hubbard. The reports relate to searches and subpoenas, approximately 254 contacts with various sources and follow-up on contacts, approximately 106 witness interviews, as well as reports regarding obtaining documents and evidence and examination of evidence, including lab reports. These records would pinpoint the focus of the investigation thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item 'with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony. To the extent that there are any materials in this category that have been made public previously or that are from a public source that would not compromise the investigation they have been produced to Mr. Murray. See Affidavit of Nancy Smith, Exhibit C.

F. Witness interviews (tapes and transcripts): Not all interviews with individuals were taped. The majority of the several hundred contacts that have been made in this matter are short interviews and telephone interviews that are summarized in the investigators' reports listed above. To the extent that taped interviews were conducted, they have been transcribed and are attached to the investigators' reports. There are 19 written statements and 3 transcribed interviews, these records would pinpoint the focus of the investigation thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits Band D. There are no reasonable segregable records in this category. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

G. Polygraph examinations (tapes and charts): There are four polygraph examinations, these records would pinpoint the focus of the investigation thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. Detective
5
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:57:09+00:00

(Continued)
Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

H. Possessed Property reports (referencing all physical evidence seized): In addition to items taken from Maura Murray's vehicle, items of clothing or other items found during searches that may be of interest or that have been given to police that someone believes may have some relevance, other items that have been obtained through search warrants and other items that may relate to this case which cannot be identified without disclosing the focus of the police investigation thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony. It is noted that one item in the possession of the state police is the vehicle that Maura Murray was driving. After inspection and examination the vehicle was released to Mr. Frederick Murray, as the owner. He relinquished any claim to it to the storage facility, which gave it to the state police.

I. Lab reports: Various items of physical evidence have been analyzed by the State Police lab to determine if they have any connection to Murray and to assist the police in further investigation of this matter. The exact nature of the tests performed and the items of evidence on which the test were conducted cannot be released without severely hindering the investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.
6
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:58:21+00:00

(Continued)
J. Police/dispatch call logs: It is believed that the initial Grafton County Sheriffs Department Incident Log, the NH Uniform Police Accident Report and the Woodsville Ambulance response roster have previously been released and have therefore been provided to Mr. Murray. See Affidavit of Nancy Smith, Exhibit C. To the extent there are other records of the reports of the Murray vehicle accident and law enforcement response to the scene, these records would pinpoint the focus of the investigation or provide valuable information that could be used by a suspect to avoid detection thereby damaging the investigation for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

K. Photographs: In addition to the Maura Murray's vehicle, items of clothing or other items found during searches that may be of interest or that have been given to police that someone believes may have some relevance, other items that have been obtained through search warrants which as indicated above are sealed (same comment, no reference above), and other items or property that may relate to this case which cannot be identified without disclosing the focus of the police investigation thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

L. Correspondence (letters and e-mails): To the extent there is correspondence from Mr. Murray, or his attorney or to Mr. Murray or his attorney, that was in the state police files, it is produced. See Affidavit of Nancy Smith, Exhibit C. To the extent there are newspaper clippings or other publicly available documents that have been kept by law enforcement concerning Maura Murray, they have been produced. See Affidavit of Nancy Smith, Exhibit C.
7
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:58:34+00:00

(Continued)
The remainder of the documents in this category are communications between the attorney general's office and the state police regarding the investigation or between the state police and other law enforcement agencies about the investigation. To the extent there is other correspondence containing anything purporting to be a lead or relevant evidence, it is summarized in and attached to an investigative report and covered under "E. Narrative reports by the investigators" above. These items cannot be disclosed without damaging the investigation for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D.

M. Attorney notes: Attorney Jeffrey Strelzin, head of the NH Department of Justice homicide unit has been the contact in the NH Department of Justice with State Police regarding this matter. He has kept his own notes regarding meetings, contacts and evidence regarding this matter to assist in the event of any future prosecution. These items cannot be disclosed without damaging the investigation for the reasons stated in the Affidavjts of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D.

N. One-party intercept memoranda: This is the one-of-a-kind type of item that the Supreme Court recognized cannot be described specifically without irreparably disclosing what it consists of. Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

O. Maps and diagrams: Other than one topographical map w/enlargements that is produced (see Exhibit C) any maps or diagrams would indicate the specific areas of law enforcement focus, or additionally contain notations of specific items of interests or locations of interest, which cannot be identified without disclosing the focus of the police investigation thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits
8
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:58:48+00:00

(Continued)
B and D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

P. Investigative duty assignment. Other than the records under investigative reports, there are no separate records in this category.

Q. Tax records: Property tax records have been consulted or obtained. Although property tax records are public, the fact that the police have obtained and retained specific tax records in the investigative file-would identify places that are of interest in the investigation which cannot be identified without disclosing the focus of the police investigation thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

R. Employment personnel files: To the extent that any employment or personnel information has been sought or obtained from any person, including Ms. Murray, in addition to the privacy rights of those individuals, revealing that information would pinpoint the focus of the investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits Band D. There are no reasonable segregable records in this category.

S. Medical records: To the extent that any medical information has been sought or obtained from any person, including Ms. Murray, in addition to the privacy rights of those individuals, revealing that information would pinpoint the focus of the investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. There are no reasonable segregable records in this category.

T. Military records: To the extent that any military or educational information has been sought or obtained from any person, including Ms. Murray, in addition to the privacy rights
9
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T04:59:47+00:00

(Continued)
of those individuals, revealing that information would pinpoint the focus of the investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated in the Affidavits of Landry and Strelzin. See Exhibits B and D. There are no reasonable segregable records in this category.

2. Interference with any Investigation or Enforcement

The potential harmful effects of release of law enforcement investigation materials, particularly at a pre-indictment stage, was summarized in detail by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Petition of State of New Hampshire (Bowman Search Warrants) as including the folowing: many prospective witnesses would be hesitant to come forward voluntarily; grand jury witnesses would be hesitant to testify truthfully as they would be open to retribution or inducements; those about to be indicted may flee; the risk of attempts to tamper with grand juries; if the nature and scope of the investigation is known evidence may be destroyed; individuals involved in criminal activity would be able to craft stories to fit the current state of the investigation or to coordinate stories; concern over releasing information about people that ultimately prove innocent and concern over the potential defendants right to a fair trial. (citations omitted). Bowman Search Warrants, 146 N.H. 621, 627-628 (2001).

Detective Landry and SAAG Strelzin have each been involved in many criminal cases. Both describe the potential general impact of early disclosure of law enforcement investigation in their public affidavit filed herewith. See Exhibits Band D. Generally the dangers are that, if there is or may be a person of interest, revealing that information publicly would 1.) alert that person to the interest and make it harder to gain her or his cooperation; 2.) enable that person of interest to use what other witnesses have said to cover their tracks or to muddy the waters: 3.) endanger witnesses that have provided information concerning that person; 4.) result in witnesses being reluctant to talk to law enforcement if they believe that what they say would be available
10
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:00:15+00:00

(Continued)
to the person of interest; and 5.) result in public speculation resulting in false leads including everything from sightings in unlikely locations to reports from psychics, that must be followed up on but that consume time and resources; 6.) result in the sources that have provided information being pursued by outside, non-law enforcement sources so that they feel harassed and simply refuse to have anything further to do with the investigation; 7.) the fact that a warrant or subpoena was obtained, particular property searched or particular interviews conducted, if made public, could lead to speculation that the government believes persons that may tum out to be innocent have been engaged in criminal activity but at a pre-indictment stage those persons would have no forum in which to exonerate themselves, and 8.) revealing what other witnesses have said can taint the credibility of witnesses that become aware of the other witnesses statements by bringing into question whether what they recall is their own recollection or has been tainted by what they have heard that someone else reported. See Affidavits, Exhibits B and D.

Even if law enforcement and the prosecutor think they have ruled out a contact or lead as not believed to be involved in any possible criminal activity at this time, revealing this information would also damage law enforcement investigative ability and ultimately the ability to prosecute any case because 1.) this information could be used by anyone that was a legitimate suspect to divert attention from themselves, 2.) although the information may have been determined not to be relevant to Maura Murray, it may in fact be relevant to other criminal conduct: in fact information that has been gathered in this case has resulted in cases being opened investigating charges related to burglary, drugs, arson and criminal mischief[3]; and 3.) revealing what other witnesses have said can taint the credibility of witnesses that become aware of the other witnesses statements by bringing into question whether what they recall is their own

[3] More specific information regarding these representations can only be made in camera.

11
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:00:37+00:00

(Continued)
recollection or has been tainted by what they have heard that someone else reported. See Affidavits Landry and Strelzin, Exhibits B and D.
In addition, it is often difficult to accurately predict what information will be important in a case months or years down the road. As SAAG Strelzin can attest, the State has recently been able to prosecute several murder cases over twenty years old. He has also had a case in which the person of interest turned out to be entirely the wrong person. Seemingly innocuous facts can take on great importance when.they are viewed in light of all the evidence that is eventually collected in a case. Another important factor that cannot be predicted is what claims or defenses may be made on behalf of a defendant. See Affidavit Strelzin, Exhibit D. Depending on those claims or defense, information or evidence that seemed unimportant at an earlier time could become very important during the prosecution phase of the case. For these reasons, it is important to protect the integrity of an investigation and the viability of any potential prosecution by maintaining the secrecy of the ongoing investigation.

3. Reasonably Segregable Information

As stated above, it is often impossible to tell which tiny piece of information may ultimately turn out to be vital. Additionally, minute details that are only available through the combined knowledge gleaned from all of the investigation, is often relied on by prosecutors and police to judge the credibility of witnesses.

However, law enforcement may sometimes choose to make some information public for various reasons including public safety or to try to solicit leads. Likewise they may have information that was received from the person, asking for the release of information.

Counsel herein has reviewed the State respondents records and files, as well as consulting with the other respondents to identify any records that could be segregated and produced. All
12
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:01:19+00:00

(Continued)
records that have previously been made public, that are routinely made public such as uniform automobile accidents reports that are provided for insurance purposes, that came from a public source and do not reveal any focus of investigation, or that came from or were sent to Frederick Murray, the person requesting the information herein, are identified in the attachment to the affidavit of Nancy J. Smith and copies of those documents have been provided to Petitioner. See Exhibit C.

4. Other Exceptions to ·the Right to Know Law

The purpose of the Right to Know Law is to "ensure the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people." RSA 91-A: 1; see New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester, 14lf N.H. 437, 438 (2003). "That purpose, however, is not fostered by disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various government files but reveals little or nothing about an agency's own conduct." Union Leader Corp. v. New Hampshire Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. 540, 554 (1997).

RSA 9l-A:5, IV specifically exempts records pertaining financial, employment, academic examinations; personnel records and medical records. See Hounsell v. North Conway Water Precinct, No 2005-505, slip op. (N.H. August I, 2006); see also Lamy v. NH Public Utilities Commission, 152 N.H. 106 (2005). The Right to Know Law also specifically exempts from disclosure records "whose disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy." RSA 91A: 5, IV; see New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester, 149 N.H. at 440.

When the Court reviews the privacy exemption under RSA 91-A, the Court will balance the public interest in disclosure of the requested information against the government interest in nondisclosure and the individual's privacy interest in nondisclosure. See Union Leader Corp. v.
13
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:01:48+00:00

(Continued)
City of Nashua, 141 N.H. 473, 475-76 (1996). In considering whether disclosure of the records in question would constitute an invasion of privacy, the Court will undertake a three step analysis: (1) The Court will "evaluate whether there is a privacy interest at stake that would be invaded by disclosure"; (2) The Court will "assess the public's interest in disclosure", i.e., whether the information serves the purpose of informing the public about the conduct and activities of government; and·(3) The Court will "balance the public interest in disclosure against the government interest in nondisclosure and the individual's privacy interest in nondisclosure." New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester, 149 N.H. at 440 (citing Union Leader Corp v. City of Nashua, 141 N.H. 473, 476-77 (1996) and United States Dep 't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 762, 771-73 (1989) (applying federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)))."

In an analogous case involving a school district's refusal to disclose the requested names and addresses of students and their parents, this Court ruled that the release of the requested information would invade the privacy of the students and their parents. See Brent v. Paquette, 132 N.H. 415, 427-28 (1990). The Court held that "any intrusion into a person's home necessarily constitutes an invasion of privacy." Under the privacy provision as well as under the specific exemptions in RSA 91-A:5 for financial, educational, employment and medical records the following categories of records as identified in Exhibit A are not subject to disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, N.

A. Phone records: The telephone records are personal records of the individual.

B. Credit card information: These records are confidential financial record.

D. Criminal record checks: Criminal Records checks are confidential under RSA 106-B:14 and are therefore not subj ect to RSA 91-A.
14
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:02:03+00:00

(Continued)
R. Employment or personnel files.

S. Medical records.

T. Military records: These are employment of educational records.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated herein, and as set forth previously in the objection to the petition filed herein, the Defendants respectfully request that the petition be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT OF THE DIVISION J OF STATE POLICE, ET AL.

By their attorneys,

KELLY A. AYOTTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Nancy J. Smith
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Bureau
33 Capitol Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301-6397
(603) 271-12270

March 30, 2007
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed this day, postage prepaid, to Timothy J. Ervin, Esquire, Gallant & Ervin, One Olde North Road, Suite 103, Chelmsford, MA 01824, and Brian Cullen, Esq. Devine, Millimet and Branch, PA, 111 Amherst Street, Manchester, NH 03101, counsel of record.

_____________
Nancy J. Smith
15

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:04:00+00:00

AFFIDAVIT OF Todd D. Landry
I, Todd D. Landry , hereby swear and affirm as follows;

1. I am currently employed by the State of New Hampshire, Division of State police as Sergeant. I have been employed by the State Police for 13 years. I have been involved in the investigation regard Maura Murray since February, 2004.

2. The following is based on my experience with criminal investigations in general and the investigation regarding Maura Murray in particular.

3. The Maura Murray investigation is open and ongoing. Based on my experience with criminal investigations and the information in this case in particular, I have a reasonable belief that this investigation may lead to criminal charges. However, at this stage of the investigation, it would be extraordinarily detrimental to our ability to continue this investigation if we are required to make public whether or not there is a person or persons of interest and the information on which those beliefs are based. In my experience in this case and in other cases, our investigation would be hindered in the following ways:

a. If there is or may be a person of interest, revealing that information publicly would 1.) alert that person to our interest and make it harder to gain her or his cooperation; 2.) enable that person of interest to use what other witnesses have said to cover their tracks or to muddy the waters: 3.) endanger witnesses that have provided information concerning that person; 4.) result in witnesses being reluctant to talk to us if they believe that what they tell us would be available to the person of interest; and 5.) result in public speculation resulting in false leads including everything from sightings in unlikely locations to reports from psychics, that must be followed up on but that consume time and resources; 6.) result in the sources that have provided information being pursued by outside, non-law enforcement sources so that they feel harassed and simply refuse to have anything further to do with the investigation; 7.) the fact that a warrant or subpoena was obtained, particular property searched or particular interviews conducted, if made public, could lead to speculation that the government believes persons that may tum out to be innocent have been engaged in criminal activity but at a pre-indictment stage those persons would have no forum in which to exonerate themselves, and 8.) revealing what other witnesses have said can taint the credibility of witnesses that become aware of the other witnesses statements by bringing into question whether what they recall is their own recollection or has been tainted by what they have heard that someone else reported.

b. Revealing contacts and interviews related to leads that are not believed to be involved in any possible criminal activity at this time would also damage our investigative ability and ultimately the ability to prosecute any case because
Exhibit B
1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:04:12+00:00

(Continued)

1.) this information could be used by anyone that was a legitimate suspect to divert attention from themselves, 2.) although the information may have been determined not to be relevant to Maura Murray, it may in fact be relevant to other criminal conduct: in fact information that has been gathered in this case has resulted in cases being opened investigating charges related to burglary, drugs, arson and criminal mischief; and 3.) revealing what other witnesses have said can taint the credibility of witnesses that become aware of the other witnesses statements by bringing into question whether what they recall is their own recollection or has been tainted by what they have heard that someone else reported.

4. I am familiar with the State Police files related to Maura Murray which currently comprise six volumes of materials, 2938 pages, as well as the physical evidence, tapes, any other material such as newspaper clippings that have been maintained. I have reviewed all of the material in our possession and provide the following additional descriptions of the materials contained in the files by the twenty categories of documents previously provided to the court in this matter.

A. Phone records: The telephone records have been obtained from family members, friends, or other persons that are, or may have been of interest or relevant to Maura Murray's activities at or around the time of her disappearance. I have been trained and advised by counsel that, in addition to the concerns related to compromising the law enforcement investigation outlined in paragraph 3 above, financial information, personnel records, medical records and military records and other personal information are subject to privacy rights of the individual that they concern.

B. Subpoenas (including search warrants): To the extent there are any subpoenas that are not grand jury subpoenas I have been advised that these materials will be produced. There are grand jury subpoenas that are not public and which would pinpoint the focus of our investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated above. There are also search warrants that are not public and which would pinpoint the focus of our investigation; thereby damaging it for the reasons stated above. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

C. Credit card information: These records are the personal property of the individuals involved and were either provided voluntarily or by grand jury subpoena to the police. To the extent that any credit card information has been sought or obtained from any person other than Maura Murray; revealing that information would pinpoint the focus of our investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated above. I have been trained and advised by counsel that, in addition to the concerns related to compromising the law enforcement investigation outlined in paragraph 3 above, financial information, personnel records, medical records and military records and other personal information are subject to privacy rights of the individual that they concern.
Exhibit B
2
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:05:14+00:00

AKA Murray 005-2

(Continued)

D. Criminal record checks: Criminal Records checks are confidential and may not be disclosed except to the individual involved or law enforcement under RSA 106B: l4 and are therefore not subject to RSA 9l-A. Furthermore, identification of specific individuals regarding whom records have been requested would pinpoint the focus of our investigation, thereby damaging it for the reasons stated above. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

E. Narrative reports by the investigators: Tp. Hamilton, NHSP; Sgt Smith, Haverhill PD; Cpl. Charles, Haverhill PD; Ptl. Cashin, Haverhill PD; Tp Monaghan, NHSP; C.O. Jellison, NH Fish and Game; Chief Williams, Haverhill PD; Det. Landry, NHSP; Cpl Trott, Haverhill·PD; Tp.Steinmetz, NHSP; Sgt. Bruno, NHSP; Tp. Pelletier, NHSP; Sgt. Beausoleil, NHSP; Det. Gilbert, NHSP; Ptl. Veno, Exeter, MA PD; TFC Cohen, NHSP; Sgt. Yorke, NHSP; Cpl Ontegco, Oxford County Sheriffs ME; Tp. Splittler, NHSP; Tp. Cooper, NHSP; Sgt. Berry, NHSP; Lt. Scarinza, NHSP; SA Alford, FBI; Tp. Martin, NHSP; Tp. Koehler, NHSP; Dep. Eck, Grafton County Sheriffs; Det. Sgt. Sinclair, VSP; Det. Hubbard, NHSP; SA Lazarski, FBI; Det. Belanger, NHSP; Sgt. Mudgett, NHSP; Sgt. Hayes, NHSP; Ptl. Johnson, UMASS PD; Ptl. Kellogg, UMASS PD; Det. Davies, UMASS PD; Det. Hagan, UMASS PD; Det. Oravec, UMASS PD; Det. Kedwell, UMASS PD; Det. Lisboa, UMASS PD; Ptl Rivera, Amherst MA PO; Ptl. Ruddock, Hadley MA PD; Sgt. Marshall, NHSP; Tp. Doyle, NHSP; Melissa Staples, NHSP; Lt. Bogardus, NH F & G; Sgt. West, NHSP; Ptl. Gray, Haverhill PD; Lt. Hester, NHSP; Lisa Corson NHSP; Pt1. Stickles, Rochester PD; Tp. Schulze, VTSP; Kevin McMahon, NHSP; Det. Conrad, NHSP-MCU; Det. Skahan, NHSP-MCU; Peterson, Haverhill, PD; Capt. Milliken, Sullivan County DOC; Ptl. Babine, Rochester, PD; Sgt. Armaganian, NHSP; Kimberly Rumrill, NHSP; Cpl. Champagne, NHSP; Det. Rowland, NHSPMCU; Sgt. Lamson, NHSP; Det. Castoldi, NHSP; Ptl. Martin, Haverhill, PD; Det. Sgt. Letourneau, VSP; and Ken Carter, NHSP have all provided one or more investigation reports.

