NH NH - Maura Murray, 21, Haverhill, 9 Feb 2004 - #10

[walkingdeadgirl]

I think she got into a car with someone. It would be hard to walk very far with that much alcohol in your backpack. The bottles would be clanking together and they'd be heavy. Plus there were no footprints.

It was snowing.

 

[Lolacat]

i have read in these threads many times that people seem to think maura's family know where she is or where she went, and i have to say, i really don't think that's the case. is FM potentially in denial about who his daughter was or what she was thinking? yeah, that sounds like a fair statement. i might even go as far as to say that some of her family may not want to hear any leads/ideas that paint her in a light they are not ready to see her in. but i don't think they are deliberately concealing anything from the public beyond the types of things that we would all hope our families would hold back in this situation. those of us who have been holding maura in our minds for these last 10 years may really want to have some of tidbits to better understand her, but we really they have no bearing at all on what happened to her that night and where she ended up the world.

not disagreeing with you really, just my own thoughts on this issue.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I genuinely dont think the Murrays know where Maura is or where she was heading that night. In that sense, I think they are just as much in the dark as everyone else. However, I find Fred's insistence that the days before she disappeared "DO NOT MATTER" to be extremely strange. Of course they matter- her actions right before she disappeared are directly related to where she might be now (be it alive, or not). If we knew where she was headed, and what her mental state was like, we can make informed decisions about what happened to her and it serves as a guide as to where to search. At best, I find Fred's insistence that "it does not matter" to be incredibly naive, and at worst, highly suspicious. Added to the fact that he has made inconsistent statements along the way is the reason why people view him with suspicion. Noone has set out to bash Fred just for the sake of bashing someone, it is because he *appears* to be trying to hide something. Thats why people are struggling to reconcile their natural empathy for a father who has lost his daughter with a nagging feeling that he knows more than he is letting on.
I strongly believe that the days just prior to Maura's disappearance are highly significant and hold the key to solving this case.

 

[Fireweed]

If a person consciously decides to give misleading information about a missing person's background, mental state, relationships, and other things that may help locate that person in order to retain a pristine image, that seems to have deliberate purpose to me.

I think for FM to immediately think Maura had run off with alcohol to commit suicide on a mountain like HE has always planned on doing at the end of his life can be seen as a sign that everything wasn'tgood with Maura and FM knew it. If you know it and it can help find her, why hide the truth? At the best, it will come out anyway. At the worst, people suspect you of having something to do with your daughter's disappearance.

Jmo.

Emphasis mine. I think Fred has tainted this case with his own issues. I think he has subscribed his own thoughts on suicide to Maura. Other than Fred saying that he would commit suicide that way, I have not seen indications that Maura would commit suicide that way.

 

[Lolacat]

If Maura did by some chance of fate manage to successfully disappear into the ether and start a new life, I honestly dont know how she could ever come forward now. Even if it was an anonymous tip off to the police. Its been 10 years. I would imagine that the best chance of her changing her mind and coming forward would have been within the first couple of months after the accident. If she was *that* motivated to escape her family then how on earth could she face them after 10 years?, 10 YEARS of them believing she is probably dead. I mean, she missed her mother's funeral- no matter how fractured their relationship was, it was still her mum. Even if she tipped the police off anonymously you just know that her family would look for her. There's not a chance in hell Fred would let that go. Its one of those situations where the longer you leave it, the harder it gets.

 

[Fireweed]

If Maura were alive, I do not think she would come forward, and that is why we need to keep looking for her.

 

[Aleph]

If Maura were alive, I do not think she would come forward, and that is why we need to keep looking for her.

If she is alive and safe and wants to stay hidden, that ought to be her choice. She would have sacrificed a lot to start a new life. She deserves privacy.

I personally do not believe that she is alive. But if she is, it must be strange to see how much people still care after all these years and how much energy some devote to looking for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fireweed]

She deserves privacy.

No she doesn't. Once her decisions resulted in lots of spent taxpayer money, time, and criminal investigations into several people, then she lost her "right" to privacy.

