In case you haven’t been following the craziness that is the Maura Murray case recently, let me get you up to speed.
An attorney from Massachusetts, Joe Anderson, is suing the state of New Hampshire for access to crime scene photographs from the scene of Maura Murray’s accident. Anderson is an associate of Erinn Larkin, a friend of the Murray family, who was recently caught pretending to be an advocate for Billy Rausch’s stalking victim in order to scrub details of his assault from the Internet. It’s a whole thing.
Anderson was suspended from practicing law, in 2013, when he abandoned his clients.
Detectives for the New Hampshire Cold Case Unit do not want to release the records, saying it would create a media frenzy and further confusion in the case. They specifically cite the incident from August where someone went to great lengths to get me to publish a false story, claiming Maura Murray was seen with Erinn Larkin the day of her disappearance.
This person created a fake phone number and used the name of a real person who went to UMass at the time. He said he was traveling through Haverhill on the way to his buddy’s birthday party – he even used the name of another real UMass grad (who, in fact, was actually born on that day) for his friend. I spoke to this man on the phone and he told me the whole story again. Now, that’s enough for many journalists. I’d verified the names, the personal details, etc. It was enough to report on at that time. Luckily, something about it just seemed off and I didn’t.
At the same time, one person who was loudly demanding I release that info was Billy Rausch. Make of that what you will. To this day, we still don’t know the identity of the person who went to such lengths to fool police and the public. And the whole thing appears to have been an attempt to damage my credibility in a public way.
According to one law enforcement official close to the case, NH Cold Case Unit detectives are at their wits end with the actions of these trolls and of Erinn Larkin, herself, and have considered charging them with obstruction of justice. They lost patience with her after she attacked Haverhill Chief Cecil Smith before and after his suicide. Now that things have reached the level of the courts, this becomes more likely every day.
This.Is.Deplorable.
WHO HAS THE TIME TO DO THINGS LIKE THIS?
Don’t they know the lives they are destroying/upsetting/hurting, like HER FAMILY AND FRIENDS?
What I don’t get more than anything, is why the state of NH responds by stating even more “tight lipped” behavior, when so far that’s all they’ve done? I mean, I trust Strelzin for great reasons, but the rest of them? They are so gross and have no idea how to respond to situations like this. I’m glad they are wanting to protect information for future criminal charges, should they arise, don’t get me wrong, but this REEKS of the behavior of ONE particular person I won’t name, and if that doesn’t tell social media everything they need to know about her integrity and validity, nothing ever will.
Why do the Murrays even align themselves with these two people? Furthermore they are not thanking you James for getting this case the national spotlight it has. I just wonder if Helena or someone was still alive what they would think of this hijacking of the case. I smell a rat or two.
This behavior is precisely why commenters and readers stop engaging.
BS + Drama > Facts
Some of the more vocal characters should’ve given themselves a Time Out
from The iNet a looong time ago – I even told certain persons this – to no
avail. Not one person, several.
Now, there have been good discussions since I bailed, this is good,
but OF COURSE the drama continues. For the good of the case,
I thought it best to bail, because my presence just caused rancor.
As long as observers continue to point fingers at other observers,
I don’t see new information forthcoming, if such exists. There’s
absolutely NO REASON a person who engages in missing person
cases, for entertainment or a willingness to help in whatever way,
to be exposed to legal jeopardy, unless that person engages in a
provocative way against another person, especially without proof.
Suspicion is NOT proof. That goes for cops as well as private citizens.
It’s a pity that LE will not release these photos, because it WOULD
quell some of the spec. Yes, they will spur new spec, to be expected.
For example, what harm was done in FINALLY releasing The ATM Video?
From that release, we noted Maura had her hair up. By the time BA saw
her, the hair was worn down. Does that fact confirm Maura was driving?
No. Is it a useful clue? Not really. The REAL clue was she was wearing a
different coat than as described in her poster.
Related, I can understand private property owners adjacent the “crash scene”
wanting to steer clear from the case, not necessarily for the obvious reason of
guilt by association, but because of the What Ifs:
1. Suppose remains or evidence relevant to the case are discovered,
and a property owner is utterly innocent? How can they explain the
presence of any evidence? It’s therefore simple and easy to see why
they don’t wish to invite searchers on their properties: It would ex-
pose them to legal jeopardy. It takes MONEY to defend oneself.
2. Conversely, What If any of these propery owners ARE guilty?
How can we ever know UNLESS searches on said properties are
granted? So this is the dilemma case researchers face: Only until
ALL possible avenues of inquiry are exhausted can those avenues
be eliminated or confirmed. For that reason, this case is stuck.
3. Best Clues: The Red Truck, The Dog Walker’s Story. Most all
other clues are replete with noise. That’s it. That’s all we have.
Her scent? It tells us little. She either got into a car that no one
has seen, took a right down Bradley, doubled back in the direc-
tion from which she came, possibly even going down Old Peters.
Of course, RF lived across the street. But that’s all we have. The
phone calls, AIM, are all dead ends now because there was un-
timely followup and limitations inherent to phone technology.
We still can’t even make heads or tails as to WHY she was there
in the first place. She MISSED the exit for Rt89? C’mon.
Did she have a stalker? Possible but even that angle has little
evidence to support it.
As long as there’s an unwillingness to share information freely,
partly due to the litigious nature of persons “involved” in this
case, the investigation will go NOWHERE. The case will remain,
at best and as I’ve written before, a forty year-old case.
My Suggestion: All parties should DROP the threat of litigation,
stop taking sides, roll up their sleeves and GET SERIOUS about
sharing facts, not BS + Drama, if you care about solving the case.
As for myself, I’ll sit this out and stick to reading.
Thanks for sharing.