The majority of the reports are by Det. Landry, Sgt. Bruno and Tp. Hubbard. The reports relate to searches and subpoenas, approximately 254 contacts with various sources and follow-up on contacts, approximately l06 witness interviews, as well as reports regarding obtaining documents and evidence and examination of evidence, including lab reports. For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that these documents cannot be released without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it i determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

F. Witness interviews (tapes and transcripts): Not all interviews with individuals were taped. The majority of the several hundred contacts that have been talked to in this matter are short interviews and telephone interviews are generally summarized in

Exhibit B
3
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:05:32+00:00

(Continued)
the investigators' reports listed above. To the extent that taped interviews were conducted, they have been transcribed and are attached to the investigators', reports.

There are 19 written statements and 3 transcribed interviews. For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that these documents cannot be released without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

There is one two-page written statement by Mr. Murray that I have been advised will be produced.

G. Polygraph examinations (tapes and charts): There are four polygraph examinations. For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that these documents cannot be released without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

H. Possessed Property reports (referencing all physical evidence seized): In addition to items taken from Maura Murray's vehicle pursuant to search warrant, items of clothing or other items found during searches that may be of interest or that have been given to police that someone believes may have some relevance, other items that have been obtained through search warrants or grand jury subpoenas which as indicated above are sealed, and other items that may relate to this case which cannot be identified without disclosing the focus of the police investigation are in the possession of the state police. For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that these items cannot be released or identified without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

It is noted that one item in the possession of the state police is the vehicle that Maura Murray was driving. After inspection and examination the vehicle was released to Mr. Fredrick Murray, as the owner. He relinquished any claim to it to the storage facility, which gave it to the state police.

I. Lab reports: Various items of physical evidence have been analyzed by the State Police lab to determine if they have any connection to Murray and to assist the police in further investigation of this matter. The exact nature of the tests performed and the items of evidence on which the test were conducted cannot be released without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future

Exhibit B
4
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:06:41+00:00

(Continued)
prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

J. Police/dispatch call logs: It is believed that the initial Grafton County Sheriffs Department Incident Log, the NH Uniform Police Accident Report and the Woodsville Ambulance response roster have previously been released are therefore being provided to Mr. Murray. To the extent there are other records of the reports of the Murray vehicle accident and law enforcement response to the scene, for the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that these documents cannot be released without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct.

K. Photographs: In addition to the Maura Murray's vehicle, items found during searches that may be of interest or that have been given to police that someone believes may have some relevance or items that have been obtained through search warrants or grand jury subpoenas, which as indicated above are sealed, and other items or property that may relate to this case which cannot be identified without disclosing the focus of the police investigation have been photographed. For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I arr strongly of the opinion that these items cannot be released or identified without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

L. Correspondence (letters and e-mails): To the extent there is correspondence from Mr. Murray, or his attorney or to Mr. Murray or his attorney, I have been advised that the e materials will be produced. To the extent there are newspaper clippings or other publicly available documents that have been kept by law enforcement concerning Maura Murray I have been advised that these materials will be produced. The remainder of the documents in this category are communications between the attorney general's office and the state police regarding the investigation or between the state police and other law enforcement agencies about the investigation. To the extent there is other correspondence containing anything purporting to be a lead or relevant evidence, it is summarized in and attached to an investigative report and covered under "E. Narrative reports by the investigators" above.

M. Attorney notes: On information and belief, Attorney Jeffrey Strelzin, head of the NH Department of Justice homicide unit has been the contact in the NH Department of Justice with State Police regarding this matter.

Exhibit B
5
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:07:11+00:00

(Continued)

N. One-party intercept memoranda: For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that this item cannot be released or further identified without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution causing the substantial likelihood of injury or harm to any person that cooperated in any such activity and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it if determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

O. Maps and diagrams: Any maps or diagrams would indicate the specific areas of law enforcement for additional contain notations of specific items of interests or locations of interest and therefore for the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that these items cannot be released or identified without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

P. Investigative duty assignment logs - None other than in Investigative Reports.

Q. Tax records: Property tax records have been consulted or obtained. For the reasons stated in paragraph 3 above, I am strongly of the opinion that this item cannot be released or further identified without severely hindering our investigation, endangering the viability of any future prosecution causing the substantial likelihood of injury or harm to any person that cooperated in any such activity and substantially decreasing the likelihood that justice can be achieved for Maura Murray if it is determined that she has been the victim of criminal conduct. Although property tax records are public, the fact that the police have obtained and retained specific tax records in the investigative file would identify places that are of interest in the investigation. I can address this item with further specificity by in camera affidavit or testimony.

R. Employment personnel files: These records are the personal property of the individuals involved and were either provided voluntarily or by grand jury subpoena to the police. I have been trained and advised by counsel that, in addition to the concerns related to compromising the law enforcement investigation outlined in paragraph 3 above, financial information, personnel records, medical records and military records and other personal information are subject to privacy rights of the individual that they concern.

S. Medical records: These records we the personal property of the individuals involved and were either provided voluntarily or by grand jury subpoena to the police. I have been trained and advised by counsel that, in addition to the concerns related to compromising the law enforcement investigation outlined in paragraph 3 above,

Exhibit B
6
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:07:58+00:00

(Continued)
financial information, personnel records, medical records and military records and other personal information are subject to privacy rights of the individual that they concern.

T. Military records: These records are the personal property of the individuals involved and were either provided voluntarily or by grand jury subpoena to the police. I have been trained and advised by counsel that, in addition to the concerns related to compromising the law enforcement investigation outlined in paragraph 3 above, financial information, personnel records, medical records and military records and other personal information are subject to privacy rights of the individual that they concern.

5. As stated above, I can provide further in camera testimony to the court to explain the status of the investigation and the interrelationship between the documents and information currently in our file. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that it is a key component in almost every potential criminal investigation that potential suspects and the public not be privy to the information that we have been able to gather in order for us to be able to gauge the veracity of information we receive, preserve the credibility of witnesses and protect sources from potentially dangerous criminals.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated: 3-15-07 ____________________

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Coos County

On the 15 day of March, 2007, before me, John Miller,the undersigned officer, appeared Sgt. Todd Landry known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name appears above, he subscribed his name to the foregoing instrument.

Justice of the Peace
commission expires: 3/08
177336

Exhibit B
7
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:08:36+00:00

Affidavit of Nancy J. Smith

I, Nancy J. Smith, hereby swear and affirm as follows;

1. I am a Senior Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Bureau of the New Hampshire Department of Justice, and have been so employed since August 1992. This affidavit is based on my personal knowledge.

2. Subsequent to the first hearing on this matter, I assumed responsibility for this file after Attorney Daniel Mullen left our office. In preparing this supplemental response to the request for documents under RSA 91-A following the Supreme Court remand, I personally reviewed the State police investigative files furnished to our office. I have met with State Police to determine what if any other documents are in their possession, and I have consulted with other agencies, including local law enforcement named in the petition to determine if there are additional documents in their possession.

3. I received a detailed explanation from Detective Landry and Jeffrey Strelzin, of the harm that would likely result to the investigation that as set forth in their accompanying affidavits. With this in mind, I reviewed all of the materials to determine if there were any portions that are reasonably segregable that could be produced.

4. Attached hereto as Attachment I is a list of the documents that I was able to determine are reasonably segregable and that would not interfere with the law enforcement investigation because the they have already b1n made public or came from a public source and they do not reveal the focus of the investigation. Additionally to the extent there are personal records of Mr. Murray that he provided or authorized law enforcement to obtain, in this case it has been determined that releasing those documents to him is unlikely to result in any harm to the investigation.

Exhibit C
1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:09:49+00:00

(Continued)

5. The State does not waive the right to assert the privacy of Mr. Murray's record as to any other person requesting records under RSA 9l-A.

6. The State does not waive the right to assert that records of any other person in the possession of law enforcement either in this case or any other case may, on a case-by-case basis, be withheld from even the person that the records concern, as the privacy interest of the person is not the only privilege they may apply. For example if records are obtained by grand jury subpoena, including subpoenas issued by the Attorney General's office for records for the grand jury, although they may concern a particular individual, disclosing those records to the person in question would be likely to harm the investigation.

7. The records identified in Attachment 1 hereto have been provided to Mr. Murray's counsel concurrently herewith. To the extent that these documents are in the possession of more than one agency from who records have been requested, including but not limited to local law enforcement, they have only been produced once.

8. To the extent that the records of the Attorney General's office include Mr. Murray's requests for documents under the federal FOIA statute and RSA 9l-A, as well as the responses made by the Attorney General's office to Mr. Murray's requests, as well as the court pleadings filed by the Attorney General's office in regards to Mr. Murray's appeal related to the RSA 91-A request, those documents have not been produced again as they have previously been sent to Mr. Murray or his counsel of record.

9. The materials previously produced by AAG David Ruoff by letter dated January 1, 2006 consisting of materials from NH Fish and Game, Radio dispatch logs and City of Hanover Dispatch logs have not been produced again.

Exhibit C
2
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:10:29+00:00

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated: March 30, 2007 ____________________

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Menimack County, SS.

On the 30th day of March, 2007, before me, undersigned officer, appeared, Nancy J. Smith known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name appears above, and she subscribed her name to the foregoing instrument.

________________________
Notary Public/Justice of the Peace

My commission expires: 7/15/07

Exhibit C
3
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:10:57+00:00

(Continued)
Attachment 1 to Affidavit of Nancy J. Smith
Documents to Produce in Murray
Page Numbers[1]_______Description of Document
1_____________________Grafton County Sheriff's Department Incident Log
14____________________N.H. Uniform Police Traffic Accident Report
15-16__________________E-911 Subpoena (not grand jury)
416___________________Cellular records of 781-964-4628, Frederick Murray telephone
431-440_______________Woodville Ambulance Response Roster
555___________________Newspaper Articles
704-712_______________Investigation Report and Documents re: National Center for Missing
758-766_______________Children and Missing posters of Maura Murray
915-931_______________2/8/04 Massachusetts motor Vehicle Crash Report 0333 hours, Operator Maura Murray
986-987_______________Written Statement of Frederick Murray
1327__________________Subpoena Fleet ATM video for 2/9/04
1340__________________Subpoena to UMASS re: financial records for Maura Murray
1706-1708_____________FOlA Request and Response
1889__________________E-mail re: FOIA Request
2127-2169_____________Investigation Report FOIA Request to Grafton Sheriff with copy of reply and documents produced
2449-2455_____________FOlA Request Letter 10/10/05 from Frederick Murray with response from AG
2626-2639_____________Filing of Notice of Appeal

[1]These page numbered documents were page numbered in the upper left-hand comer by state police, but were renumbered in the lower left-hand comer by the Attorney General criminal bureau when received. Although on a majority of the documents the numbering is the same, at some point discrepancies did occur. Therefore the page numbers referred to are in all instances the numbers in the lower left-hand comer.
Exhibit C
4
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:11:26+00:00

(Continued)
Other Documents in the Possession of State Police
Websleuths blog re Maura Murray - 101 pages
Printouts from Maura Murray web page - 70 pages
USGS topographical map from internet - 4 pages
3 press releases - 8 pages
2 posters - 2 pages
Newspaper clippings - 138 pages (may contain duplicates)
Videotape of 20/20 segment on Maura Murray (a duplicate of this segment entitled 20/20
Vanished, March 17, 2006 on cd is also in the possession of the Attorney General's office, only
the video has been reproduced)

Documents from AG File
Missing Person's Poster

Exhibit C
5
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:11:59+00:00

AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFERY A. STRELZIN

1. I, Jeffery A. Strelzin, hereby swear and affirm as follows; My name is Jeffery A. Strelzin. I graduated from law school in 1991 and have been a prosecutor for approximately ten years. Prior to that, I worked as a Law Clerk and the Senior Law Clerk at the New Hampshire Superior Court, as an attorney in a private law firm, and as a prosecutor at the Merrimack County Attorney's Office. I am currently employed at the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office as a Senior Assistant Attorney General and serve as Chief of the Homicide Unit. Our office has statewide jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of homicide cases. My duties include assisting law enforcement agencies with the investigation of homicides and suspicious deaths, as well as the prosecution of homicide cases. I also supervise the other attorneys in the Attorney General's Office who work on homicide cases and suspicious death investigations. We handle approximately twenty homicide cases per year and are also involved in dozens of other suspicious death investigations each year which do not turn out to be homicides. In addition, we oversee the investigation of all officer-involved use of deadly force cases.

2. As part of my duties as a homicide prosecutor, I have been involved in the investigative phase of homicide cases and suspicious death cases. That includes monitoring interviews, reviewing and drafting legal documents, preparing search and arrest warrants, viewing death scenes and related evidence, working with the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, attending and/or reviewing autopsies, working with the State Police Forensic Lab and other forensic experts, authorizing one party and body wire intercepts, negotiating and attending cooperating witness interviews, subpoenaing records, drafting pleadings, dealing with witnesses and related issues, and participating in grand jury investigations. Some of the cases I have worked on have begun as missing person's cases and subsequently became homicide cases. I have also worked on other missing person's cases which have turned out not to be homicide cases.

3. I have been involved with and assisting the New Hampshire State Police in the investigation of the disappearance of Maura Murray. The following is based on my experience with criminal investigations in general and the investigation regarding Maura Murray in particular.

4. The Maura Murray investigation is open and ongoing. I am familiar with the State Police files related to Maura Murray and her disappearance. Based on my experience with criminal investigations and prosecutions and the information in this case in particular, I have a reasonable belief that it is possible that this investigation may lead to criminal charges. However, at this stage of the investigation, it would be detrimental to
Exhibit D
1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:14:48+00:00

(Continued)
our ability to continue this investigation and any subsequent prosecution if we were required to make public whether or not there is a person or persons of interest and the information on which those beliefs are based. In my experience in this case and in other cases, our investigation would be hindered in the following ways:

If there is or may be a person of interest, revealing that information publicly would A.) alert that person to our interest and make it harder to gain her or his cooperation; B.) enable that person to use what other witnesses have said to potentially cover their tracks by changing her or his story and/or destroying evidence; C.) potentially endanger witnesses that have provided information concerning that person; D.) possibly result in witnesses being reluctant to talk to us if they believe that what they tell us would be available to the person of interest; E.) likely result in public speculation which could lead to false leads including everything from sightings in unlikely locations to reports from psychics, that must be followed up on but that consume time and resources; F.) potentially result in the sources that have provided information being pursued by outside, non-law enforcement sources so that they feel harassed and simply refuse to have anything further to do with the investigation; and G.) reveal what other witnesses have said, thereby possibly tainting the credibility of witnesses that become aware of the other witness statements by bringing into question whether what they recall is their own recollection or has been tainted by what they have heard that someone else reported.

6. Revealing contacts and interviews related to leads that are not believed to be involved in any possible criminal activity at this time could also damage our investigative ability and ultimately the ability to prosecute any case because: A.) this information could be used by anyone that was a legitimate suspect to divert attention from themselves; B.) although the information may have been determined not to be relevant to Maura Murray, it may in fact be relevant to other criminal conduct; and C.) revealing what other witnesses have said can taint the credibility of witnesses that become aware of the other witness statements by bringing into question whether what they recall is their own recollection or has been tainted by what they have heard that someone else reported.

7. In addition, in my experience, it is often difficult to accurately predict what information will be important in a case months or years down the road. Some of our cases take months, years, or even decades to solve. A significant lapse of time between an event and a subsequent prosecution means that seemingly innocuous facts can take on great importance when they are viewed in light of all the evidence which is eventually collected in a case. Another important factor which cannot be predicted is what claims or defenses may be made on behalf of a defendant. Depending on those claims or defenses, information or evidence that seemed unimportant at an earlier time could become very important during the prosecution phase of the case. For these reasons, it is important to protect the integrity of an investigation and the viability of any potential future prosecution by maintaining the secrecy of the ongoing investigation
Exhibit D
2
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:15:12+00:00

(Continued)
8. I can provide further in camera testimony to the court to explain the status of the investigation and the interrelationship between the documents and information currently in our file. I cannot emphasize strongly enough that it is a key component in almost every criminal investigation or potential criminal investigation that suspects, persons of interest, persons who may be assisting them, and the public not be privy to the information that we have been able to gather. Maintaining that confidentiality provides us with a potential means to be able to gauge the veracity of information we receive, preserve the credibility of witnesses, complete our investigations before evidence is lost or destroyed, and protect sources from potentially dangerous criminals or others working on their behalf.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Dated:
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Merrimack County, SS.

On the 29th day of March, 2007, before me, Elizabeth A. Dunn, the undersigned officer, appeared Jeffrey Strezlin, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name appears above, and he subscribed his name to the foregoing instrument.

______________________
Notary Public/Justice of the Peace
My commission expires: 1-24-12

Exhibit D
3

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:15:27+00:00

AKA Murray 006

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
___________________________

Grafton
No. 2006-113

FREDERICK J. MURRAY
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT & a.
Argued: November 14, 2006
Opinion Issued: December 20, 2006

Gallant & Ervin, LLC, of Chelmsford, Massachusetts (Timothy J. Ervin on the brief and orally), for the petitioner.

Kelly A. Ayotte, attorney general (Daniel J. Mullen, associate attorney general, on the brief, and Nancy J. Smith, senior assistant attorney general, orally), for the respondents.

GALWAY, J. The petitioner, Frederick J. Murray, appeals an order of the Superior Court (Vaughan, J.) denying his request for injunctive and other relief relative to the decisions of the respondents, the New Hampshire Division of State Police, Special Investigation Unit and several other law enforcement agencies and officials, not to disclose records relating to the disappearance of his daughter, Maura Murray. We vacate and remand.

The following facts were either found by the trial court or appear in the record and are not disputed by the parties on appeal. On February 9, 2004,
1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:16:01+00:00

(Continued)
Maura Murray’s vehicle was reported to have been involved in a single-car accident along Route 112 in Haverhill, New Hampshire. When the North Haverhill police arrived at the scene, they found no trace of Maura. In the nearly three years since her disappearance, numerous agencies and individuals have attempted to locate her without success.

After the accident, and through approximately October 2005, the petitioner sent requests to numerous agencies, pursuant to New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know Law, RSA ch. 91-A (2001 & Supp. 2006), and the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (2002) et seq., requesting records and information pertaining to those agencies’ investigations into Maura’s disappearance. All of the investigatory material is now under the control of the attorney general’s office. With a single, minor exception, the attorney general’s office has denied all of the petitioner’s requests on the grounds that the records are exempt from disclosure because they are investigatory and because disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

In December 2005, the petitioner filed a petition in superior court requesting, among other things, a declaration that the respondents’ denials violated the Right-to-Know Law and FOIA, and an injunction requiring the respondents to release the requested documents. In January 2006, the trial court ruled that the requested records were investigatory in nature and that disclosure could interfere with law enforcement proceedings. It therefore denied the petitioner’s requests. Additionally, the trial court did not find either an in camera review or the compilation of a Vaughn index necessary. See Union Leader Corp. v. N.H. Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. 540, 548-551 (1997) (explaining the attributes of a Vaughn index). The trial court did not address the petitioner’s contention that disclosing the documents would not constitute an invasion of privacy.

On appeal, the petitioner contends that the trial court erred in finding that the requested records were investigatory in nature and that disclosure could interfere with law enforcement proceedings. The petitioner also contends that disclosing the records would not constitute an invasion of privacy. Finally, the petitioner argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for in camera review or the compilation of a Vaughn index.