 

[Jane Birch]

It should also be noted that although Jean Caccavaro was 31 when she went missing, her husband claimed that she looked much younger, and was often mistaken for a teenager.

Hey one more thing: how come some aunt-by-marriage (or whatever) runs the Maura Murray facebook page? Why would that not be her siblings or her father? Julie Murray's cover photo is an island off the coast of Northern Ireland. I assume she has been there and took the photo. Did she look for Maura when she was there at all?

Seriously what does the immediate family know? They know something that is stopping them from actually looking for Maura. They say they are looking for her, but they are not. They absolutely are not. Fred is pissy with law enforcement and not one of Maura's siblings has any sort of social media presence with the purpose of finding her. I find that so damn odd. Their behavior makes no sense.

I am slowly starting to believe that Maura's siblings know where she is and are keeping it a secret. That is why they have the elderly "aunt" running the website. Something is really fishy about this. If my brother went missing I would be spending my free time getting his photo out to every corner of the earth, no matter how remote the possibilities. My mind would never run out of "what ifs." I would not have some low-key presence on facebook. I would be shouting from the rooftops. I should also add that I am a very private person, but if my brother went missing I would have a facebook page, a twitter account, etc totally dedicated to him. I would have his photos and the whole thing would be in many different languages and I would try and get the word out to anyone and everyone. Why have the Murrays not done this? Either they do not actually care about Maura or they know what happened to her.

Fireweed, it's easy for any of us who have not had a loved one go missing to sit here and say what we would or wouldn't do. But the truth is, we don't know, until it happens, how we would behave. What we'd be capable of bearing, what we wouldn't be able to handle. How we'd handle the press, the police, the uncertainty.

 

[Lolacat]

If she is alive and safe and wants to stay hidden, that ought to be her choice. She would have sacrificed a lot to start a new life. She deserves privacy.

I personally do not believe that she is alive. But if she is, it must be strange to see how much people still care after all these years and how much energy some devote to looking for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont think she is alive either. BUT, its a catch 22 isnt it? until we know she is either dead, or living freely and voluntarily by her own volition, then people will keep looking for her. Right now, we just dont know whether she "deserves privacy" because for all we know, she could be held captive in some guy's basement somewhere. All of our actions have consequences. If Maura went missing voluntarily then she would have known that this would be the consequence. She would have known that LE, her family and the community at large would all be searching for her. Its not about what she "deserves", its simply about knowing the consequences of our actions. I guess I just feel like, if you do something knowing what the consequences will be, then thats the price you pay for your actions. If the idea of the consequences are that abhorrent to you, then dont do it, KWIM?

 

[walkingdeadgirl]

No she doesn't. Once her decisions resulted in lots of spent taxpayer money, time, and criminal investigations into several people, then she lost her "right" to privacy.

That's not her fault, though. She's an adult, and adults have the right to go missing. (If that's what she did.) Legally she has never lost her right to privacy, nor has she committed a crime.

 

[walkingdeadgirl]

I dont think she is alive either. BUT, its a catch 22 isnt it? until we know she is either dead, or living freely and voluntarily by her own volition, then people will keep looking for her. Right now, we just dont know whether she "deserves privacy" because for all we know, she could be held captive in some guy's basement somewhere. All of our actions have consequences. If Maura went missing voluntarily then she would have known that this would be the consequence. She would have known that LE, her family and the community at large would all be searching for her. Its not about what she "deserves", its simply about knowing the consequences of our actions. I guess I just feel like, if you do something knowing what the consequences will be, then thats the price you pay for your actions. If the idea of the consequences are that abhorrent to you, then dont do it, KWIM?

I think if that was the choice she made, she didn't think it through carefully, or she convinced herself that people would give up looking and assume she was dead. Look how quickly FM jumped to "suicide". I think she thought that her family would do exactly what they have done, and she could live "happily ever after". I don't think she ever considered that 10 years down the road people from all over the country would care enough to still be looking for her.

 

[Fireweed]

That's not her fault, though. She's an adult, and adults have the right to go missing. (If that's what she did.) Legally she has never lost her right to privacy, nor has she committed a crime.

