Monday, February 20, 2012

What was said on record...

On April 13, 2007, Sgt. Todd Landry and Assistant AG Jeff Strelzin appeared in Grafton County Superior Court to answer questions about why the investigatory file on Maura Murray should not be released. Assistant AG Nancy Smith represented the state's interest. Timothy Ervin represented Fred Murray. Here are some highlights:

Ms. Smith: What is the most recent activity? How recently has activity occurred in that matter?

Sgt. Landry: Just two -- three days ago, I was in contact with the law enforcement out in Ohio in regards to some human remains that had been found and they wanted to obtain dental records that we had in this case.

Ms. Smith: Do you have opinion as to whether this case is more likely than not to result in criminal charges?

Sgt. Landry: This may lead to criminal charges. My experience says it could go either way.

[later]

Ms. Smith: ...revealing the material that's been withheld might enable a person of interest to use what other witnesses have said to cover their tracks or to divert attention or muddy the waters. Is that something that you have had happen to you in other cases that you are investigating?

Sgt. Landry: Yes.

Ms. Smith: You have indicated that revealing material that has been withheld could endanger people that have talked to you, by providing that information to persons of interest...

Sgt. Landry: Yes.

At this point, Fred Murray's attorney, Timothy Ervin, tells the court that they are no longer seeking several categories of information due to concerns about privacy should the info become public record. These include tax records, polygraph examinations, criminal record checks, medical records and military records.

On cross-examination Timothy Ervin pushes Sgt. Landry to reveal whether or not there is a person of interest in the case and Ms. Smith objects:

Ms. Smith: I'm concerned about that, because, again, this is, to the extent this is a small community, the people know... the people, the identity of those people is fairly well known.

[later]

Mr. Ervin: Has [your investigation] generally focused on individuals.

Sgt. Landry: Individuals?

Mr. Ervin: Correct.

Sgt. Landry: Yes.

Mr. Ervin: Is the investigation currently ongoing as to those individuals?

Sgt. Landry: Yes.
Following testimony by Strelzin, Murray's lawyer leaves and Strelzin, Landry, and Smith provide "in camera" testimony about the specifics of the investigation ("in camera" means in the judge's chambers). Those records remain sealed to this day.

15 comments:

  1. "Sgt. Landry: Just two -- three days ago, I was in contact with the law enforcement out in Ohio in regards to some human remains that had been found and they wanted to obtain dental records that we had in this case."

    Wow. This is the first I have read about something like this. After reading the last few posts it would appear the LE is on to something or someone. You also wonder what the heck is taking so long to announce a person of interest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Body or final piece of the puzzle

      Delete
    2. They are probably talking about the skeletal remains of a young woman discovered on March 10, 2007 in Marion County, Ohio.

      According to the National Missing and Unidentified persons system (NamUs) (i.e., identifyus.org - Case #4725), this woman has already been ruled out as being Maura.

      However, I've seen other instances of missing persons listed in NamUs who were ruled out with respect to a specific unidentified decedent, and then later they find out that it actually was a match.

      Delete
  2. Individuals...plural..meaning they have a couple of a few in mind?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Im guessing they cant have much if nearly 5 years later there is still no conviction or is it normal for it to take this long?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the police are waiting for a POI to make a mistake, there is no normal. It could happen tomorrow-or never.

      Delete
  4. Ohio?! Are they talking about this Jane Doe?

    http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Enforcement/Unsolved-Cases/Unidentified-Remains/Unidentified/Doe-(3)

    I'm pretty sure Maura was ruled out in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo to cover the fact that they have nothing. IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Apparently Beagle has moved his "discussion" (with himself??) of this case to the Yankton, SD forums. Is he suggesting Maura was headed to NH to get married to avoid a blood test because she had tay-sachs?

    http://www.topix.com/forum/city/yankton-sd/TH3FF6GVSHIAO4QOK

    ReplyDelete
  7. Beagle definitely has re started this conversation with himself! My how he cannot lay off the fact that James has reposted the videos! Does he not see that re posting them so the public becomes aware of total insanity and posting them originally because you're a heartless creature are not one and the same? As far as the allegations that MM had a neurological disorder- plausible, but is it likely? Beagle just wants attention and it's pretty obvious that he and '112dirtbag' are in fact the same dirtbag.
    JW

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with anon at 12:07. LE likes to name POIs to amp up pressure. They are reluctant when they don't have - in their own minds - a real belief that there is a clear suspect who they just need to build the case against. They might have some inklings, but it I am not sure they have a suspect they are zero-ing in or even necessarily a single working theory that she was murdered. Some of this is just vestiges of the procedures for how this stuff is done. ~John G.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They were probably referring to these remains, found in March of 2007:

    http://mcoprx.co.marion.oh.us/sheriff/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=1

    These remains being Maura's was ruled out later:

    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-47829.html

    Brian

    ReplyDelete
  10. if that's the case, that doesn't necessarily show an on-going investigation by the nhsp, just that they received a call from another agency about a body that could have matched their description

    ReplyDelete
  11. So does Smith's reference to it being a small community suggest that they are looking at someone where the accident occurred?

    ReplyDelete