“The interpretation of a statute, including the Right-to-Know Law, is to be decided ultimately by this court.” N.H. Challenge v. Commissioner, N.H. Dep’t of Educ., 142 N.H. 246, 249 (1997) (quotation omitted). “The superior court’s legal conclusions and its application of law to fact are ultimately questions for this court.” Id. Thus, in the absence of disputed facts, we review the trial court’s ruling de novo. Union Leader Corp. v. City of Nashua, 141 N.H. 473, 476 (1996).
2
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:16:34+00:00

(Continued)

“The purpose of the Right-to-Know Law is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies, and their accountability to the people.” N.H. Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester, 149 N.H. 437, 438 (2003) (quotation omitted). Thus, the Right-to-Know Law helps further our state constitutional requirement that the public’s right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted. Id.; see also N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 8. While the statute does not provide for unrestricted access to public records, we resolve questions regarding the Right-to-Know Law with a view to providing the utmost information in order to best effectuate the statutory and constitutional objective of facilitating access to all public documents. Id. Therefore, we construe provisions favoring disclosure broadly, while construing exemptions narrowly. Id. “We also look to the decisions of other jurisdictions, since other similar acts, because they are in pari materia, are interpretatively helpful, especially in understanding the necessary accommodation of the competing interests involved.” N.H. Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. at 546 (quotation omitted). Finally, when a public entity seeks to avoid disclosure of material under the Right-to-Know Law, that entity bears a heavy burden to shift the balance toward nondisclosure. City of Nashua, 141 N.H. at 476.

Because the respondents make no argument to the contrary, we presume for purposes of this appeal that all respondents are subject to the disclosure requirements of the Right-to-Know Law. Our Right-to-Know Law does not explicitly address requests for police investigative files, such as those at issue here. Id. at 475. In Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574 (1978), therefore, we adopted the six-prong test under FOIA for evaluating requests for access to police investigative files. Under FOIA, an agency may exempt from disclosure:

records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such 3
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:16:52+00:00

(Continued)

disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual . . . .

5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7). Because the trial court based its decision upon exemption (A) above, regarding interference with enforcement proceedings, we first consider the application of that exemption. The entity resisting disclosure under exemption (A) must initially show that the requested documents are: (1) investigatory; and (2) compiled for law enforcement purposes. Lodge, 118 N.H. at 576-77. The petitioner does not challenge the trial court’s findings that the requested documents are investigatory in nature and that they were complied for law enforcement purposes. Accordingly, we conclude that the respondents have met their initial burden.

We next consider whether exemption (A) in fact applies. As noted, we construe provisions favoring disclosure broadly, while construing exemptions narrowly. N.H. Civil Liberties Union, 149 N.H. at 438. The key question in the analysis is whether revelation of the documents could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. Curran v. Dept. of Justice, 813 F.2d 473, 474 (1st. Cir. 1987). While an agency must show that enforcement proceedings are pending or reasonably anticipated, see Mapother v. Dept. of Justice, 3 F.3d 1533, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 232 (1978), we need not determine whether the respondents have made such a showing here. Assuming, without deciding, that enforcement proceedings are reasonably anticipated, we hold that the respondents have not met their burden to demonstrate that disclosure of the requested documents could reasonably be expected to interfere with those proceedings.

Exemption (A) was designed to eliminate “blanket exemptions” for government records simply because they were found in investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes. Curran, 813 F.2d at 475. “Put another way, merely because a piece of paper has wended its way into an investigative dossier created in anticipation of enforcement action, an agency . . . cannot automatically disdain to disclose it.” Id. Since an agency may not rely on a blanket exemption, it must meet a minimum threshold of disclosure in order to justify its refusal to disclose. Id. The agency is not required, however, to justify its refusal on a document-by-document basis. Id. While an in camera review or the preparation of a Vaughn index may be sufficient to justify an agency’s refusal to disclose, such measures are also not necessarily required. See id. (noting that use of a Vaughn index is not practicable in cases involving exemption (A)).

4
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:18:23+00:00

(Continued)

In cases such as this one, generic determinations of likely interference often will suffice. Id.; see also Robbins Tire, 437 U.S. at 236. When generic determinations are used, the withholding “should be justified category-of-document by category-of-document not file-by-file.” Curran, 813 F.2d at 475 (quotation and ellipses omitted); see also Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 789 F.2d 64, 66-67 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The categorization should be clear enough to permit a court to ascertain how each category of documents, if disclosed, could interfere with the investigation. Curran, 813 F.2d at 475. The categories must be distinct enough to allow meaningful judicial review, yet not so distinct as to reveal the nature and scope of the investigation. Id.

In order to provide some guidance to trial courts attempting to apply this standard, we emphasize two points made in the Curran decision. First, the Curran Court provided some examples of types of categories which, because coupled with careful explanation to the trial court as to how interference with enforcement proceedings could occur, satisfied the aforementioned principles. These categories included: “details regarding initial allegations giving rise to th[e] investigation; interviews with witnesses and subjects; investigative reports furnished to the prosecuting attorneys; contacts with prosecutive attorneys regarding allegations, subsequent progress of investigations, and prosecutive opinions . . . .” Curran, 813 F.2d at 476. Second, in the case of one-of-a-kind records, Curran would not preclude application of the exemption if an enforcement agency made limited use of a “miscellaneous” category to avoid having to set forth a precise – and potentially compromising – description of the record(s). See id.

Prior to the hearing on this matter, the respondents disclosed a one-page document delineating twenty categories of information contained within their investigative files. The record reveals that the trial court made no findings or rulings regarding the sufficiency of these categories. Based upon our review, we hold that the respondents’ categories do not meet the requirements of the Right-to-Know Law. The respondents’ categories include, for example, the broad terms “photographs,” “correspondence (letters and e-mails),” “maps and diagrams” and “tax records,” without any annotations or explanations. While additional explanation might have allowed the respondents to meet their burden, see, e.g., Curran, 813 F.2d at 476 (government’s categorization was sufficient because it was accompanied by a declaration carefully explaining how the release of documents in the various categories would interfere with enforcement proceedings), the respondents offered no affidavits, testimony, or other evidence which, for example: (1) defined these categories more precisely; (2) explained how disclosure of the information within these categories could interfere with any investigation or enforcement; or (3) explained why “there was no reasonably segregable portion of any of the withheld material suitable for release . . . .” Curran, 813 F.2d at 476 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that the respondents have not met their burden to demonstrate how

5
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:20:52+00:00

(Continued)

disclosure of the requested documents could reasonably be expected to interfere with any investigation or enforcement proceedings.

The respondents point out that during the hearing in the superior court, it supplied witnesses who could have been, but were not, cross-examined by the petitioner. The fact that witnesses could have testified to certain things on cross-examination would not, however, have fulfilled the respondents’ obligation. Under the Right-to-Know Law, the respondents bear the burden of demonstrating why the requested information should not be disclosed. See City of Nashua, 141 N.H. at 476; cf. Curran, 813 F.2d at 473-74. It is not the petitioner’s responsibility to clarify the respondents’ vague categorizations, nor should the petitioner be penalized for failing to do so.

Accordingly, because the respondents have not met their burden to justify withholding the requested documents, we remand the matter for a new hearing. On remand, if the respondents continue to resist disclosure, they must make a presentation that will allow the superior court to determine how disclosure of the requested information could interfere with an ongoing investigation or enforcement proceedings. Crooker, 789 F.2d at 67. Given the disposition of this appeal, we need not consider the petitioner’s privacy argument.

Vacated and remanded.

BRODERICK, C.J., and DALIANIS, DUGGAN and HICKS, JJ., concurred

6

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:21:28+00:00

AKA Murray 008

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM - APPEAL

Date transcript due: September 17, 2007	Date of this order: August 1, 2007
Case Information:	Transcript Information:
Court: Grafton County Superior Court	Date of Proceeding: 4/13/2007
Case Name:	What is to be transcribed:
Frederick J. Murray v. Special Investigation	Merits hearing held before Judge Vaughan on
Unit of the Division of the State Police	4/13/2007
	NOTE: Pursuant to Supreme Court Order of 7/31/2007 the in camera testimony presented at the hearing shall be transcribed separately from the remainder of the transcript and will be placed under seal.
Case No: 05-E-383	Estimated no. of pages: 1/2, day or less
Requesting Party:	Deposit: $450.00
Gallant & Ervin, LLC
1 Olde North Road, Suite 103	Date: July 31 , 2007
Chelmsford, MA 01824
Other side:	Original + 2 (Note: This may change to an Original
Attorney General's Office	and 3 copies. I will notify transcriptionist if there is
33 Capitol St.	a change.
Concord, NH 03301
And
Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.
Devine, Millimet & Branch
111 Amherst St.
Manchester, NH 03101

Send CD's tapes along with related log notes, exhibit lists, etc. to: Brenda Hancock
Date court sends case to transcriptionist: 8/1/07 (KFB)
Date transcript is received at Center and sent to parties:
1
(Continued)

Note, Page 2 below:

C: Supreme Court (2007-0459)

Note, Page 3 below:

This page contains a certified receipt addressed to:
Brenda Hancock
31 Flanders St.
Enfield, NH 03748
Article # 7003 0500 0003 7559 9667
Certified Mail
Signed 8/3/07 by Brenda Hancock

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:21:52+00:00

AKA Murray 009

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY, ss. SUPERIOR COURT
Docket No. 05-E-383
Frederick J. Murray.
v.

Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriffs Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John J. Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2; and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

The Petitioner in this action is Frederick J. Murray (hereinafter "Murray" or "Petitioner"). The Petitioner contends that the Respondents have each violated the New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law, NH RSA 91-A (hereinafter "Right-to-Know Law" or "RSA 91-A"), as well as its Federal counterpart, the Freedom of Information Act (hereinafter "FOIA"), by wrongfully denying his requests to review and obtain copies of non-privileged records and other information regarding the circumstances relating to the disappearance of his daughter, Maura Murray (hereinafter "Maura"). As explained more fully below, the Petitioner can demonstrate the appropriate criteria for obtaining injunctive relief, warranting the issuance of an injunction against the named Respondents. 1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:22:30+00:00

(Continued)
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

For convenience, the Petitioner adopts herein by reference the Statement of Facts set forth in the Bill in Equity filed concomitantly with this Memorandum of Law. All references to facts in this Memorandum will be to the facts as set forth in the Bill in Equity.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Access to Records

The statutory purpose of New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, RSA 91-A is to "ensure ... the greatest possible public access to the actions ... and records of all public bodies ... " Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574, 575 (1978)(quoting RSA 91-A:l (Supp.1977). "openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society. The purpose of this [law] is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of public bodies, and their accountability to the people." RSA 91-A:l (1990). The Statute's purpose is grounded in the Bill of Rights to the New Hampshire Constitution which provides in pertinent part: "The public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted." Lodge, 118 N.H. at 575, quoting N.H. CONST, PI. I, Art. 8. While the Right-to-Know Law does not provide unfettered access to public records, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has consistently determined that the provisions favoring disclosure should be broadly construed while the exemptions to disclosure should be interpreted restrictively. Union Leader Com. v. N.H. Housing Finance Authority, 142 N.H. 540 (1997) ( ... "purpose of [RSA 91-A] is to provide the utmost information to the public about 'what the government is up to."') quoting, EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 105 (1973).

The Right-to-Know Law governs any and all requests for records served upon a public agency or entity that is covered under the provisions of RSA 91-A. There is no requirement that
2
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:23:03+00:00

(Continued)
the requesting party show any kind of standing in order to obtain the records or reveal the reason for which the information is being sought. See generally, Union Leader Corp. v. Cit)' of Nashua, 141 N.H. 473 (1996). The determination for disclosure centers on whether the public is entitled to the information requested and not on whether the records should or should not be disclosed to the particular person making the request. Mans v. Lebanon School Board, 122 N.H..60,162 (1972). " ...Right-To-Know Law 'gives any member of the public as much right to disclosure as one with a special interest in a particular document, [United States Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 771 (1989)], and accordingly 'the motivations of .. any member of the public are irrelevant to the question of access..n, Union Leader, 141 N.H. at 476, quoting Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 128 (199.1). RSA 91-A:4 was created to foster accountability of the government to the "people" and the "public" and promote the principles of a democratic society. Mans, supra. Therefore, in most cases disclosure is required.

In this case, the Petitioner has made an appropriate request for public records maintained by the respective Respondent Agencies, however, the Respondents have refused to disclose those records on the claimed basis of exemptions under RSA 91-A:5. As set forth herein, the exemptions cited by the Respondents are inapplicable to many, if not all of the requests made, and therefore, an injunction ordering the release of records held by the Respondents is warranted.

B. Injunctive Relief

The right to seek injunctive relief stemming from an improper denial of record Is by a agency or official covered by the Right-to-Know Law is codified under the Statute:

Any person aggrieved by a violation of [RSA 91-A] may petition the superior court for injunctive relief. The courts shall give proceedings under this chapter priority )n the court calendar. Such a Petitioner may appear with or without counsel. The petition shall be deemed sufficient if it states facts constituting a violation of this chapter, and may be

3
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:23:20+00:00

(Continued)

filed by the Petitioner or his counsel with the clerk of court or any justice thereof. Thereupon the clerk of court or any justice shall order service by copy of the petition on the person or persons charged. When any justice shall find that time probably is of the essence, he may order notice by any reasonable means, and he shall have authority to issue an order ex parte when he shall reasonably deem such an order necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this chapter.

NH RSA 91-A:7.

Normally, a party seeking injunctive relief is required to demonstrate the following four elements in order to obtain a preliminary injunction: (a) the probability of success on the merits; (b) the public interest served in granting the injunction; (c) the significance of the threat of irreparable harm to the Petitioner; and (d) the balance of harms on the Petitioner and he Respondent. See Unifirst Corp. v. City of Nashua, 130 N.H. 11, 14-15 (1987); Kukene v. Genualdo, 145 N.H. 1,4 (2000). However, in order to obtain injunctive relief under RSA 91-A, the moving party need only demonstrate that: 1) a request for public records had been made; and 2) a public body failed to comply with the statute by wrongfully failing to provide such records.
See RSA 91-A:7.

1. The Petitioner has Made Requests for Public Records to Officials and Agencies Subject to the Right-to-Know Law.

A party seeking disclosure of records must first demonstrate that a request was made to an agency, entity or public official covered under the Right-to-Know Law. Here, the Petitioner has made numerous written requests pursuant to RSA 91-A:4 to the named Respondents in this action seeking copies of any and all non-privileged records pertaining to the disappearance of his daughter, Maura. A true copy of the requests are annexed to the Bill in Equity. Although not required by the Statute, each of the requests provided by the Petitioner contained a reference to the Right-to-Know Law and/or FOIA.

4
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:23:39+00:00

(Continued)
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has determined that FOIA is similar in kind to RSA 91-A and the Court has followed decisions interpreting FOIA when considering whether a request for public records, specifically law enforcement investigation records, should be granted. See Lodge, 118 N.H. at 576-77. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has determined that RSA 91-A applies to "all State executive branch agencies and departments" including "[a]ny board or commission of any state agency or authority." Id. at 574; Union Leader v. N.H. How:. Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. at 547 (quoting RSA 91-A:l-a, Ill). Since the named Respondents all fall under one of the enumerated categories of"executive official, agency or board or commission of the same," they are all mandated to comply with the strictures of the Statute. See generally, Lodge, supra; Hopwood v. Picket, 145 N.H. 207 (2000) (petitioners making claims for release of records maintained by the State Police Department); see also RSA 91-A:l-a, I(d) (statute applies to county and municipal boards, commissions, agencies and authorities); RSA 91-A:l-a. I(b) (statute applies to Governor and Governor's council). Therefore, there is no dispute that the Petitioner has satisfied the first prong warranting for relief under RSA 91-A:7.

2. The Respondents have Wrongfully Denied the Petitioner's Requests for Records.

Turning to the specific requests submitted by the Petitioner in this matter, the remaining inquiry centers on whether the denial of the Petitioner's requests was justified. The Statute provides that public records, including investigative reports produced by law enforcement, must be produced unless they fall under one of the enumerated statutory exemptions of RSA 91-A:5. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has consistently determined that requests for disclosure should be construed broadly while any claimed exemptions are to be applied narrowly. See Union Leader v. N.H. Hous. Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. at 546; Society for Protection of N.H. Forests v. Water Supply and Pollution Control Comm'n., 115 N.H. 192, 194 (1975). Moreover, the
5
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:23:50+00:00

(Continued)
burden of proof is upon the public agency to establish the existence of a valid exemption to disclosure. See generally, Union Leader v. Nashua, supra. It is evident in this matte' that the blanket denials issued by the Respondents are not compliant with the rigors of disclosure mandated by the Right-to-Know Law.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court employs a balancing test which balances the benefits of public disclosure against the benefits of non-disclosure when considering whether an exemption has been properly invoked in response to a request for records. See Brent v. Paquette, 132 N.H. 415 (1989); Union Leader v. Nashua, 141 N.H. at 473; Goode v. New Hampshire Office of Legislative Budget Assistant, 145 N.H. 451 (2002). Before denying a request for public records, a public entity is similarly required to utilize a balancing test before simply issuing a denial. An entity raising an exemption must be able to justify the reasons tile records were not released rather than simply invoking an exemption in order to circumvent the statute. Goode, supra. Blanket denials therefore, are rarely upheld.

Applying the balancing test to the requests submitted in this matter it is evidence It that the wholesale denial of any records by each of the Respondents was improper and not in keeping with the public policy favoring the disclosure of records. See Menge v. Manchester, 113 N.H. 533, 537 (1973); Lodge, 118 at 575; Union Leader v. N.H. Hous. Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. at 546; Carter v. Nashua, 113 N.H. 407, 416 (1973). The plain language of the Statute itself provides in relevant part: "Openness in the conduct of public business is essential to a democratic society.

The purpose of this [law] is to ensure both the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of public bodies, and their accountability to the people." RSA 91-A:1. Therefore, New Hampshire courts are reluctant to uphold exemptions raised by governmental

6
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:24:00+00:00

(Continued)
entities in response to proper requests made pursuant to the Statute. Society for Protection of N.H. Forests, 115 N.H. at 194; Mans, 112 N.H. at 162-63.

A. The Investigatory Exemption is Inapplicable for the Majority of the Records Requested.

The majority of the Petitioner's requests in this matter were denied on the grounds that the production called for confidential records created in the course of an investigation or would constitute an invasion of privacy. See Denials annexed to the Bill in Equity. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has interpreted requests for records that are investigative in nature under RSA 91-A by following decisional law interpreting the request for investigative records under FOIA. Lodge, 118 N.H. at 576. Under FOIA, investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes must be produced unless they: (1) interfere with enforcement proceedings; (2) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication; (3) constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy; (4) disclose the identity of a confidential source, and in criminal proceedings, if they disclose confidential information supplied by a confidential source; (5) disclose investigative techniques and procedures; or (6) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). In this case, the Respondents have proffered that the requested records cannot be produced because disclosure would impermissibly interfere with enforcement proceedings or constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. These claimed exemptions are inapplicable in this case.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has noted "when we review exemptions from the Right-To-Know Law, we balance the public interest in disclosure of the requested information against the government interest in non-disclosure." Union Leader v. Nashua, 141 N.H. at 475-76. Applying this test to the facts before the court, Murray's interest in disclosure is paramount to any interest the government may have in not disclosing the requested records. First, the
7
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:24:16+00:00

(Continued)
claimed exemption regarding interference with enforcement proceedings can only be invoked if there is an actual ongoing investigation, Dickerson v. Department of Justice, 992 F.2d 1426, 1426 (6th Cir. 1993) and the investigation is "active and continuing" with a high likelihood that an individual would be prosecuted for the crime and the disclosure of records regarding the same could jeopardize the integrity of the investigation. rd. The invocation of this exemption in this matter is misplaced for two reasons: I) the police have not characterized the investigation into Maura's disappearance as criminal such that an impending arrest is likely which might jeopardize the investigation; and 2) the investigation does not appear to be ongoing.

Shortly after Maura's disappearance the investigating authorities characterized Maura's case as a missing persons matter, not a criminal investigation. The authorities postulated that Maura: 1) disappeared of her own volition; 2) succumbed to the elements; or 3) committed suicide. Accordingly, if the law enforcement personnel do not characterize the investigation as criminal in nature the exemption challenging disclosure of the records predicated upon enforcement proceedings is inapplicable. The authorities have repeatedly maintained that they do not believe that Maura was the victim of foul play.