Maura has a right as an adult to go move anywhere she wants and not tell anybody, and you and I have a right to go looking for her. When people here spout off about Maura's "right" to go missing, they seem to be confused about what a "right" is. Maura's "right" is from the government. That is to say, the feds cannot force Maura to publicly reveal her location, or to live in one place over another. We here are not the government! Everyone needs to get that through their heads once and for all. We are perfectly entitled to go find out where someone lives. No, we cannot stalk them or slander them. We cannot trespass on her property. But can we track her down? Of course! There is no law against that. We have every right to do that. A person has no right to having the location where they live to be a big giant secret. That is most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Again, Maura has a right as a citizen of the United States to move wherever she wants. She cannot be forced to live in one place over another. She also has the right to not talk to her family and to not tell them where she lives. In another words, the State, the Feds, the courts, cannot force Maura to talk to her family. But Maura has no right to not have her location revealed. She has no right to not get a letter in the mail, or a phone call. She has no right to prevent someone from ringing the doorbell at her house. Now could she go to court and get a restraining order? Sure, but absent that, any person on earth can find her location and contact her.

 

[walkingdeadgirl]

Maura has a right as an adult to go move anywhere she wants and not tell anybody, and you and I have a right to go looking for her. When people here spout off about Maura's "right" to go missing, they seem to be confused about what a "right" is. Maura's "right" is from the government. That is to say, the feds cannot force Maura to publicly reveal her location, or to live in one place over another. We here are not the government! Everyone needs to get that through their heads once and for all. We are perfectly entitled to go find out where someone lives. No, we cannot stalk them or slander them. We cannot trespass on her property. But can we track her down? Of course! There is no law against that. We have every right to do that. A person has no right to having the location where they live to be a big giant secret. That is most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Again, Maura has a right as a citizen of the United States to move wherever she wants. She cannot be forced to live in one place over another. She also has the right to not talk to her family and to not tell them where she lives. In another words, the State, the Feds, the courts, cannot force Maura to talk to her family. But Maura has no right to not have her location revealed. She has no right to not get a letter in the mail, or a phone call. She has no right to prevent someone from ringing the doorbell at her house. Now could she go to court and get a restraining order? Sure, but absent that, any person on earth can find her location and contact her.

Because she is missing, and as long as she remains classified as such, her life remains an open investigation. If she is alive and uncomfortable with the case attention of if someone gets too close, she can notify LE without ever contacting her family directly, and they would close the case.

I happen to think everyone has the right to expect a degree of privacy, and if I received unwanted mail to my unlisted address from someone on these forums, for example, I would do everything legally under the sun to discourage it. Here is my Big But...Maura is part of an open investigation, so to me, it is different. Obviously if we discovered her in Omaha, living the dream, I wouldn't be her pen pal, but until then, I don't feel hypocritical about violating her privacy.

 

[Fireweed]

Because she is missing, and as long as she remains classified as such, her life remains an open investigation. If she is alive and uncomfortable with the case attention of if someone gets too close, she can notify LE without ever contacting her family directly, and they would close the case.

I happen to think everyone has the right to expect a degree of privacy, and if I received unwanted mail to my unlisted address from someone on these forums, for example, I would do everything legally under the sun to discourage it. Here is my Big But...Maura is part of an open investigation, so to me, it is different. Obviously if we discovered her in Omaha, living the dream, I wouldn't be her pen pal, but until then, I don't feel hypocritical about violating her privacy.

I would not feel that we are violating her privacy at all if we were to send her a letter to an unlisted address. An unlisted address does not mean that you do not have an address and that people cannot send you mail there. What would be a major violation of Maura's privacy? Illegally accessing her medical records, or breaking into her house, or putting cameras in her bedroom, or going through her mail. Finding out where she works, lives, and what she does out in the public sphere would not be.