In addition the investigation does not appear to be ongoing. While the Respondents have assured Murray that they are continuing to follow up on leads and review documents and talk with witnesses, Murray has not been made aware of any specific efforts the governmental authorities have taken in pursuing this matter within the last several months. Considering that the police do not characterize the investigation as criminal but rather a missing person case or suicide, it is unclear what additional steps they would be employing. If the investigation has been concluded, Murray should be made aware of that fact, and any records pursuant to their
8
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:24:43+00:00

(Continued)
investigation should be turned over to him so he can continue looking for information in the hopes of finding his daughter.

The most compelling reason favoring disclosure in this case centers on the fact that Maura could very well still be in danger and disclosure of the information compiled by the authorities could help locate her. Although the governmental entities involved have continued to dispute this notion, Murray's familiarity with his daughter leads him to believe that it is likely that Maura was the victim of foul play and may even still be in danger, rather than simply went missing of her own accord. It has been more than a year and a half since Maura's disappearance. Despite reports that Maura had close relationships with many family and friends, as hr as the

Petitioner knows she has not made any attempts to contact any of them during this tine. This supports the Petitioner's contention that she may have been a victim of foul play or abducted against her will. As in any other missing persons case, the more information that can be provided regarding reports of her disappearance and whereabouts, the greater the likelihood that Maura could be located, perhaps safely.

B. The Privacy Exemption is Inapplicable for the Majority of the Records Requested.

The Petitioner similarly disputes that the exemption based on protection of privacy is appropriate in this matter. A claim that records should not be disclosed based on the fact they interfere with the privacy of an individual will not be upheld if the denial would defeat the salutary purpose of91-A. See Mans, 122 N.H. at 162. See also, Ferguson v. Kelly, L·55 F.Supp. 324,327 (N.D. Ill. 1978) citing Nix v. United States., 572 F.2d 998 (4th Cir. 1978)(proper analysis under privacy exemption is to balance public interest in disclosure of such information against the privacy invasion involved). There is no support that anyone's privacy is being protected by the Respondents' refusal to grant access to many of the records sought by the
9
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:24:58+00:00

(Continued)
Petitioner and this is especially true where the case has been characterized as a missing person case rather than criminal. This being the case, there is no underlying concern that the release of information would implicate someone in connection with Maura's disappearance. The "invasion of privacy" exemption is invoked in cases where government officials are concerned about exposing individuals who are suspects in an ongoing investigation or keeping the identity of witnesses to such crimes from the public. See Union Leader v. Nashua, 141 N.H. at 473; see also Stem v. F.B.I., 737 F.2d 84, 91-92 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ("Individuals have a strong interest in not being associated unwarranted1y with alleged criminal activity. Protection of this privacy interest is a primary purpose of [the FOIA] exemption 7(c) [which] recognizes the stigma potentially associated with law enforcement investigations and broader privacy rights to suspects, witnesses and investigators."); Halloran v. Veterans Admin., 874 F.2d 315, 323 (5th Cir. 1989).

In the instant case, the governmental entities have consistently maintained that Maura was likely not the victim of foul play. Therefore, the investigation into Maura's disappearance, if it even continues, would not be focused on locating suspects or interviewing anyone who may have witnessed or provided information about any criminal activity; but instead would be focused on following up on leads pertaining to her whereabouts. Disclosure of this type of information does not implicate privacy concerns and any arguable privacy interests would certainly have to give way to the overriding public policy concern in favor of disclosure. "The balance between the public's interest in disclosure and a private citizen's interest in privacy will never be easy to strike. 'Success lies in providing a workable formula which encompasses, balances, and protects all interests, yet places emphasis on the fullest responsible disclosure.'" Union Leader v. Nashua, 141 N.H. at 478, quoting Halloran, 874 F.2d at 319 (emphasis added).
10
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:25:12+00:00

(Continued)
In this case, it is manifest that the agencies involved failed to comply with the rigors of disclosure mandated by the Statute and instead issued blanket denials of the requests without articulating the basis for the denials. By way of illustration the Petitioner made request for the following information which the Respondents denied on the basis of claimed exemptions:

1) Vehicle accident reports requested from the Office of the Commander of the State Police Division of the New Hampshire Department of Safety and Troop F of the State Police in Twin Mountain;

2) An inventory of items taken from the vehicle Maura was operating;

3) The "computer read out" from Murray's black Saturn;

4) An inventory of items provided voluntarily by the Murray family and other parties;

5) Copy of the hard drive and documents from Maura's computer at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst;

6) Documents pertaining to any areas searched by any agency;

7) Documents pertaining to the identity of all officers and personnel involved in the search and investigation;

8) Copies of any and all police reports concerning the initial search into Maura's disappearance;

9) Statements from fact witnesses pertaining to sightings of Maura both prior and subsequent to the accident;

10) Copy of the videotape from the ATM machine last used by Maura;

11) Copy of the video surveillance from the liquor store where Maura purchased items just prior to her disappearance;
11
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-16T05:25:28+00:00

(Continued)
12) Copies of the 911 recordings and dispatches immediately prior and subsequent to Maura's disappearance; and

13) Copies of results of tests and examinations of evidence which police have concluded are not relevant to Maura's case.

These identified requests are a composite of the types of records sought by the Petitioner in this matter and do not include all of the records sought. Attached to the Bill in Equity are copies of the relevant record requests submitted by the Petitioner. In each instance the Respondents have simply invoked that the records are either investigatory in nature or would constitute a violation of privacy without proffering any cognizable justification as to how the records fall into these exemptions.

Specifically, the Respondents are unable to show any reason for withholding motor vehicle records related to the accident prior to Maura's disappearance. These types of records are routinely produced to the public and do not raise privacy concerns or create risks of compromising any investigation. Additionally, since Murray is the registered title holder of the vehicle, any information regarding the investigation into the accident should readily be produced to him. Similarly, any items the Respondents have in their possession as a result of cooperation by Maura's family and third parties should be readily produced to Murray. Those items produced voluntarily would not even be in the custody of the various entities without the cooperation of the Murray family and others trying to assist with the investigation. Many of these items may not have any significance to those officials and agencies holding them while Murray and other members of his family may be able to decipher valuable information to those investigating authorities if they are allowed access to this information. Disclosure of this
12
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-17T02:11:13+00:00

(Continued)
information, or at a minimum an inventory of the items could not possibly harm or compromise the investigation.

C. No other valid exemptions exist that would prohibit disclosure
In addition to the stated exemptions noted above, the Respondents have cited other objections to the disclosure of certain records. Specifically, the New Hampshire Department of Justice of the Office of the Attorney General denied Murray's request for information based on the fact that it was made pursuant to FOIA which they state "does not apply to state agencies."

The stated reason for denying the release of this requested information is not only inapplicable but completely adverse to the policy behind RSA 91:A. The Right-to-Know Law specifically does not require a person seeking public records to reference the Statute. Rather, it merely requires that a request for public records be made and be relatively specific in identifying what records are being sought. Ferguson, 455 F. Supp. at 326. While New Hampshire and the federal case law are silent on this exact point, there is little support for the Respondent's claim that the request must reference the statute itself in order for RSA 91:A to apply.

D. At a Minimum In Camera Inspection of the Records is Warranted

Assuming arguendo that the court finds one of the claimed statutory exemptions might be applicable, outright denial of the requests is not warranted. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has determined that courts confronted with a challenge to the withholding of records should at a minimum conduct an In Camera review of the documents reportedly exempt from disclosure before determining whether the exemptions are in fact applicable. Lodge, 118 N.H. at 577, citing Bell v. United States, 563 F.2d 484 (lS! Cir. 1977) ("Even National Security information is at least reviewable by ajudge In Camera to determine if it should be exempt from public inspection"). The In Camera review serves as a check and balance to ensure records which are
13
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:07:18+00:00

(Continued)
truly public are not withheld from disclosure under an improperly invoked exemption.

Accordingly, should the court credit any of the claimed exemptions pertaining to certain records an In Camera review in the presence of counsel of the documents should be conducted to determine if the claimed exemption is valid.

V. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court grant his application for a preliminary injunction against the Respondents and issue an order requiring disclosure of the records sought by the Petitioner.

Respectfully submitted,

FREDERICK J. MURRAY,

By his Attorneys,

TIM J. ERVIN (N.H.#14376)
JOHN F. GALLANT (N.H.#6569)
ERICA GESING (N.H.#16843)
GALLANT & ERVIN, LLC
One Olde North Road, Suite 103
Chelmsford, MA 01824
(978) 256-6041
Fax: (978) 256-7977
Date: 12-19-05
14

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:20:28+00:00

AKA Murray010

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

GRAFTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

ORDER OF NOTICE - EXPEDITED HEARING

NO. 05-E-383

Frederick J. Murray vs. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police, et al

FILING DATE: 12/20/2005 HEARING DATE: 1/18/2006

An original Pleading, a true copy of which is attached, has been filed with this Court at the address of the Clerk stated below. It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

1. Frederick J. Murray shall cause true copies of the attached Pleading, this Order of Notice and any Orders made ex parte to be served, in a manner allowed by law upon Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriff's Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John J. Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2; and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety no later than Fourteen (14) days prior to the above hearing date and shall promptly file proof and return(s) of service with this Court; otherwise, this action may be discontinued without further notice.

2. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriff's Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John I. Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2; and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety shall file a written appearance with this Court at the address stated below on or before the above Hearing Date, and shall cause true copies of such appearance to be delivered to the party or parties bringing this action, or their attorney if represented by an attorney.

3. All parties shall appear before this court for hearing on the attached Pleading at the Superior Court in N. Haverhill on January 18, 2006 at 11:00 AM.

Time allotted for this hearing: 30 min.

4. Any party who fails to file a written appearance as required above, or who fails to appear when scheduled before this court, may be subject to the issuance of such order as the court may find fair and just from the evidence and argument presented at hearing. 1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:20:42+00:00

(Continued)
Please advise clients, witnesses, and others that it is a class B felony to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11,V in a courtroom or areas used by a court.

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
12/20/2005
Robert B. Muh
3785 Dartmouth College Hwy.
N. Haverhill, NH 03774
603-787-6961
2

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:21:33+00:00

AKA Murray 011

Gallant & Ervin
(Letterhead)
March 13, 2006
Clerk of Court Office
Grafton County Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
North Haverhill, NH 03774
Re: Frederick J. Murray v. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al.
Superior Court Docket Number: OS-E-383
Supreme Court Docket Number: 06-0113

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $175.00 for the deposit for the preparation of the transcript in the above-referenced matter.

Kindly prepare the transcript and notify the clerk of the Supreme Court in your usual manner.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,

Timothy J. Ervin

TJE/eg
Encl.
CC: Clerk, New Hampshire Supreme Court
Honorable Timothy J. Vaughan
Superior Court Center
Court Reporter: Angela Bemis
Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire
Daniel J. Mullen, Esquire
Transcript Recorder, Supreme Court

Gallant & Ervin, LLC [] Attorneys at Law
One Olde North Road [] Suite 103 [] Chelmsford, MA 01824 [] tel (978) 256-6041 [] fax (978) 256-7977 [] www.gallant-ervin.com

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:21:44+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d8zwctp/

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:22:07+00:00

Gallant & Ervin LLC - Check to Grafton County Superior Court $175.00 dated 3/13/2006.

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:22:39+00:00

AKA Murray 012

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Grafton, SS Superior Court
Court ( )
Jury (xx)
Docket No. 05-E-0383

Frederick J. Murray
v.
Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police, et al.
SPECIAL APPEARANCE

To The Clerk of the Superior Court:

In the above action please enter our appearance as counsel for:

Grafton County Sheriff's Department and Grafton County Attorney's Office

Mailing Address: 3855 Dartmouth College Highway - Box 1

North Haverhill, NH 03774-9758

Devine, Millimet & Branch,
Professional Association
111 Amherst Street
Manchester, NH 03101
(603) 669-1000
By:_____________Brian J.S. Cullen, Esquire

Duplicate appearance card mailed to:

Timothy J. Ervin, Esquire

Date: January 4, 2006
J:\WDOX\DOCS\CLlENTS\NEW\NEW\M0806139.DOC

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:23:16+00:00

AKA Murray 013

COUNSEL PLF: Timothy J. Ervin
DEF: Devine M&B
AG's Office
INDEX
File #2
Page #1

Frederick J. Murray vs. Special Investigation Unit, et al Docket No. 05-E-383

Document #	Document Cash $ ............................. Exhibits [_]
21	04-02-07 Defts' Supplemental Memorandum Of Law in Support of Obj. to M/Prel. Injunc. (#10X
22	04-09-07 Order on Defts' M/Allow in Camera Testimony (1/19)
23	04 13-07 Defts' M/Partial R"consideration of 1/22 (Granted)
24	06-11-07 Order on Request for Preliminary Injunction (Denied)
25	07-12-07 Pltf's Notice of Appeal
26	07-27-07 Supreme Court Order Re: Transcript deposit
27	07-31-07 Supreme Court Order Re: sealing of transcript of in camera testimony
28	08-17-07 Supreme Court Order (M/Seal Portion of Transcript granted)
29	04-16-08 Supreme Court Order (Affirmed)
30	05-02-08 Supreme Court Certificate re #29

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:24:31+00:00

AKA Murray 014-1

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPERIOR COURT
Docket No. 05-E-383
Frederick J. Murray
v.
Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriffs Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John J. Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2; and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety

BILL IN EQUITY

Now comes the Petitioner, Frederick J. Murray, ("Petitioner" or "Murray") by and through his counsel, Gallant & Ervin, LLC, and respectfully submits this Bill in Equity for Injunctive Relief. In support of this petition, the Petitioner states as follows:

I. Parties

1. The Petitioner, Frederick J. Murray is an individual residing at 22 Walker Street, Weymouth, Norfolk County, Massachusetts.

2. The Respondent, the Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of New Hampshire is a division of a state agency located at 10 Hazen Avenue, Concord, Merrimack County, New Hampshire.

3. The Respondent, the Grafton County Sheriffs Department is a state agency located at 3785 Dartmouth College Highway, North Haverhill, Grafton County, New Hampshire.
1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:25:01+00:00

(Continued)
4. The Respondent, the Grafton County Attorney's Office is a state agency located at 3785 Dartmouth College Highway, North Haverhill, Grafton County, New Hampshire.

5. The Respondent, the Honorable Kelly A. Ayotte, the New Hampshire Attorney General is a state official whose office is located at 33 Capitol Street, Concord, Merrimack County, New Hampshire.

6. The Respondent, Governor John J. Lynch is a state official whose office is located at the State House, 25 Capitol Street, Concord, Merrimack County, New Hampshire.

7. The Respondent, Hanover Police Department is a municipal agency of the Town of Hanover, New Hampshire located at 46 Lyme Road in Hanover, Grafton County, New Hampshire.

8. The Respondent, the Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety is a state official whose office is located at 33 Hazen Drive, Concord, Merrimack County, New Hampshire.

9. The Respondent, the Commander of State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain is a state official whose office is located on Route 302, Twin Mountain, Coos County, New Hampshire.

10. The Respondent, Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police is a division of state agency located on Route 302, Twin Mountain, Coos County, New Hampshire.

11. The Respondent, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Region 2 is a state agency located on Rural Route Box 3a in New Hampton, Belknap County, New Hampshire.
2
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:25:14+00:00

(Continued)
12. The Respondent, the Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety is a division of a state agency located at 33 Hazen Drive, Concord, Merrimack County, New Hampshire.

13. All of the Respondents named herein are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Respondents." All of the Respondents are agencies and/or entities subject to the Right-to-Know Law NH RSA 91-A, et seq. All of the Respondents herein named are included herein only in their professional capacity notwithstanding that they might be identified by name.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RSA 91-A:7.

III. Venue

15. Venue lies with the Grafton County Superior Court, because the events leading up to this request for relief in this matter occurred in Grafton County.

IV. Facts Common to all Counts

16. The Petitioner, Murray, is the father of a woman, Maura Murray ("Maura"), who was last seen alongside Route 112, Wild Ammonoosuc Road, in Haverhill, New Hampshire after her car was reported being stuck in a snow bank on the evening of February 9,2004.

17. A neighbor passing through the area reported the accident to either 911 or the North Haverhill Police Department after speaking briefly with Maura. However, when North Haverhill Police Sgt. Cecil Smith arrived at the scene shortly thereafter he found no sign of Maura, only an abandoned 1996 black Saturn registered in the name of Frederick J. Murray of Weyrnouth, Massachusetts.
3
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:31:14+00:00

(Continued)
18. On the following evening, February 10, 2004, the North Haverhill Police Department contacted Maura's brother, Freddie Murray ("Freddie"), thinking they were contacting the vehicle owner, Maura's father. The contacting officer made no mention of Maura. He reported only that the 1996 black Saturn was found abandoned on February 9, 2004. Freddie, concerned for the safety of his sister, informed the officer that the vehicle, although registered to his father, was actually Maura's car. Freddie requested at that time to file a missing person's report, however, the officer informed him that the vehicle was not in his jurisdiction.

19. On February 11, 2004, approximately thirty-seven to thirty-eight hours after the accident was reported to the North Haverhill Police Department, the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game Services Region 2 conducted a foot and helicopter search of the woods surrounding the location where Maura's vehicle had been discovered. Canines where able to track Maura's scent for approximately one hundred yards from her abandoned vehicle, where the scent was lost. Other searches conducted by law enforcement and private citizens have yielded no results.

20. Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police Department initially publicly characterized Maura as "endangered and possibly suicidal." Subsequent media accounts reported that the State Police had determined that Maura had: 1) gone missing voluntarily; 2) committed suicide; or 3) succumbed to the elements. The State Police concluded that Maura had not been the victim of foul play or been abducted against her will. A true copy of newspaper articles regarding the investigation into Maura's disappearance have been attached hereto as "1A," "1B" and "1C."
4
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:36:41+00:00

(Continued)
21. Since Maura's disappearance, Murray has made several requests seeking to obtain records from the Respondents named herein regarding the investigation into his daughter's disappearance. These requests were made pursuant to the New Hampshire Right to Know Law, NH RSA 91-A, as well as its Federal counterpart, the Freedom of Information Act.

22. On or about June 29, 2004, Brian Hester, Lieutenant for the Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety denied Murray's request for "all reports, log files 2/9/04 to present and all information and data" relating to Maura Murray, Case Number F-04-1514, stating that the "release of the requested reports, logs and data information would be a disclosure constituting invasion of privacy under RSA 91-A:5 N." A true copy of the denial is annexed hereto as Exhibit "2A." On or about September 17, 2004, Attorney Marta Modigliani from the Officer of the Commissioner of the Department of Safety responded to Murray's response to Lieutenant Brian Hester regarding the initial denial. This letter advised that the Department of Safety's decision to deny Murray's request for information was final. A true copy of this letter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "2B".

23. On or about June 29, 2004, Murray made a written request to the University of Massachusetts Police at Amherst for the following:
• All reports and log files from February 9,2004 to present; and
• All information and date pertaining to case number F04-l514 (UMass Police case number 04-1851)

24. On or about July 12, 2004, Chief of Police Barbara O'Connor responded in writing and enclosed copies of records that comprised public logs. However, Chief O'Connor's letter enclosing these records stated that the police reports were not being
5
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:40:19+00:00

(Continued)
released "based on Public Records Law Exemption F - The Investigatory Exemption." The letter further stated "[t]he University of Massachusetts Police at Amherst have fully cooperated with the New Hampshire State Police, the lead investigatory unit. Accordingly, under their direction, all information should be requested through them." A true copy of the response is annexed hereto as Exhibit "3A."

25. On or about November 30, 2004, Murray made a written request to the Grafton County Sheriffs Department for "[a]ll radios dispatches and log files from 6:00 PM on February 10, 2004 up to and including 12:00 AM on February 11, 2004." On or about January 3, 2005, this request was denied by Thomas Andross, the Director of Communications of the Grafton County Sheriffs Department because such information was "part of files that are investigative in nature, and release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy" under RSA 91-A:5 IV. A true copy of the request and the denial are annexed hereto as Exhibits "4A" and "4B" respectively.

26. On or about January 13, 2005, Murray made a request to the Grafton County Attorney's Office for the following:
• All reports and log files from 2/09/04 to Present
• All information and data* pertaining to Case Number: F04-1514 and/or the following:
Maura Murray
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01002
*All information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all police logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514.

27. On January 18,2005, Ricardo A. St. Hilaire informed Murray in writing that their office did not have any such documents. A true copy of the request and the denial are annexed hereto as Exhibits "SA" and "5B" respectively.
6
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:40:54+00:00

28. On or about January 13, 2005, Murray contacted the Office of the Attorney General, the Honorable Kelly A. Ayotte, seeking the following:
• All reports and log files from 2/09/04 to Present
• All information and data* pertaining to Case Number: F04-l5l4 and/or the following:
Maura Murray
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01002

*All information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all police logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-l514.

29. On or about February 9, 2005, Assistant Attorney General David W. Ruoff denied Murray's request for such documents. This was based on the fact that Murray made the request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, the federal statute applicable when seeking documents and information held by federal agencies, rather than pursuant to the New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law. A true copy of the request and the denial are annexed hereto as Exhibits "6A" and "6B" respectively.

30. On or about February 9, 2005, Murray contacted the office of the Governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch seeking any and all records pertaining to the investigation of the disappearance of his daughter. Murray did not obtain any documents or records as a result of this request. A true copy of the request is annexed hereto as Exhibit "7."

31. On or about February 24, 2005, Murray met with representatives from some of the agencies named herein and reiterated his concerns regarding the investigation into his daughter's disappearance and the reasons behind his requests to obtain documentation into her disappearance. As a result of said meeting Murray understood
7
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:41:10+00:00

(Continued)
that the respective agencies would be cooperating with him and that the parties would engage in a more free flow exchange of information.

32. On or about February 24, 2005, the State of New Hampshire appointed a victim advocate to Murray for the purpose of "improving communication." However, Murray still has not been provided with any documents relative to his daughter's disappearance. Murray has since been told by the victim advocate, Lynda Ruel "they are not going to give any information on your questions regarding the ongoing investigation at this time." A true copy of this communication is annexed hereto as Exhibit "8."

33. On or about October 10, 2005, Murray contacted the Hanover Police Department, seeking the following:
• All radio dispatches and log files, from 6:00 P.M. on 2/09/04 - 6:00 P.M. on 2/10/04.
• All written reports* and logs including but not limited to Missing Person Maura Murray and/or report of motor vehicle accidents pertaining to Maura Murray and/or a Black Saturn on Route 112 in Haverhill Woodsville (Bath/Swiftwater). Including but not limited to *All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514.

34. On October 20, 2005, Nicholas J. Giaconne, Jr., the Hanover Chief of Police sent a response to Murray indicating that his request had been directed to the Attorney General's Office who was working with the State Police on the investigation into Maura's disappearance and "[n]o documents will be released pending a determination by the Attorney General's Office" approving the same. The letter further stated the Attorney General's Office anticipated that it would take at least thirty (30) days for their office to make a determination regarding the release of such information. A true copy of the request and the response are annexed hereto as "9A" and "9B" respectively.
8
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:42:52+00:00

(Continued)
35. On or about October 10, 2005, Murray contacted the Office of the Director of the Division of the State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety seeking the following:
All written reports* and logs relative to Case#: F04-1514-NCIC ill # M883793945 including, but not limited to
• Any and all motor vehicle accident reports relative to an accident reported on February 9, 2004 on Route 112 in the HaverhilllWoodsville and/or SwiftwaterlBath area to any and all State and/or municipal agencies
• Missing Person Reports filed by any and all agencies relative to Maura Murray
• Reports of searches performed under the direction of or at the request of New Hampshire State Police
• Witness reports and/or statements
• Reports from the University of Massachusetts Police
• Reports from the FBI investigating the case of Maura Murray
• Reports from the Amherst, Massachusetts Police Department
• Reports from the New Hampshire State Police Troop F regarding the case of Maura Murray
• Reports from the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department relating to searches for Maura Murray
• Reports from the Haverhill Police Department
• Results of any and all lie detector tests performed in the investigation of this case
• Videos received showing persons believed to be Maura Murray
• Any and all receipts found in the vehicle belonging to Frederick Murray, driven by Maura Murray
• Computer read out from vehicle (Black Saturn) driven by Maura Murray
• Copy of computer hard drive from computer obtained by Det. Todd Landry from Kathleen Murray
• List of any and all DNA requests made
• Results of any and all DNA tests performed on behalf of the New Hampshire State Police of any agency acting on its behalf
• Results of any and all telephone record requests made regarding Case # F04-l514 including but not limited to: University of Massachusetts (dormitory room of Maura Murray, Security Phone at Maura's place of employment, Art Gallery where Maura was employed). Records requested in conjunction with a cell phone call reported to NH State Police to have been made by the American Red Cross, received by William Rausch (Maura's boyfriend) believed by Mr. Rausch to have been Maura.
• Copies of all correspondence between Maura Murray and William (Billy) Rausch found within Maura's belongings obtained by State Policeman Todd Landry from Kathleen Murray, Hanover, Massachusetts.
9
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:43:16+00:00

• Inventory of all items that had been voluntarily provided to NH SP by the Murray family or any other party, and for the account of the information if any that each item provided
• Reports of any and all forensic evaluations resulting from the investigation of Maura Murray
* All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514.

A true copy of the request is annexed hereto as Exhibit "10."

36. On or about October 10, 2005, Murray contacted the Office of the Commander of State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain seeking the following:
All written reports* and logs relative to Case#: F04-1514-NCIC ill # M883793945 including, but not limited to
• Any and all motor vehicle accident reports relative to an accident reported on February 9, 2004 on Route 112 in the HaverhilllWoodsville and/or Swiftwater/Bath area to any and all State and/or municipal agencies
• Missing Person Reports filed by any and all agencies relative to Maura Murray
• Reports of searches performed under the direction of or at the request of New Hampshire State Police
• Witness reports and/or statements
• Reports from the University of Massachusetts Police
• Reports from the FBI investigating the case of Maura Murray
• Reports from the Amherst, Massachusetts Police Department
• Reports from the New Hampshire State Police Troop F regarding the case of Maura Murray
• Reports from the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department relating to searches for Maura Murray
• Reports from the Haverhill Police Department
• Results of any and all lie detector tests performed in the investigation of this case
• List of persons interviewed in connection with the case of Maura Murray
• Videos received showing persons believed to be Maura Murray
• Any and all receipts found in the vehicle belonging to Frederick Murray, driven by Maura Murray
• Computer read out from vehicle (Black Saturn) driven by Maura Murray
• List of any and all DNA requests made
• Results of any and all DNA tests performed on behalf of the New Hampshire State Police of any agency acting on its behalf
10
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:43:33+00:00

(Continued)
• Results of any and all telephone record requests made regarding Case #F04-1514 including but not limited to: University of Massachusetts (dormitory room of Maura Murray, Security Phone at Maura's place of employment, Art Gallery where Maura was employed). Records requested in conjunction with a cell phone call reported to NH State Police to have been made by the American Red Cross, received by William Rausch (Maura's boyfriend) believed by Mr. Rausch to have been Maura.
• Inventory of all items that had been voluntarily provided to NH SP by the Murray family or any other party, and for the account of the information if any that each item provided
• Reports of any and all forensic evaluations resulting from the investigation of Maura Murray
*All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514. A true copy of the request is annexed hereto as Exhibit"11."

37. On or about October 10, 2005, Murray contacted Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain, seeking the following: All written reports' and logs including but not limited to "Black Book" entries and reports made on or about February 9, 2004 'All Information and Data electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514. A true copy of this request is annexed hereto as Exhibit "12."

38. On or about October 10, 2005, Murray contacted the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department seeking the following:
• All radio dispatches and log files from 6:00 P.M. on 2/09/04-6:00 P.M. on 2/10/04.
• All written reports' and logs regarding searches for Maura Murray including, but not limited to searched performed on or about the following dates:
February 11, 2004
February 19, 2004
April 24-25, 2005
July 13, 2004
11
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:43:51+00:00

(Continued)
Including but not limited to *All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514. A true copy of this request is annexed hereto as Exhibit "13."

39. On or about October 10, 2005, Murray contacted the Office of the Commander of the Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety seeking the following: All written reports* and logs including but not limited to *All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514. A true copy of this request is annexed hereto as Exhibit "14."

40. On or about October 10, 2005, Murray sent a request to University of Massachusetts Police at Amherst seeking the following:
• All reports and log files from February 9, 2004 to present pertaining to case number F04-1514 (UMass Police Case number 04-1851);
• All files associated with UMass email account mmura@student.umass.edu or any other account obtained by Maura Murray, and
• Copy of hard drive of computer of Maura Murray.

41. On or about October 19, 2005, Chief of Police Barbara O'Connor responded by stating there were not any additional log files besides those already provided to Murray in July of 2004. Additionally, release of the files associated with Maura's email account and computer hard drive information were denied based on Public Records Law Exemption F - The Investigatory Exemption. Once again Chief O'Connor stated "the University of Massachusetts Police at Amherst have fully cooperated with The New Hampshire State Police, the lead investigatory unit. Accordingly, under their
12
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:44:21+00:00

(Continued)
direction, all information should be requested through them." A true copy of the request and response are annexed hereto as Exhibits "15A" and "15B" respectively.

42. On October 24, 2005, Jeffrey A. Strelzin, Senior Assistant Attorney General and Chief of the Homicide Unit of the Attorney General's Office sent a letter to Murray indicating that all of Murray's requests for information from New Hampshire state agencies and officials had been submitted to the Office of the Attorney General. The letter further stated that it would likely take thirty (30) days for the office to make a determination as to whether documents in the custody of the respective agencies would be released to Murray. A true copy of the response is annexed hereto as Exhibit "16."

43. On November 15, 2005, David W. Ruoff, Assistant Attorney General of the Homicide Unit sent a letter to Murray stating that "all the materials... requested [from the Hanover Police Department, the Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, the Commander of State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain, Troop F of the State Police in Twin Mountain, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, and Commander of the Historic Unit of Major Crimes of the Division of the State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety] that pertain to [Maura's] case are exempt from disclosure because they are investigatory files." Assistant Attorney Ruoff further stated that reports of motor vehicle accidents made to the Hanover Police Department and the New Hampshire State Police on February 9,2004 and log files kept by the Hanover Police Department, the New Hampshire State Police and the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department between 6:00 P.M. on February 9, 2004 and 6:00 P.M. on February 10, 2004 may be released to Murray. However, the letter specified that any information pertaining to Maura's case within these released files would be redacted
13
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:44:35+00:00

(Continued)
based on the investigatory exemption to RSA 91-A. A true copy of the response is annexed hereto as Exhibit "17."

44. Upon information and belief, Murray's requests for documents outlined herein have been denied in contravention of the New Hampshire Right to Know Law by the respective state agencies and public officials. Murray is entitled to inspect and copy any and all non-privileged documents, records, notes, memoranda and any other information regarding his daughter's disappearance under RSA 91-A:5.

45. To date, Murray has not been provided with all of the documentation requested from the Respondents named herein pertaining to his daughter's disappearance.

COUNT I
(Injunction under RSA 91-A:7)

46. The Petitioner repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-45 and specifically incorporates each herein by reference.

47. Under the New Hampshire Right to Know Law, citizens have a right to inspect public records maintained by governmental bodies, including but not limited to all State executive branch agencies and departments, and make notes and copies of all such documents.

48. When a citizen's request for public records to a covered government agency under RSA 91-A:4 is denied, the citizen may petition the Court for an injunction mandating the release of such records pursuant to RSA 91-A:7.

49. Here, the Petitioner has made written requests pursuant to RSA 91-A:4 from the named Respondents in this action seeking any and all non-privileged records pertaining to the disappearance of his daughter.
14
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:44:45+00:00

(Continued)
50. Despite the fact that these gove=ental entities are governed by RSA 91- A:4, the Respondents have failed, refused and neglected to adhere to their obligations under the New Hampshire Right to Know Law by failing to produce any records to the Petitioner.

COUNT II
(Attorney's Fees and Costs under RSA 91-A:8)

51. The Petitioner repeats and re-alleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs I-50 and specifically incorporates each herein by reference.

52. Citizens seeking injunctive relief from the Court in order to compel governmental entities to tum over public records can seek to recover attorneys' fees and costs for having to pursue an action under RSA 91-A.

53. Murray has made proper request for public records under RSA 91-A for any and all non-privileged records pertaining to the disappearance and search for his daughter.

54. The Respondents named in this action have all denied his requests for such public documents.

55. Despite his own efforts to obtain these public records since the time of his daughter's disappearance in February of 2004, Murray has been unable to obtain copies of such documents or any other information from any of these governmental agencies.

56. Murray has been required to resort to initiating this action in the Superior Court in order to obtain these documents, many of which he is entitled to under the New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law, RSA 91-A.

57. The governmental entities named in this lawsuit knew or should have known of their obligations towards honoring citizen's requests for public records
15
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:45:00+00:00

(Continued)
pursuant to RSA 91-A.

58. Therefore, Murray is entitled to reimbursement for attorney's fees and costs incurred in having to initiate this lawsuit to obtain an injunction for release of such public records.

REQUESTS FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectively requests that the Court grant him the following relief:

1. That this Court determine and declare that the Respondents: Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriffs Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John J. Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2; and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety have violated RSA 9l-A in their failure and refusal to provide public records to Frederick J. Murray;

2. That this Court enter an injunction obligating the Respondents to make available for inspection and copying all non-privileged documents and records regarding the investigation into the disappearance of Maura Murray to her father, Frederick J. Murray, including but not limited to police logs, 911 recordings, witness statements, investigatory notes, law enforcement policies and procedures and all correspondence;
16
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T04:45:12+00:00

(Continued)
3. That the Court determine and declare that the Respondents have a continuing obligation to produce and supply the documents ordered diligently and promptly after the information and documents are received by each Respondent;

4. That the Court determine and declare that the Respondents knew or should have known of their obligations under RSA 91:A and that the institution of an action should not have been necessary to obtain the requested documents;

5. That this Court award Frederick J. Murray reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in filing this action; and

6. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,
FREDERICK J. MURRAY,
By his Attorneys,
Date: 12-19-05
TIMOTHY J. ERVIN (NH#14376)
JOHN F. GALLANT (NH#6569)
ERICA GESING (NH#16843)
GALLANT & ERVIN, LLC
One Olde North Road, Suite 103
Chelmsford, MA 01824
(978) 256-6041
Fax: (978) 256-7977
17
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T05:02:19+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d6pslv5

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T05:02:45+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d6r7ige

[deleted] · 2016-10-20T05:04:27+00:00

AKA Murray 014-2

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d6pri2p

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:17:28+00:00

State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
Richard M. Flynn, Commissioner of Safety
Division of State Police
James H. Hayes Safety Building, 10 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03305

271-2575
Speech/Hearing Impaired
TDD Access: Relay NH
1-800-735-2964
Colonel Gary M. Sloper
(Letterhead)

June 29, 2004

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker Street
Weymouth, MA 02188

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request! Maura Murray F-04-1514

Dear Mr. Murray:

I have had an opportunity to review your undated request for all reports, log files 2/9/04 to present and all information and data. Your request for case number F-04-1514 in reference to Maura Murray was reviewed under the New Hampshire Right to Know Law, RSA 91-A.

A determination has been made these files are investigative in nature, the release of the requested reports, logs and data information would be a disclosure constituting and unwarranted invasion of privacy under RSA 91-A:5 IV. The release and disclosure at this time could interfere with an ongoing investigation. See Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 NH 574 (1978). Therefore, your request at this time is denied.

I am sorry I am unable to assist you at this time. If you have any further questions do not hesitate to contact me at 603-271-6978.

Sincerely,

Brian Hester
Lieutenant-Special Investigation Unit

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:19:51+00:00

State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
JAMES H. HAYES BLDG. 10 HAZEN DR. CONCORD, NH 03305
603/271-2791
RICHARD M. FLYNN
COMMISSIONER
(Letterhead)

September 17, 2004

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker Street
Weymouth, MA 02188

RE: Your Undated Letter Appealing Your' 91-A Request

Dear Mr. Murray:

I am responding to your undated letter addressed to Lt. Brian Hester, regarding your intention to appeal the denial of your Freedom of Information Request (of which was reviewed under the New Hampshire Right to Know Law, RSA 9I-A).

By letter dated June 29, 2004, Lt. Hester denied your request. I wish to advise you that the Department's decision is final and there is no additional appeal process within the Department of Safely. However, RSA 91-A:7 provides recourse for persons aggrieved by a violation of RSA 91-A. A person may appeal by filing a petition for injunctive relief at the Superior Court.

Sincerely,

Marta Modigliani, Esq.
Office of the Commissioner

Cc: Richard M. Flynn, Commissioner
Earl M. Sweeney, Assistant Commissioner
Colonel Frederick Booth, Division of State Police
Lieutenant Brian Hester, Special investigations Unit

TDD ACCESS RELAY NH 1-800-735-2964

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:20:12+00:00

UNIVERSITY OF
MASSACHUSETTS
Dickinson Hall
351 Hicks Way
Amherst. MA 01003-9281
Department of Public Safety
(Letterhead)

July 12, 2004

Mr. Frederick J. Murray
Homestead Suites
945 Bridgeport Ave.
Shelton, CT 06484

Dear Mr. Murray:

I am in receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act in reference to:

• All reports and log files from February 9, 2004 to present, and
• All information and data pertaining to case number F04-1514 (UMass Police case number 04-1851)

In reference to your request for all public logs from February 9,2004, please see the enclosed materials at no charge.

In reference to your second request for the police reports pertaining to this case, I am declining to release this information based on Public Records Law Exemption F - The Investigatory Exemption.

I realize that this is an extremely difficult time for you and your family. The University of Massachusetts Police at Amherst have fully cooperated with the New Hampshire State Police, the lead investigatory unit. Accordingly, under their direction, all information should be requested through them.

Should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (413) 545-2125.

Sincerely,

Chief Barbara O'Connor

Enclosure

BOC/ad

The University of Massachusetts is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
Printed on Recycled Paper

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:20:31+00:00

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma 02188
(781) 964-4628

FOIA Request Letter

October 31, 2004

Grafton County Sheriffs Office
Attn: Thomas Andross
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
P.O. Box 6
North Haverhill, N.H. 03774

Dear Thomas Andross:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C.§ 552, I am requesting to obtain a copy of the following documents:

All radio dispatches and log files from 6:00 P.M. on 2/09/2004--6:00 P.M. on 2/10/04.

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating this document as requested. If there are any other fees associated with this request please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption,which justifies your refusal to release the requested information, Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (781) 964-4628

Sincerely

Frederick J. Murray

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:20:48+00:00

Grafton County Sheriff's Department
3785 Dartmouth College Highway * Box 6
North Haverhill, NH 03774-4936
www.graftoncountysheriff.net

Charles E. Berry
High Sheriff

OFFICE TELEPHONE
603-787-6911
CIVIL SERVICE NUMBER
603-787-2111
NH WATTS 1-800-564-6911
FAX# 1-603-787-2005
(Letterhead)

January 3, 2005

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker Street
Weymouth, MA 02188

Dear Mr. Murray:

Regarding your Freedom of Information Request Letter dated November 30, 2004 requesting:

"All radios dispatches and log files from 6:00 PM on February 10, 2004 up to and including 12:00AM on February 11, 2004",

on the advice of the Grafton County Attorney, your request for this information is denied. The information requested is part or files that are investigative in nature, and release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy under NH RSA 91-A:5(IV). The release and disclosure at this time could interfere with an ongoing investigation. See Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 NH 574 (1978).

I am sorry that I am unable to assist you further at this time.