 

[Lolacat]

Maura has a right as an adult to go move anywhere she wants and not tell anybody, and you and I have a right to go looking for her. When people here spout off about Maura's "right" to go missing, they seem to be confused about what a "right" is. Maura's "right" is from the government. That is to say, the feds cannot force Maura to publicly reveal her location, or to live in one place over another. We here are not the government! Everyone needs to get that through their heads once and for all. We are perfectly entitled to go find out where someone lives. No, we cannot stalk them or slander them. We cannot trespass on her property. But can we track her down? Of course! There is no law against that. We have every right to do that. A person has no right to having the location where they live to be a big giant secret. That is most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Again, Maura has a right as a citizen of the United States to move wherever she wants. She cannot be forced to live in one place over another. She also has the right to not talk to her family and to not tell them where she lives. In another words, the State, the Feds, the courts, cannot force Maura to talk to her family. But Maura has no right to not have her location revealed. She has no right to not get a letter in the mail, or a phone call. She has no right to prevent someone from ringing the doorbell at her house. Now could she go to court and get a restraining order? Sure, but absent that, any person on earth can find her location and contact her.

This is very true, and its something that used to deeply concern me when I did placements in forensic units. Anyone who knew my full name could theoretically look me up on the electoral roll and find my home address. Anyone can do this- its perfectly legal.

 

[JamesRenner]

Yeah, there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution, contrary to popular belief.

 

[Fireweed]

Yeah, there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution, contrary to popular belief.

There is no express right to privacy, though several amendments have been interpreted as protecting some aspects of personal privacy. For example, the 4th amendment protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. The threshold question as to whether a search or seizure is "unreasonable," is whether the citizen had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The constitution does protect privacy (in some circumstances), what it does not guarantee is a positive right to privacy. In other words, it is not up to a government actor to keep it secret where you live or work.

When LE in missing persons cases says that the adult has a "right" to disappear, what they mean is that LE has no business to go looking for them in their capacity as a government actor. It does not mean that other private citizens are not allowed to go looking for them. It does not mean that the government has a positive duty to protect that person's decision to drop of the radar.

The Supreme Court has, on several occasions, interpreted the constitution to protect an individual right to privacy, but it has always been as that right relates to a government action.

Maura Murray's "right" to take off and start a new life does not extend to us as private fellow citizens. We have no obligation to protect that right, and we are perfectly entitled to look for her.

 

[goldiegirl]

I think when people talk about her "rights" some are speaking legally, while others are speaking ethically. Although legally we may be "perfectly entitled to look for her," (to quote Fireweed), I think maybe some are trying to say that they believe that ethically she should be left alone. I think the two concepts are being confused.

 

[Jerri Blank]

can someone clear this up for me though:

i thought if a person went voluntarily missing and was located by the police, they had the right to say they did not want their location to be revealed, but that the authorities would still notify whomever filed the MP report that this person was not in fact missing?

there may not always be a huge media circus around the fact that a person has been found to have disappeared voluntarily, and potentially a family could go on appealing to the media to "find" their "missing" loved one, but at least from official stand point, after the point of notification, the person would (or should) be removed from all MP databases, therefore ensuring no one wastes time thinking a UID is this person. I often see people quietly removed from places like NamUs, presumably because they are located one way or the other.

is this not standard procedure?

 

[Lolacat]

can someone clear this up for me though:

i thought if a person went voluntarily missing and was located by the police, they had the right to say they did not want their location to be revealed, but that the authorities would still notify whomever filed the MP report that this person was not in fact missing?

there may not always be a huge media circus around the fact that a person has been found to have disappeared voluntarily, and potentially a family could go on appealing to the media to "find" their "missing" loved one, but at least from official stand point, after the point of notification, the person would (or should) be removed from all MP databases, therefore ensuring no one wastes time thinking a UID is this person. I often see people quietly removed from places like NamUs, presumably because they are located one way or the other.

is this not standard procedure?

I would imagine the police would simply close the case/investigation on the basis that the missing person has been located. They would NOT reveal to the family where the missing person's location was if the person specified that. However, that does not mean the family would be unable to search for the person's address themselves. It would be perfectly legal for them to do that. Unless the missing person has a restraining order against the family, there is no law saying they cannot locate the missing person and attempt to contact them. I'm not sure how easy it is to obtain a restraining order but I believe the judge would require some kind of evidence/justification as to why you need it.