Thomas Andross
Director of Communications

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:21:44+00:00

FOIA Request Letter
TO: RICARDO ST. HILAIRE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY - GRAFTON COUNTY
COURTHOUSE
3785 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE HIGHWAY
BOX 7
NORTH HAVERHILL, N.H. 03774-9758

Re: Maura Murray Case #: F04-1514
Missing Adult
(02/09/04)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C: § 552, I am requesting to obtain a copy of the following documents:

• All reports and log files from 2/09/04- Present
• All information and data* pertaining to Case Number: F04-1514 and/or the following;

Maura Murray
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Ma. 01002

• All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all police logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information pertaining to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating this document as requested If there are any other fees associated with this request, please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at

Sincerely,

FREDERICK J MURRAY
22 WALKER ST
WEYMOUTH, MA 02188
FMDAD AT EARTHLINK.NET

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:22:00+00:00

Ricardo A. St.Hilaire
Grafton County Attorney

Nancy J. Gray
Deputy County Attorney

Lara J. Saffo
Assistant County Attorney

Melinda A. Cookinham
Assistant County Attorney

Carin E. Chivell
Director, Victim/Witness Program

Alison Z. Farina
Office Administrator

1769 N.H.

OFFICE OF THE GRAFTON COUNTY ATTORNEY
3785 Dartmouth College Highway, Box 7
North Haverhill, NH 03774
603-787-6968 Fax 603-787-2026
email: graftonca@yahoo.com
Victim/Witness program email: grnftonvic@juno.com
(Letterhead)

January 18, 2005

Frederick Murray
22 Walker Street
Weymouth, MA 02188

Re: Maura Murray

Dear Mr. Murray:

We are in receipt of your FOIA request dated 1/13/05. A review of our cases shows that we do not possess any files related to Maura Murray.

Sincerely,

Ricardo A. St. Hilaire
Grafton County Attorney

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:22:18+00:00

FOIA Request Letter
1-13-05
TO: KELLY A. AYOTTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
33 CAPITAL ST.
CONCORD, NH, 03301

Re: MaUra Murray Case #: F04-1514
Missing Adult
(02/09/04)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act 5 U.S.C: § 552, I am requesting to obtain a copy of the following documents:

• All reports and log files from 2/09/04 - Present.

• All information and data* pertaining to Case Number: Fo4-1514 and/or the following;

Maura Murray
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Ma. 01002

All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all police logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency. and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating this document as requested. If there are any other fees associated with this request, please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at

FREDERICK J MURRAY
22 WALKER ST
WEYMOUTH, MA 02188
FMDAD AT EARTHLINK.NET

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:22:33+00:00

ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
33 CAPITOL STREET
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-6397

KELLY A. AYOTTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

MICHAEL A. DELANEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Letterhead)

February 9, 2005

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma. 02188

Dear Mr. Murray:

I am writing in response to your January 13, 2005 Ietter making a request for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act of USCA sec. 552, for any records of case number F04-1514, pertaining to the investigation of the disappearance of Maura Murray.

Please take note that under the terms of 5 USCA sec 552(f), and 5USCA 551(1), state sovereigns are not covered by this federal statute. In other words, the Federal Freedom of Information Act does not apply to state agencies.

To the extent that you believe federal agencies may have been involved in this investigation, you must make a request directly to that agency for your FOIA request.

Sincerely,

David W. Ruoff
Assistant Attorney General
Homicide Unit
(603) 271-3671
cc: Jeffery Strelzin, Senior Assistant Attorney General
65337

Telephone 603-271-3655 Fax 603-271-2110 TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-785-2964

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:24:15+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d7m0xa4/

Note: The above link spans 2 pages in the original file.

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:25:02+00:00

From: "Ruel, Lynda" lynda.ruel@doj.nh.gov
Sent: Jun 23,2005 6:23 PM
To: fmdad fmdad@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: complementary search

Dear Mr. Murray,

I was able to talk to the investigators and they are not going to give any information on your questions regarding the ongoing investigation at this time.

Lynda

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:26:46+00:00

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma. 02188
~
(781) 964-4628

FOIA Request Letter

October 10, 2005

Nicholas Giaccone, Police Chief
Or Keeper of Records
Hanover Police Department
46 Lyme Road
Hanover, MA NH 03755

Re: Maura Murray Case #: F04-1514 - NCIC ID# M-883793945
Missing Adult - (02/09/04)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552 and NH RSA 91-A, I am requesting the following documents:

• All radio dispatches and log files from 6:00 P.M. on 2/09/04 - 6:00 P.M. on 2/10/04.

• All written reports* and logs including, but not limited to Missing Person Maura Murray and/or report of motor vehicle accidents pertaining to Maura Murray and/or a Black Saturn on Route 112 in Haverhill/Woodsville (Bath/Swiftwater)

Including but not limited to * All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating these documents as requested. If there are any other fees associated with this request, please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (781) 964-4628.

Sincerely,

Frederick J. Murray

CC: Attorney General Kelly Ayotte
Attorney Timothy Ervin

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:51:18+00:00

TOWN of HANOVER
HANOVER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03755
P.O. BOX 483 603/643-4123
(Letterhead)

October 20, 2005

Mr. Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, MA 02188

Re: Maura Murray
Case #F04-1514
NCIC ID#883793945
Missing Adult (02/09/04)

Dear Mr. Murray:

On October 17, 2005, we received your request for documents. This request has been turned over to the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office, which is working with the State Police on the investigation. No documents will be released pending a determination by the Attorney General's Office that the documents can be released. The Attorney General's Office has advised me that they expect this to take at least thirty (30) days.

Sincerely,

Nicholas J. Giaccone, Jr.
Chief of Police

NJG/esr
cc: Jeffery Strelzin, Assistant Atty, General

Hanover Police Department, 46 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755 Tel. (603) 643-2222 Fax (603) 643-0727

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:51:36+00:00

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma. 02188
~
(781) 964-4628

FOIA Request Letter

October 10, 2005

Colonel Frederick H. Booth
Director
Or Keeper of the Records
Division of State Police
Department of Safety
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305

Re: Maura Murray Case #: F04-1514 - NCIC ID # M-883793945
Missing Adult - (02/09/04)

Dear Colonel Booth:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552 and NH RSA 91-A, I am requesting the following: All written reports· and logs relative to Case #: F04-1514 - NCIC ID # M-883793945 including, but not limited to

• Any and all motor vehicle accident reports' relative to an accident reported on February 9, 2004 on Route 112 in the Haverhill/Woodsville and/or Swiftwater/Bath area to any and all State and/or municipal agencies

• Missing Person Reports filed by any an all agencies relative to Maura Murray Reports of searches performed under the direction of or at the request of New Hamsphire State Police

• Witness reports and/or statements

• Reports from the University of Massachusetts Police

• Reports from the FBI investigating the case of Maura Murray

• Reports from the Amherst, Massachusetts Police Department

• Reports from New Hampshire State Police Troop F regarding the case of Maura Murray

• Reports from New Hampshire Fish and Game Department relating to searches for Maura Murray

• Reports from the Haverhill Police Department

• Results of any and all lie detector tests performed in the investigation of this case

• Videos received showing persons believed to be Maura Murray

• Any and all receipts found in the vehicle belonging to Frederick Murray, driven by Maura Murray

• Computer read out from vehicle (Black Saturn) driven by Maura Murray

• Copy of computer hard drive from computer obtained by Del. Todd Landry from Kathleen Murray

• List of any and all DNA tests requests made

• Results of any and all DNA tests performed on behalf of the New Hampshire State Police or any agency acting in its behalf

• Results of any and all telephone record requests made regarding Case #F04-1514 including but not limited to: University of Massachusetts (dormitory room of Maura Murray, Security Phone at Maura's place of employment, Art Gallery where Maura was employed). Records requested in conjunction with a cell phone call reported to NH State Police to have been made by the American Red Cross, received by William Rausch (Maura's boyfriend) believed by Mr. Rausch to have been Maura

• Copies of all correspondence between Maura Murray and William (Billy) Rausch found within Maura's belonging obtained by State Policeman Todd Landry from Kathleen Murray, Hanover, Massachusetts.

• Inventory of all items that bad been voluntarily provided to NH SP by the Murray family or any other party, and for an account of the information if any that each item provided

• Reports of any and all forensic evaluations resulting from the investigation of Maura Murray

(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:51:50+00:00

(Continued)
• All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating these documents as requested. If there are any other fees associated with this request, please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (781) 964-4628.

Sincerely,

Frederick J. Murray

cc: Attorney General Kelly Ayotte
Attorney Timothy Ervin

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:52:05+00:00

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma. 02188
~
(781) 964-4628

FOIA Request Letter

October 10, 2005

State Police Lt. John K. Scarinza
Commander of State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain
Or Keeper of the Records
PO Box 440
Route 302
Twin Mountain, NH 03595

Re: Maura Murray Case #: F04-1514 - NCIC ID # M-883793945.
Missing Adult - (02/09/04)

Dear Lt. Scarinza:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552 and NH RSA 91-A, I am requesting the following:

All written reports* and logs relative to Case #: F04-1514 - NCIC ID # M-883793945 including, but not limited to

• Any and all motor vehicle accident reports' relative to an accident reported on February 9, 2004 on Route 112 in the Haverhill/Woodsville and/or Swiftwater/Bath area to any and all State and/or municipal agencies

• Missing Person Reports filed by any an all agencies relative to Maura Murray Reports of searches performed under the direction of or at the request of New Hamsphire State Police

• Witness reports and/or statements

• Reports from the University of Massachusetts Police

• Reports from the FBI investigating the case of Maura Murray

• Reports from the Amherst, Massachusetts Police Department

• Reports from New Hampshire State Police Troop F regarding the case of Maura Murray

• Reports from New Hampshire Fish and Game Department relating to searches for Maura Murray

• Reports from the Haverhill Police Department

• Results of any and all lie detector tests performed in the investigation of this case

• List of persons interviewed in connection with the case of Maura Murray

• Videos received showing persons believed to be Maura Murray

• Any and all receipts found in the vehicle belonging to Frederick Murray, driven by Maura Murray

• Computer read out from vehicle (Black Saturn) driven by Maura Murray

• List of any and all DNA tests requests made

• Results of any and all DNA tests performed on behalf of the New Hampshire State Police or any agency acting on their behalf

• Results of any and all telephone record requests made regarding Case #F04-1514 including but not limited to: University of Massachusetts (dormitory room of Maura Murray, Security Phone at Maura's place of employment, Art Gallery where Maura was employed). Records requested in conjunction with a cell phone call reported to NH State Police to have been made by the American Red Cross, received by William Rausch (Maura's boyfriend) believed by Mr. Rausch to have been Maura

• Reports of any and all forensic evaluations resulting from the investigation of Maura Murray
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:52:17+00:00

(Continued)
• All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating these documents as requested. If there are any other fees associated with this request, please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (781) 964-4628.

Sincerely,

Frederick J. Murray

cc: Attorney General Kelly Ayotte
Attorney Timothy Ervin

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:52:45+00:00

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma. 02188
~
(781) 964-4628

FOIA Request Letter

October 10, 2005

State Trooper John Monahan
Troop F - New Hampshire State Police
P.O. Box 440, Route 302
Twin Mountain, New Hampshire 03595

Re: Maura Murray Case #: F04-1514 - NCIC ID # M-883793945.
Missing Adult - (02/09/04)

Dear Trooper Monahan:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552 and NH RSA 91-A, I am requesting the following documents:

All written reports* and logs including but not limited to "Black Book" entries and reports made on or about February 9, 2004 * All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating these documents as requested. If there are any other fees associated with this request, please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (781) 964-4628.

Sincerely,

Frederick J. Murray

CC: Attorney General Kelly Ayotte
Attorney Timothy Ervin

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:53:17+00:00

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma. 02188
~
(781) 964-4628

FOIA Request Letter

October 10, 2005

Lt. Todd Bogardus or Keeper of Records
New Hampshire Fish and Game Department
Region 2
RR Box 3a
New Hampton, NH 03256

Re: Maura Murray Case #: F04-1514 - NCIC ID # M-883793945.
Missing Adult - (02/09/04)

Dear Lt. Bogardus:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552 and NH RSA 91-A, I am requesting the following documents:

• All radio dispatches and log files from 6:00 P.M. on 2/09/04 - 6:00 P.M. on 2/10/04.

• All written reports* and logs regarding searches for Maura Murray including, but not limited to searches performed on or about the following dates:
February 11, 2004
February 19, 2004
April 24-25, 2004
July 13, 2004

Including but not limited to * All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating these documents as requested. If there are any other fees associated with this request, please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (781) 964-4628.

Sincerely,

Frederick J. Murray

CC: Attorney General Kelly Ayotte
Attorney Timothy Ervin

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:53:32+00:00

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma. 02188
~
(781) 964-4628

FOIA Request Letter

October 10, 2005

David W. Kelley
Commander of the Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes
Or Keeper of Records
Division of State Police
Department of Safety
33 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03305

Re: Maura Murray Case #: F04-1514 - NCIC ID # M-883793945.
Missing Adult - (02/09/04)

Dear Officer Kelley:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552 and NH RSA 9l-A, I am requesting the following documents:

All written reports* and logs including but hot limited to * All Information and Data - electronic and paper: pertaining to all logs, areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray and this case. Case Number F04-1514

Please inform me of any expenses, to cover any cost in duplicating these documents as requested. If there are any other fees associated with this request, please contact me.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at (781) 964-4628.

Sincerely,

Frederick J. Murray

CC: Attorney General Kelly Ayotte
Attorney Timothy Ervin

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:53:46+00:00

Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker St.
Weymouth, Ma. 02188
~
(781) 964-4628

FOIA Request Letter

October 10, 2005

Barbara O'Connor, J.D.
Chief of Police or Keeper of the Records
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Dickinson Hall - 351 Hicks Way
Amherst, Massachusetts 01003

Re: Maura Murray Missing Adult (02/09/04)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Under the federal law, Freedom of Information Act. 5 U.S.C. § 552 and Massachusetts Public Records Law (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10), I am requesting copies of the following documents:

• All reports and log files from 2/09/04 - Present: pertinent to:
Maura Murray (NCIC ID #M-887939451 NHSP Case #: F04-1514)
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Ma. 01002

• Including but not limited to all files associated with UMASS e-mail account:
mmurr0@student.umass.edu or any other account obtained by Maura Murray

• Copy of hard drive of computer of Maura Murray

• All Information and Data Including but Not Limited to: - electronic and paper: pertaining to all police logs,areas searched, witness reports, any records with any affiliated law enforcement agency, and any information that pertains to Maura Murray.

Please inform me of any fees associated with this request.

If you deny all or any part of this request, please cite each specific exemption, which justifies your refusal to release the requested information. Please notify and explain to me in writing the appeal procedures available to me under any federal, state, and/or local law(s) that would enable me to obtain the above-requested information.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at the above address, at (781) 964-4628, or e-mail me at fmdad@hotmail.com.

Sincerely,

Frederick J. Murray

CC: vanin@stuaf.umass.edu (Dean of Students/ Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs)
dubach@chancellor.umass.edu (John Dubach, Chief Information Officer)
Attorney General Kelly Ayotte
Attorney Timothy Ervin

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:54:26+00:00

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
AMHERST
Dickinson Hall
University of Massachusetts
351 Hicks Way
Amherst, MA 01003-9281
POLICE DEPARTMENT
voice: 413.545.2134
fax: 413.545.9429
www.umass.edu/umpd/
(Letterhead)

October 19, 2005

Mr. Frederick J. Murray
22 Walker Street
Weymouth, MA 02188

Dear Mr. Murray:

I am in receipt of your request under the Freedom of Information Act in reference to:

• All reports and log files from February 9, 2004 to present pertaining to case number F04-1514 (UMass Police Case number 04-1851);

• All files associated with UMass email account mmurr0@student.umass.edu or any other account obtained by Maura Murray, and

• Copy of hard drive of computer of Maura Murray.

After a careful review of the public logs from February 9, 2004 to present, I have been unable to find an entry regarding Maura Murray since your last request in July of 2004.

In reference to your second request for the files associated with UMass email account mmurr0@student.umass.edu and for a copy of hard drive of computer of Maura Murray, I am declining to release this information based on Public Records Law Exemption F - The Investigatory Exemption.

Again, I realize that this has been an extremely difficult time for you and your family. However, the University of Massachusetts Police at Amherst has fully cooperated with The New Hampshire State Police, the lead investigatory unit. Accordingly, under their direction, all information should be requested through them.

Should you have any additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (413) 545-2125.

Sincerely,

Barbara O'Connor
Chief of Police
The University of Massachusetts is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution Printed on Recycled Paper

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:54:41+00:00

ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
33 CAPITOL STREET
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-6397

KELLY A. AYOTTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

MICHAEL A. DELANEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Letterhead)

October 24, 2005

Frederick J, Murray
22 Walker Street
Weymouth, Massachusetts 02188

Re: Right-To-Know Requests: Maura Murray Investigation

Dear Mr. Murray:

Your letters requesting documents in connection with an open investigation have been forwarded to me, Our office will be responsible for coordinating a response to all the letters you've sent to New Hampshire agencies and individuals, Please note that since your letters were not directed to federal agencies, the response to your inquiry will be governed by New Hampshire law.

First, as to your request for documentation to the New Hampshire Bureau of Emergency Communications. That agency indicates that RSA I06-H: 14 exempts them from the Right-To-Know law, In addition, they do not have any documents or records related to your request. Therefore, there will be no documents or records provided to you from this agency.

Second, as to your requests to New Hampshire Fish and Game, Hanover Police Department, and the New Hampshire State Police (Colonel Booth, Captain Kelley, Lieutenant Scarinza, Trooper Monahan), we expect it to take at least thirty days from today's date determine if your requests for documents will be granted or denied.

Last, since your request concerns an open and ongoing investigation by law enforcement agencies, it is likely your requests will be denied to safeguard the investigation. However, that determination will be made in approximately thirty days.

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

Jeffery A. Strelzin
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Chief, Homicide Unit

JAS/mjt

Telephone 603-271-3658 * Fax 603-271-2110 * TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:55:37+00:00

ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
33 CAPITOL STREET
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-6397

KELLY A. AYOTTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL

MICHAEL A. DELANEY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Letterhead)

November 15, 2005

I am writing in response to your October 10, 2005 letters making a request for information pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act of 5 USCA sec. 552 and RSA 91-A, for any records of case number F04-1514, pertaining to the investigation of the disappearance of your daughter, Maura Murray. The letters that I am responding to were sent to Troop F (2 requests), NHSP Major Crime Unit, Col. Booth, NH Fish and Game, NH Bureau of Emergency Communications, and Hanover Police Department (addressed to Hanover, Mass.).

Please take note that under the terms of 5 USCA sec. 552(f), and 5 USCA 551(1), state sovereigns are not covered by this federal statute. In other words, the Federal Freedom of Information Act does not apply to state agencies. Therefore, I have limited my review to the provisions of NHRSA 91-A.

To the extent that you believe federal agencies may have been involved in this investigation, you must make a request directly to that agency for your FOIA request Additionally, we do not have the authority to respond requests you have made to Massachusetts authorities.

At present, a11 of the materials you have requested that pertain to your daughter's case are exempt from disclosure because they are investigatory files. However, you have requested materials that may be subject to disclosure: all motor vehicle accident reports reported to Hanover PD NHSP along Rt. 112 on February 9, 2004 in the Haverhill/Woodsville area and the Swiftwater/Bath area; all radio dispatches and log files from 6PM on 2-09-04 to 6 PM on 2-10-04 from NH Fish and Game and Hanover PD. Please keep in mind that any materials that pertain to your daughter's case will be redacted from these materials, as will any other matter that

Telephone 608-271-3658 * FAX 608-271-2110 * TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964 (Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T04:55:45+00:00

(Continued)
involves investigatory files for other cases. In other words, you may be entitled to have the materials that are covered by your request to the extent that they do not involve your daughter's case.

Given the nature of your request, it is not clear whether you want information that does not have anything to do with F04-1514. If you do, please let me know and I can make the materials, if they still exist, available to you. Our office charges a fee for copies of any materials provided under RSA 91-A and we would be able to let you know what the amount would be after you let me know if you are interested in the materials.

Sincerely,

David W.Ruoff
Assistant Attorney General
Homicide Unit
(603) 271-3671
cc: Jeffery Strelzin, Senior Assistant Attorney General
102132

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:19:19+00:00

AKA Murray 015

Gallant & Ervin
(Letterhead)

March 21, 2007

Robert B. Muh, Clerk
Grafton County Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
North Haverhill, NH 03774

Re: Frederick J. Murray v. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al. Docket Number: 05-E-383

Dear Clerk Muh:

Enclosed please find the Petitioner's Objection to Respondents' Motion to Allow In Camera Testimony in the above-referenced matter. Kindly file in your usual manner.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. Ervin

TJE/eg
Enclosure
CC: Nancy J. Smith, Esq.
Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.

Gallant & Ervin, LLC [] Attorneys at Law
One Olde North Road [] Suite 103 [] Chelmsford, MA 01824 [] tel (978) 256-6041 [] fax (978) 256-7977 [] www.gallant-ervin.com

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:19:33+00:00

ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
33 CAPITOL STREET
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301·6397
KELLY A. AYOTTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ORVILLE B. "BUD" FITCH II DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Letterhead)

March 13, 2007

Robert B. Muh, Clerk
Grafton County Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
North Haverhill, New Hampshire 03774

Re: Frederick Murray v. Special Investigation Unit, et al.;
Docket No. 05-E-383

Dear Clerk Muh:

Enclosed you will find Respondents' Motion to Allow In Camera Testimony for filing in the above-referenced matter.

Very truly yours,

Nancy J. Smith
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Bureau

NJS/Ilm
Enclosure
cc: Timothy J. Ervin, Esquire
Gallant & Ervin
One Olde North Road, Suite 103
Chelmsford, MA 01824

cc: Brian Cullen, Esquire
Devine, Millimet & Branch
111 Amherst Street
Manchester, NH 03101

173421.doc

Telephone 603-271-3658 * FAX 603-271-2110 TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:19:51+00:00

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Grafton Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
N. Haverhill, NH 03774
603 787-6961
NOTICE OF HEARING

TIMOTHY J ERVIN ESQ
GALLANT & ERVIN
ONE OLDE NORTH ROAD SUITE 103
CHELMSFORD MA 01824

05-E-0383 Frederick J. Murray vs. Special Investigation Unit, et al

The above-referenced case has been scheduled before Judge Timothy J. Vaughan for the following:

Hearing on the Merits

Date: April 13, 2007
Time: 9:00 am
Location: Grafton Superior Court Room: See list at Court
Grafton County Courthouse
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
N. Haverhill NH 03774

Time allotted for this hearing: 2 hrs.
Please advise immediately if this is not sufficient.

Your failure to physically appear at a hearing may result in a default. All issues raised by the pleadings will be disposed of immediately without your participation.

New hearing pursuant to remand by Supreme Court; Rescheduled from March 16, 2007.

Please advise clients, witnesses, and others that it is a class B felony to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11,V in a courtroom or area used by a court.

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Robert B. Muh
Clerk of Court

2/15/2007
Court Copy (caldr)
cc: Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.
Nancy J. Smith, Esq.
AOC Form SUCP080 (Rev. 10/09/2001)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:20:03+00:00

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Grafton Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
N. Haverhill, NH 03774
603 787-6961

NOTICE OF DECISION

TIMOTHY J ERVIN ESQ
GALLANT & ERVIN
ONE OLDE NORTH ROAD SUITE 103
CHELMSFORD MA 01824

05-E-0383 Frederick J. Murray vs. Special Investigation Unit, et al

Please be advised that on 2/14/2007 the Court made the following order relative to:

Assented to Motion to Continue ; Granted
Re: March 16, 2007 hearing

Rescheduled for April 13, 2007 at 9,00 A.M.; See notice enclosed.

Robert B. Muh
Clerk of Court

02/15/2007
Court Copy (caldr)
cc: Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.
Nancy J. Smith, Esq.
AOC Form SUCP052 (Rev 09/27/2001)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:20:14+00:00

ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
33 CAPITOL STREET
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301·6397
KELLY A. AYOTTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ORVILLE B. "BUD" FITCH II DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Letterhead)

February 9, 2007

Robert B. Muh, Clerk
Grafton County Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
North Haverhill, New Hampshire 03774

Re: Frederick Murray v. Special Investigation Unit, et al.;
Docket No. 05-E-383

Dear Clerk Muh:

Enclosed you will find an Assented to Motion to Continue Hearing Date for filing in the above-referenced matter.

Very truly yours,

Nancy J. Smith
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Bureau

NJS/llm Enclosure
cc: Timothy J. Ervin, Esquire
Gallant & Ervin
One Olde North Road, Suite 103
Chelmsford, MA 01824

173421.doc

ct: Brian Cullen, Esquire
Devine, Millimet & Branch
111 Amherst Street
Manchester, NH 03101

Telephone 603-271-3658 • FAX 603-271-2110 • TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:20:23+00:00

ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
33 CAPITOL STREET
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301·6397
KELLY A. AYOTTE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
ORVILLE B. "BUD" FITCH II DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
(Letterhead)

February 5, 2007

Robert B. Muh, Clerk
Grafton County Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
North Haverhill, New Hampshire 03774

Re: Frederick Murray v. Special Investigation Unit, et al.;
Docket No. 05-E-383

Dear Clerk Muh:

Enclosed you will find Dan Mullen's Withdrawal and my Special Appearance for filing in the above-referenced matter.

Very truly yours,

Nancy J. Smith
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Civil Bureau

NJS/llm
Enclosure
cc: Timothy J. Ervin, Esquire
Gallant & Ervin
One Olde North Road, Suite 103
Chelmsford, MA 01824

173421.doc

Telephone 603-271-3658 • FAX 603-271-2110 • TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:20:31+00:00

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Grafton Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
N. Haverhill, NH 03774
603 787-6961
NOTICE OF HEARING

TIMOTHY J ERVIN ESQ
GALLANT & ERVIN
ONE OLDE NORTH ROAD SUITE 103
CHELMSFORD MA 01824

05-E-0383 Frederick J. Murray vs. Special Investigation Unit, et al

The above-referenced case has been scheduled before Judge Timothy J. Vaughan for the following:

Hearing on the Merits

Date: March 16, 2007
Time: 9:00 am
Location: Grafton Superior Court Room: See list at Court
Grafton County Courthouse
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
N. Haverhill NH 03774

Time allotted for this hearing: 2 hrs.
Please advise immediately if this is not sufficient.

Your failure to physically appear at a hearing may result in a default. All issues raised by the pleadings will be disposed of immediately without your participation.

New hearing pursuant to remand by Supreme Court; Rescheduled from March 16, 2007.

Please advise clients, witnesses, and others that it is a class B felony to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11,V in a courtroom or area used by a court.

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
Robert B. Muh
Clerk of Court

2/01/2007
Court Copy (caldr)
cc: Brian J.S. Cullen, Esq.
Nancy J. Smith, Esq.
AOC Form SUCP080 (Rev. 10/09/2001)

(Sticky note attached to document, transcribed below)
Murray vs. State Pls. return file to me for further action on remand 1/17/07 - Schedule for 2 Hr. hearing per TJV. (3/16/07 @10:00)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:20:45+00:00

DISBURSEMENT/TRANSFER REQUEST
Docket Number 2005-E-383 Date 4 / 10 / 06
Name of Case: Frederick Murray v. Special Investigation Unit, et al
Check Amount: $3.18
Pay To:___________
Name ___________
Address___________
Reason for Disbursement:[ ] Court Ordered [ X ] Other - Amount of postage for mailing transcript to counsel
Additional Information: ___________
Requested by ADB (initials) Reviewed by ___ (initials)
4/11/06 - Transfer done CH
PLEASE SUBMIT FORM TO PERSON AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE CHECK
Superior Court/Sustain form/Rev. 04/03/02/SU Disb.doc

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:21:02+00:00

DISBURSEMENT/TRANSFER REQUEST
Docket Number 2005-E-383 Date 4 / 10 / 06
Name of Case: Frederick Murray v. Special Investigation Unit, et al
Check Amount: $67.50
Pay To: Name: Brenda K. Hancock, CSCR, RPR
Address: 31 Flanders Street
Enfield, NH 03748

Reason for Disbursement:[ ] Court Ordered [ X ] Other - Payment for preparation of transcript
Additional Information: 1/18/06 Hrg.
Requested by ADB (initials) Reviewed by RT (initials)
Ck #1456 issued 4/10/06 - CH
PLEASE SUBMIT FORM TO PERSON AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE CHECK
Superior Court/Sustain form/Rev. 04/03/02/SU Disb.doc

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:21:16+00:00

DISBURSEMENT/TRANSFER REQUEST
Docket Number 2005-E-383 Date 4 / 10 / 06
Name of Case: Frederick Murray v. Special Investigation Unit, et al
Check Amount: $104.32
Pay To: Name: Gallant & Ervin, LLC Address: One Olde North Road, Suite 103 Chelmsford, MA 01824

Reason for Disbursement:[ ] Court Ordered [ X ] Other - Refund of transcript overpayment
Additional Information: _________ Requested by ADB (initials) Reviewed by RT (initials)
Ck #1458 issued 4/10/06 - CH
PLEASE SUBMIT FORM TO PERSON AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE CHECK
Superior Court/Sustain form/Rev. 04/03/02/SU Disb.doc

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:21:32+00:00

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY
3785 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE HIGHWAY
NORTH HAVERHILL, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03774

ROBERT B. MUH, CLERK
ROSElMA T. TUCKER, DEPUTY CLERK

TELEPHONE: (603) 787-6961
WWW.COURTS.STATE.NH.US
TTY/TOO RELAY: (800) 735-2964
(Letterhead)

April 10, 2006

Timothy J. Ervin, Esq.

Gallant & Ervin, LLC
One Olde North Road, Suite 103
Chelmsford, MA 01824

Re: 2005-E-383 Frederick .J Murray v Special Investigation unit of the Division of State police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety. et al

To the above:

Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $104.32, payable to Gallant & Ervin, to return the balance of the deposit made for the preparation of the transcript of the January 18, 2006 hearing in the above-entitled matter, after payment of actual expenses.

Please be advised that your copy of the transcript was sent to you April 10, 2006 under separate cover.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Muh, Clerk

RBM/adb
enclosure

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:21:42+00:00

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY
3785 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE HIGHWAY
NORTH HAVERHILL, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03774

ROBERT B. MUH, CLERK
ROSElMA T. TUCKER, DEPUTY CLERK

TELEPHONE: (603) 787-6961
WWW.COURTS.STATE.NH.US
TTY/TOO RELAY: (800) 735-2964
(Letterhead)

April 10, 2006
Brenda K. Hancock, CSCR, RPR
31 Flanders Street
Enfield, NH 03748

Re: 2005-E-383 Frederick.J Murray V Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al

To the above:

Enclosed please find a check in the amount of $67.50, payable to yourself, for the preparation of an original and two copies of the January 18,.2006 hearing in the above entitled matter.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Muh, Clerk
RBM/adb
enclosure

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:21:54+00:00

BRENDA K. HANCOCK, CSCR, RPR
31 FLANDERS STREET
ENFIELD, NH 03748
(603)632-7547
brhancock@tnsn.com
TRANSCRIPT INVOICE
DOCKET NO.: 05-E-383
CASE NAME: FREDERICK MURRAY V. SPECIAL INVESTIGATION UNIT, ET AL.
COUNTY: GRAFTON
COURT CODE: 215
TYPE OF TRANSCRIPT: EXPEDITED FINAL HEARING ON 1/18/06
NO. OF PAGES: 18
ORIGINAL: 1
COPIES: 2
EXPEDITED: N
OVERNIGHT: N
APPEAL: Y
BY PARTIES: Y
INDIGENT: N
BY COURT: N
TOTAL DUE: $67.50
DATE SUBMITTED: 4/6/06

BRENDA K. HANCOCK

PLEASE REMITPAYMENT TO: BRENDA K. HANCOCK, CSCR, RPR31 FLANDERS STREET ENFIELD, NH 03748

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:22:05+00:00

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY
3785 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE HIGHWAY
NORTH HAVERHILL, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03774

ROBERT B. MUH, CLERK
ROSElMA T. TUCKER, DEPUTY CLERK

TELEPHONE: (603) 787-6961
WWW.COURTS.STATE.NH.US
TTY/TOO RELAY: (800) 735-2964
(Letterhead)

April 10,2006

Eileen Fox, Clerk
New Hampshire Supreme Court
Noble Drive
Concord, NH 03301
Re: 2005-E-383 Frederick.J Murray V Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al
(Grafton County #2005-E-383; Supreme Court #2006-0113)

To the above:

Enclosed please find the original transcript of the January 18, 2006 final hearing in the above-entitled matter.

A copy of the transcript is being mailed this date, along with a copy of this letter, to Attomey Timothy J. Ervin and Attomey Daniel J. Mullen.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Muh, Clerk

RBM/adb enclosure pc: Timothy J, Ervin, esq.
Daniel J. Mullen, Esq.

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:23:39+00:00

AKA Murray 016

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY
3785 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE HIGHWAY
NORTH HAVERHILL, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03774
ROBERT B. MUH. CLERK
ROSELMA T. TUCKER, DEPUTY CLERK
TELEPHONE: (603) 787-6961 WWW.COURTS.STATE.NH.US TTY/TOO RELAY: (800) 735-2964 (Letterhead)

March 16, 2006

Brenda K. Hancock
31 Flanders Street
Enfield, NH 03748

Re: Frederick J Murray V Special Inyetigation Unit et al
(Grafton County # 05-E-383; Supreme Court # 2006-0113)

Dear Brenda:

The Court is in receipt of a Supreme Court Order accepting the appeal in the above-entitled matter.

Enclosed please find a transcript request form, one original monitor tape, and copies of the monitor's log sheets from the January 18, 2006 hearing in the above entitled matter, which was held here in the Grafton County Superior Court before the Honorable Timothy J. Vaughan.

Please prepare an original and two copies of the transcript from the January 18, 2006 hearing.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Muh, Clerk

RBM/kfb
enclosures

pc: Eileen Fox, Clerk of Supreme Court (w/out enclosures)
Timothy J. Ervin, Esquire (Without enclosures)
Daniel J. Mullen, Esquire (without enclosures)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:24:04+00:00

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM

Date Transcript Due	Date Order Prepared: 3-16-06
TRANSCRIPT ORDER INFORMATION:	CASE INFORMATION:
1. Jurisdiction	7. Court processing transcript request
[x]Superior Court	a. Court: Grafton County Superior Court
[ ] Hearing/Trial	b. Mail Address: 3785 Dartmouth College Highway
[ ] District Court Appeal	No. Haverhill, NH 03774
	c. Phone Number 603-787-6961
2. Order for (check those applicable)	d. Processed by: Karen F. Bragg
a. [ X ]Appeal [ ] Non-appeal
b. Type of Proceeding:	8. Case Information
Expedited Final Hearing - entire proceeding	a. Date of Proceeding: January 18, 2006
3. Transcript Request:	b. Equipment Operator: Angela D Bemis
(specify dates & portions)	c. Presiding Official: Timothy .1 Vaughan
January 18, 2006 entire transcript	d. Case Number(s): 05-E-383
4. Transcript prepared by:	e. Case Name: Frederick J. Murray V Special
Brenda Hancock	Investigation Unit of the Division of State police of the
	New Hampshire Department of Safety at al
5. Order	9. Appearances
Category #Copies pg cost	PLAINTIFF
[ X ] Ordinary 2 - $93.75
[ ] Expedited	1. Name: Timothy J. Ervin Esquire
[ ] Other	Address: GALLANT & ERVIN
	1 Qlde North Road Chelmsford MA 01824
Estimated Total $93.75	Phone # 978-256-6041
	2. Name:
6. payment	Address:
a. [ ] Indigent Defense	Phone #
b. [ ] Motion for Services Approved	DEFENDANT
c. [ ] Statement for Services	A. Name: Daniel J MulIen Esquire
	Address: Office of the Attorney General
d. [ ] AOC (Court Ordered)	33 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301
	Phone#: 271-3658
e. CASH Amount Date proc by
Deposit pd $175.00 3-15-06 tmb	B. Name: Jeffery Strelzjn Esquire
Total Due	Address: Office of the Attorney General
	3 Capitol Street Concord NH 03301
Trans. Ordered	Phone # 271-3671
Trans. Received	GUARDIAN
	A. Name:
	Address:

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:24:17+00:00

This page contains a certified receipt addressed to:
Brenda Hancock
31 Flanders St.
Enfield, NH 03748
Article # 7003 0500 0003 7559 6005 Certified Mail
Signed 3/18/06 by Brenda Hancock
Date stamp: 6CSC '06 MAR 21 AM 9:44

CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
Postage: $1.35
Certified Fee: $2.40
Return Receipt Fee: $1.85
Total Postage Fees: $5.60
Brenda Hancock
31 Flanders St.
Enfield, NH 03748

STAMP
MAR 17 2006
NORTH HAVERHILL NH 03774 USPS

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:27:34+00:00

AKA Murray 017

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d8zwctp/

Note: Page 2 below

Grafton Superior Court Receipt 3-15-06 11:49 AM Transcription Deposit $75

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:28:29+00:00

AKA Murray 018

Gallant & Ervin
(Letterhead)

February 16, 2006

VIA HAND DELIVERY Clerk of Court Office
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
One Noble Drive
Concord, NH 03301

Re: Filing of Notice of Appeal
Frederick J. Murray v. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police
of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al.

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed please find the following for filing in the above-named matter:

• One (1) Original Notice of Appeal;
• Three (3) Copies of Notice of Appeal; and
• Filing Fee in the amount of $145.00.

Kindly file in your usual manner.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. Ervin

Enclosures
cc: Clerk of Court Office
Grafton County Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
North Haverhill, NH 03774

Counsel of Record

Opposing Parties

Gallant & Ervin. LLC [] Attorneys at Law
One Olde North Road [] Suite 103 [] Chelmsford, MA 01824 [] tel (978) 256-6041 [] fax (978) 256-7977 [] www.gallant-ervin.com

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:30:20+00:00

AKA Murray 021

(Fax Cover)

DATE: 1/26/06
TO: Erica Gesing
ADDRESS: Galliant & Ervin
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX/TELECOPIER NUMBER: 978-256-7977
FROM: Grafton County Superior Court
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 6
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE. ALL OF THE PAGES SENT, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY AT (603) 787-6961
MESSAGE:

'06 1/26 THU 13:48 FAX 6037876863 GRAFTON SUPERIOR COURT 001
**********************
*** TX REPORT ***
**********************

TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 4034
CONNECTION TEL 101033319782567977
CONNECTION ID GALLIANT&E
ST. TIME 01/26 13:46
USAGE T 02' 10
PGS. SENT 6
RESULT OK

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:30:39+00:00

(Fax Cover)

DATE: 1/26/06
TO: Daniel Mullen
ADDRESS: AG's Office
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX/TELECOPIER NUMBER: 271-2110 FROM: Grafton County Superior Court
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 6
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE. ALL OF THE PAGES SENT, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY AT (603) 787-6961
MESSAGE:

'06 1/26 THU 13:29 FAX 6037876863 GRAFTON SUPERIOR COURT 001
**********************
*** TX REPORT ***
**********************

TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 4032
CONNECTION TEL 101033316032712110
CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 01/26 13:27
USAGE T 02' 07
PGS. SENT 6
RESULT OK

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:30:52+00:00

(Fax Cover)

DATE: 1/26/06
TO: Brian Cullen
ADDRESS: Devine Millimet
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX/TELECOPIER NUMBER: 669-8547 FROM: Grafton County Superior Court
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 6
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE. ALL OF THE PAGES SENT, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY AT (603) 787-6961
MESSAGE:

'06 1/26 THU 13:33 FAX 6037876863 GRAFTON SUPERIOR COURT 001
**********************
*** TX REPORT ***
**********************

TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 4033
CONNECTION TEL 101033316036698547
CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 01/26 13:31
USAGE T 02' 09
PGS. SENT 6
RESULT OK

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:31:17+00:00

(Fax Cover)
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY
3785 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE HIGHWAY
NORTH HAVERHILL, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03774
ROBERT B. MUH. CLERK
ROSELMA T. TUCKER. DEPUTY CLERK
TELEPHONE:
(603) 787-6961
(Letterhead)

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET

DATE: 1/26/06
TO: Daniel Mullen
ADDRESS: AG's Office
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX/TELECOPIER NUMBER: 271-2110 FROM: Grafton County Superior Court
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 6
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE. ALL OF THE PAGES SENT, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY AT (603) 787-6961
MESSAGE:

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:31:47+00:00

(Fax Cover)
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY
3785 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE HIGHWAY
NORTH HAVERHILL, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03774
ROBERT B. MUH. CLERK
ROSELMA T. TUCKER. DEPUTY CLERK
TELEPHONE:
(603) 787-6961
(Letterhead)

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET

DATE: 1/26/06
TO: Brian Cullen
ADDRESS: Devine Millimet
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX/TELECOPIER NUMBER: 669-8547
FROM: Grafton County Superior Court
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 6
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE. ALL OF THE PAGES SENT, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY AT (603) 787-6961
MESSAGE:

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:31:59+00:00

(Fax Cover)
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY
3785 DARTMOUTH COLLEGE HIGHWAY
NORTH HAVERHILL, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03774
ROBERT B. MUH. CLERK
ROSELMA T. TUCKER. DEPUTY CLERK
TELEPHONE:
(603) 787-6961
(Letterhead)

FACSIMILE COVER SHEET

DATE: 1/26/06
TO: Erica Gesing
ADDRESS: Gallant & Ervin
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
FAX/TELECOPIER NUMBER: 978-256-7977
FROM: Grafton County Superior Court
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER: 6
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE. ALL OF THE PAGES SENT, PLEASE CALL US IMMEDIATELY AT (603) 787-6961
MESSAGE:

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:32:17+00:00

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPERIOR COURT
No. 05-E-383
Frederick J. Murray
vs.
Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriffs Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John J. Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police ill Twin Mountain; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2; and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety

ORDER ON THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCITON

Frederick J. Murray (hereinafter "the petitioner") has petitioned this Court for injunctive and other relief under RSA chapter 91-A, the Right-to-Know law. The petitioner seeks an injunction ordering various New Hampshire law enforcement agencies and officials (hereinafter "the respondents") to disclose records relating to the disappearance of his daughter, Maura Murray (hereinafter "Maura"). After a hearing on the merits on January 18, 2006, the Court finds and rules as follows.

Factual Background

Maura was last seen on the evening of February 9, 2004, alongside Route 112 in Haverhill, New Hampshire. The car Maura was driving had gotten stuck in a snow bank. A neighbor passing through the area reported the accident to law enforcement authorities, and a North Haverhill police officer arrived at the scene shortly thereafter. The officer found no sign of Maura -- only an abandoned 1996 black Saturn registered to the petitioner. Subsequently, law enforcement authorities in New Hampshire began an investigation into Maura's disappearance. To this date, Maura's location remains unknown.

Since Mama's disappearance, the petitioner has made repeated requests to obtain reports, log files, and all information and data from February 9, 2004 to the present relating to his daughter's case. The requests were made to the Grafton County Attorney's Office, the Office of the Attorney
1
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:32:29+00:00

(Continued)
General, Governor John Lynch, the Hanover Police Department, the Office of the New Hampshire State Police, State Police Troop F, New Hampshire Fish and Game, Office of the Commander of the Historic Case Unit, Major Crimes Division, and the University of Massachusetts Police at Amherst. Thus far, the respondents have disclosed motor vehicle accident reports and radio dispatch and log files not pertaining to Maura's case, but have otherwise denied the requests, explaining that the records fall within an exception to RSA 91-A created by the New Hampshire Supreme Court for law enforcement investigative files. See Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574 (1978). As a result, the petitioner filed a Bill in Equity with this Court, seeking injunctive relief under RSA 91-A:7 and attorney's fees and costs under RSA 91-A:8.

Discussion

The petitioner asserts that pursuant to RSA 91-A:4, he has made written requests to the respondents seeking copies of any and all non-privileged records pertaining to Maura's disappearance. He argues that because RSA 91-A applies to all state executive branch agencies and departments, including any board or commission of any state agency or authority, the respondents are mandated to comply with the strictures of the statute. Moreover, he contends that the records do not fall tmder any valid exemption from the Right-to-Know Law. The petitioner argues that if the Court finds that an exemption is applicable, then it should conduct an in camera review of the records in order to determine whether they are, in fact, exempt from disclosure.

The respondents do not contest that they are public entities subject to the directives of RSA 91-A. However, they argue that the majority of the records requested by the petitioner are investigatory in nature and have been compiled for law enforcement purposes, and therefore are exempt from disclosure. The respondents allege that release of the records at this time would impede the ongoing investigation concerning Maura's disappearance. The respondents cite Lodge v. Knowlton, 118 N.H. 574 (1978) and VaJ10US federal cases interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act ("FOlA") for authority.

Part I, article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides that "the public's right to access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted." The Right-to-Know Law provides that "[e]very citizen ... has the right to inspect all public records ... except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5." RSA 91-A:4, I (Supp. 2005). It was enacted
2
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:33:41+00:00

(Continued)
"to ensure ... the greatest possible public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies." RSA 91-A:1.

To advance the purposes of the Right-to-Know Law, the Court interprets provisions favoring disclosure broadly and exemptions narrowly. Union Leader Corp v. City of Nashua, 141 N.H. 473,475 (1996). Construing the law in this manner accomplishes "the statutory and constitutional objective of facilitating access to all public documents." Union Leader Corp. v. New Hampshire Housing Fin. Auth.. 142 N.H. 540, 546 (1997). When the Court reviews exemptions from the Right-to-Know Law, it must ''balance the public interest in disclosure of the requested information against the government interest in nondisclosure." City of Nashua, 141 N.H. at 475. Because exemptions under the Right-to-Know Law are similar to those under FOlA, the Court "often look[s] to federal decisions construing the FOlA for guidance." Lamy v. New Hampshire Pub. Util. Comm'n, 152 N.H. 106, 108 (2005); see also Mans v. Lebanon School Bd., 112 N.H. 160, 162-63 (1972) and New Hampshire Housing Fin. Auth., 142 N.H. at 554. The New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that "the six-prong test of 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7) ... provides a good standard to effectuate the balance of interests required by RSA ch. 91-A with regard to police investigatory files." Lodge, 118 N.H. at 577. FOlA exempts investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would:
(A) interfere with enforcement proceedings;
(B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication;
(C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy;
(D) disclose the identity of a confidential source, and in the case of a record compiled by a law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by any agency conducting a lawful national security investigation, confidential information furnished only by a confidential source;
(E) disclose investigative techniques and procedures; or
(F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel.

Id. at 576 (quoting 5 V.S.C.§ 552(b)(7)). The Lodge Court determined that "[i]f the requested material is an 'investigatory record compiled for law enforcement purposes,' it may be withheld if the government can prove one of the six statutory adverse results. The agency, of course, must first
3
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:34:05+00:00

(Continued)
show that the file is 1) investigatory and 2) compiled for law enforcement purposes." rd. at 576-77 (citations omitted).

The respondents contend that exemption (A) applies to the records that the petitioner seeks[1]. They argue that the records at issue are investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, and pertain to an on-going investigation in which no indictments have been returned, and no arrests have been made. The respondents assert that law enforcement agencies continue to investigate Maura's disappearance, and that a state police detective monitors the case on a daily basis. At the hearing, the respondents made an offer of proof that the Criminal Justice Bureau of the Attorney General's Office is overseeing the investigation. They maintain that release of the records could result in destruction of evidence, chilling and intimidation of witnesses, and revelation of the scope and nature of the investigation. The respondents urge this Court to adopt the reasoning of In re State (Bowman Search Warrants), 146 N.H. 621 (2001), wherein the Supreme Court held that "in most pre-indictment criminal investigations, the existence of an investigation itself will provide the overriding consideration or special circumstance, that is, a sufficiently compelling interest, that would justify preventing public access to the records." rd. at 629 (citation and quotations omitted).

The petitioner's position is that invocation of the exemptions in § 552(b)(7) is misplaced, because: (1) law enforcement authorities have characterized Maura's case as a missing person matter and not a criminal investigation; and (2) the investigation does not appear to be ongoing. The petitioner argues that if the investigation has concluded, then he should be made aware of that fact, and any records should be turned over to him so that he can continue searching for information in the hopes of finding Maura. He asserts that the most compelling reason for disclosure in this case centers on the fact that Maura could very well be in danger, and disclosure of the information compiled by the authorities could help locate her.

Applying the six-prong test of5 U.S.c. § 552(b)(7) adopted in Lodge, this Court finds that records sought by the petitioner are investigatory in nature, and have been compiled for law enforcement purposes. Further, the Court finds that they should be exempt from disclosure, because production of the records would clearly interfere with enforcement proceedings. Even though

[1] The respondents further allege that other exemptions contained in § 552(b)(7) may apply to some of the records sought by the petitioner.
4
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:34:29+00:00

(Continued)
Maura's disappearance occurred almost two years ago, the respondents continually represent that her case is still active. Furthermore, the respondents persist that foul play has not been ruled out as a possible theory for Maura's disappearance. Considering that it sometimes takes several years even decades-for the State to prosecute major crimes, a lapse of two years is not a long period of time.

Although the petitioner cites the fact that Maura could be in danger as a compelling reason for requiring the respondents to disclose the records, the Court finds that it is precisely for this reason that the records should not be disclosed. This is an ongoing criminal investigation in which no arrests have been made. Release of the records could jeopardize the investigation and lead to, among other things, destruction of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, and loss of communications with entities providing confidential information. Balancing the public interest in disclosure of the requested information against the government interest in nondisclosure, the Court determines that in this case, the respondents' interest in preserving the integrity of the investigation outweighs the petitioner's interest in obtaining the records.

Finally, the Court finds that an in camera review of the records is not warranted, because the evidence proffered confirms that Maura's case is an on-going, active criminal investigation, and disclosure of the records could interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

Accordingly, the petitioner's request for injunctive relief under RSA 91-A:7 is DENIED. The petitioner's request for attorney's fees and costs is also DENIED.

SO ORDERED

SO ORDERED.

January 25, 2006

Timothy J. Vaughn
Presiding Judge

5

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:35:14+00:00

AKA Murray 023

Gallant & Ervin
(Letterhead)

January 11, 2006
VIA UPS Next Day

Clerk of Court Office - Equity Division Grafton County Superior Court 3785 Dartmouth College Highway North Haverhill, NH 03774

Re: Frederick J. Murray v. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al. Docket Number: OS-E-383

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed please find returns of service on the following Respondents in this matter:

• Grafton County Sheriffs Department;
• Grafton County Attorney's Office;
• The Honorable Kelly Ayotte Attorney General ofNew Hampshire;
• Governor John Lynch;
• Hanover Police Department;
• Colonel Frederick H. Booth, Director New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of State Police;
• Lieutenant John K. Scarinza Commander of State Police Troop F- New Hampshire State Police;
• State Trooper John Monahan Troop F - New Hampshire State Police;

Gallant & Ervin, LLC [] Attorneys at Law
One Olde North Road [] Suite 103 [] Chelmsford, MA 01824 [] tel (978) 256-6041 [] fax (978) 256-7977 [] www.gallant-ervin.com (Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:35:26+00:00

(Continued)
G&E
(Letterhead)

Letter to Grafton County Superior Clerk
January 11, 2006
Page 2.

• Lieutenant Todd J. Bogardus New Hampshire Fish and Game Department- Region 2; and
• Captain David W. Kelley Commander of the Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes New Hampshire Department of Safety, Division of State Police.

Kindly file in your usual manner. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Erica Gesing

Enclosures
CC: Respondents

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:36:41+00:00

AKA Murray 025-1

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
GRAFTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

ORDER OF NOTICE EXPEDITED HEARING

NO. 05-E-383

Frederick J. Murray vs. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police, et al

FILING DATE: 12/20/2005 HEARING DATE: 1/18/2006

An original Pleading, a true copy of which is attached, has been filed with this Court at the address of the Clerk stated below. It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

1. Frederick J. Murray shall cause true copies of the attached Pleading, this Order of Notice and any Orders made ex parte to be served, in a manner allowed by law upon Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriff's Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John J. Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2; and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety no later than Fourteen (14) days prior to the above hearing date and shall promptly file proof and return(s) of service with this Court; otherwise, this action may be discontinued without further notice.

2. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Grafton County Sheriff's Department; Grafton County Attorney's Office; New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte; New Hampshire Governor John J. Lynch; Hanover Police Department; Director of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety; Commander of the State Police Troop F in Twin Mountain; Troop F of the New Hampshire State Police in Twin Mountain; New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Region 2; and Historic Case Unit in Major Crimes of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety shall file a written appearance with this Court at the address stated below on or before the above Hearing Date, and shall cause true copies of such appearance to be delivered to the party or parties bringing this action, or their attorney if represented by an attorney.

3. All parties shall appear before this court for hearing on the attached Pleading at the Superior Court in N. Haverhill on January 18, 2006 at 11:00 AM.

Time allotted for this hearing: 30 min.

4. Any party who fails to file a written appearance as required above, or who fails to appear when scheduled before this court, may be subject to the issuance of such order as the court may find fair and just from the evidence and argument presented at hearing.
(Continued)

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:37:28+00:00

(Continued)
Please advise clients, witnesses, and others that it is a class B felony to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon as defined in RSA 625:11,V in a courtroom or areas used by a court.

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

12/20/2005

Robert B. Muh
3785 Dartmouth College Hwy.
N. Haverhill, NH 03774
603-787-6961

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:37:39+00:00

Gallant & Ervin
(Letterhead)

December 20, 2005

Clerk of Court Office
Grafton County Superior Court
3785 Dartmouth College Highway
North Haverhill, NH 03774

Re: New Filing Frederick J. Murray v. Special Investigation Unit of the Division of State Police of the New Hampshire Department of Safety, et al Petition for Injunction Pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law, NH RSA 91-A:7

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed please find the following for filing in the above-named matter:

• Bill of Equity;
• Memorandum of Law in Support of Preliminary Injunction; and
• Filing Fee in the amount of $145.00.

Kindly file in your usual manner.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. Ervin

Enclosures

Gallant & Ervin, LLC [] Attorneys at Law
One Olde North Road [] Suite 103 [] Chelmsford, MA 01824 [] tel (978) 256-6041 [] fax (978) 256-7977 [] www.gallant-ervin.com

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:45:12+00:00

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:45:25+00:00

EXHIBIT 1A

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:46:12+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d6pslv5/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:46:23+00:00

EXHIBIT 1B

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:46:49+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d6r7ige/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:47:01+00:00

EXHIBIT 1C

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:48:24+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d6pri2p/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:48:35+00:00

EXHIBIT2A

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:49:44+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d06y/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:50:33+00:00

AKA MURRAY 25-2

EXHIBIT 2B

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:51:32+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d2z6/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:51:54+00:00

EXHIBIT 3

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:52:22+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d3d5/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:52:44+00:00

EXHIBIT4A

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:53:26+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91db2q/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:53:36+00:00

EXHIBIT 4B

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:56:14+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d40c/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:56:21+00:00

EXHIBIT 5A

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:57:18+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d52g/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T05:57:27+00:00

EXHIBIT 5B

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:01:05+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d5de/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:01:26+00:00

EXHIBIT 6A

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:06:52+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d5qg/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:07:19+00:00

EXHIBIT 6B

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:07:47+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d60g/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:08:10+00:00

EXHIBIT 7

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:09:16+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4yq4rq/newspaper_articles/d7m0xa4/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:09:51+00:00

EXHIBIT 8

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:10:03+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91d90j/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:10:25+00:00

EXHIBIT 9A

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:13:20+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91db2q/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:13:28+00:00

EXHIBIT 9B

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:14:18+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e1ve/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:14:33+00:00

EXHIBIT 10

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:15:48+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e27c/ https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e2g2/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:17:26+00:00

EXHIBIT 11

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:17:35+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e2qa/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:18:32+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e2xy/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:19:18+00:00

EXHIBIT 12

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:19:35+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e3g7/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:19:45+00:00

EXHIBIT 13

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:20:43+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e40z/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:20:58+00:00

EXHIBIT 14

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:21:32+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e4ao/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:21:48+00:00

EXHIBIT 15A

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:22:31+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e4iw/

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:22:42+00:00

EXHIBIT 15B

[deleted] · 2016-10-21T06:23:12+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/57q0ba/transcript_murray_vs_new_hampshire/d91e573/

MauraMurrayEvidence

MODERATORS

Documents Released by New Hampshire Authorities

The transcribed documents are labeled consistently with the documents linked to at James Renner's site. For example, the document named "Murray 002-4" is labeled "AKA Murray 002-4" here. Note that some documents span more than 1 post.

I'm probably going to create two indexes: one to correspond with the document numbers and one in date order. But first I'm going to finish getting everything in and formatted.

Note that there are numerous redundant documents in the sets as released. I relinked to what I already transcribed.

No Plans to transcribe the Grafton County Sheriff Log here, or the accident report. So, 002-2, 002-3 (First 15 Pages) and 054 won't be here.

The complete and unaltered nature of the log files is discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4xrt2s/completeness_of_grafton_county_log_nature_of/

IN PROGRESS - ALMOST DONE!

IF PRINTED OUT, IT WOULD BE 234 PAGES.

EVERYTHING IN IS FORMATTED

In Other Documents

Page to Page, with immaterial exceptions

The Following Will Be Placed in Another Thread - As they are not directly relevant:

AKA Murray 005-1

AKA Murray 005-2

AKA Murray 006

AKA Murray 008

Note, Page 2 below:

Note, Page 3 below:

AKA Murray 009

AKA Murray010

AKA Murray 011

AKA Murray 012

North Haverhill, NH 03774-9758

AKA Murray 013

AKA Murray 014-1

AKA Murray 014-2

Note: The above link spans 2 pages in the original file.

AKA Murray 015

AKA Murray 016

AKA Murray 017

Note: Page 2 below

AKA Murray 018

AKA Murray 021

AKA Murray 023

AKA Murray 025-1

AKA MURRAY 25-2

MauraMurrayEvidence

MODERATORS

Welcome to Reddit,

Documents Released by New Hampshire Authorities

The transcribed documents are labeled consistently with the documents linked to at James Renner's site. For example, the document named "Murray 002-4" is labeled "AKA Murray 002-4" here. Note that some documents span more than 1 post.

I'm probably going to create two indexes: one to correspond with the document numbers and one in date order. But first I'm going to finish getting everything in and formatted.

Note that there are numerous redundant documents in the sets as released. I relinked to what I already transcribed.

No Plans to transcribe the Grafton County Sheriff Log here, or the accident report. So, 002-2, 002-3 (First 15 Pages) and 054 won't be here.

The complete and unaltered nature of the log files is discussed here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MauraMurrayEvidence/comments/4xrt2s/completeness_of_grafton_county_log_nature_of/

IN PROGRESS - ALMOST DONE!

IF PRINTED OUT, IT WOULD BE 234 PAGES.

EVERYTHING IN IS FORMATTED

In Other Documents

Page to Page, with immaterial exceptions

The Following Will Be Placed in Another Thread - As they are not directly relevant:

Want to add to the discussion?

AKA Murray 005-1

AKA Murray 005-2

AKA Murray 006

AKA Murray 008

Note, Page 2 below:

Note, Page 3 below:

AKA Murray 009

AKA Murray010

AKA Murray 011

AKA Murray 012

North Haverhill, NH 03774-9758

AKA Murray 013

AKA Murray 014-1

AKA Murray 014-2

Note: The above link spans 2 pages in the original file.

AKA Murray 015

AKA Murray 016

AKA Murray 017

Note: Page 2 below

AKA Murray 018

AKA Murray 021

AKA Murray 023

AKA Murray 025-1

AKA MURRAY 25-2