Retired UMass Cop Robert Chip Thrasher Follows Maura Murray Case

As Thrasher might say, hhhhhhmmmmm.

Advice from UMass-Amherst Police Department

Apparently, Lt. Thrasher (ret.), as supported by this article in the UMass Daily Collegian, has an abiding interest in the Maura Murray disappearance. Seems like he would make a good source for someone covering the story. Brian Davies, too.

After all, both Thrasher and Davies would know about the Corolla crash. Both would presumably know 1) the cadet who was supposedly at the Corolla crash, 2) that Maura was headed back to the Hadley motel as originally planned (as apparently stated in a TV interview with Maura's father), 3) and that the Corolla was inspected for its potential connection to the Vasi hit. Also, that, according to a motel employee, no detective had ever gone to the Hadley motel to verify that Maura had in fact stayed there, although she was apparently overheard throwing up in the bathroom off the motel lobby.

And I can conclude only that any cop as familiar with the Murray disappearance as were Thrasher and Davies also knew about the vandalism to my backyard. (I had told Skinner about it to his face.) But no cop ever bothered to say a single word about it, let alone regard it as a possibly important lead.

So if they knew all these things, then it seems like they would make good sources of both true information and plain, old misinformation for anyone with eager ears and a keyboard.

So, what they did not look into, which seems to amount to quite a few things, might indicate what they actually did take an interest in.


I wonder how they felt about my asking Officer Skinner a few questions in 2008, questions about where the Saturn may have actually been parked on a Thursday night in February 2004, four and a half years earlier. I wonder who, above rank in Skinner, approved the no-trespass order, and why. Because Skinner sure was clueless when he served it.

Although I'm not really clear what Thrasher meant when he said "believe in the author James Renner," I do wonder whether Thrasher ever followed Renner's You Tube channel and saw these comments among the roughly 3400 other comments posted over the course of several years, all under one video (Happy Anniversary).

Which makes me wonder whether every cop (and their many private-sector/non-profit associates) in Franklin and Hampshire counties knew all about these comments - for years.

Northwestern District Attorney David E. Sullivan's office (NWDAO) has never had a problem with the comments, for several years, nor with who actually wrote them, which certainly helps confirm their real source. (Stupid me, all this time I thought NWDAO was very pro-active in the anti-bullying department. Apparently, they make some exceptions, as was partly explained by NWDAO spokesperson Mary E. Carey.)

Maggie Freleng and Art Roderick: The Tough Question

One of the more dramatic and controversial moments in the recent Oxygen Media series, The Disappearance of Maura Murray, occurred when Maura's father, Fred Murray, was asked by journalist Maggie Freleng whether he had ever sexually assaulted Maura. 

Both Maggie Freleng and Art Roderick asserted during a subsequent True Crime Garage (TCG) interview [see italicized update below] that Fred himself had neither heard nor ever been told about these rumors of sexual assault, which have been floating around the internet for nearly a decade.

UPDATE 19 OCTOBER 2020: I noticed the above link to TCG Episode 152 was dead. The episode was deleted and republished on 07 November 2017. This is the correct link. In my transcript, I have update the times for the original episode, which now match the episode of 07 November 2020. The important dialogue remains the same. In the revised TCG show, the dialogue begins with the Captain’s question at 42:46. I do not know why the original episode was taken down, presumably by TCG.

While Freleng said she was “taken off guard” by Fred’s answer, Roderick said he “kinda knew the answers [Fred] was going to give us.”

Here’s a transcript excerpted from the TCG interview posted on You Tube 25 October 2017.

42:47

TCG: What was the hardest question you [Freleng and Roderick] had to ask during the interview process and to whom?

42:53

MF: ...definitely asking Fred if he sexually assaulted Maura... We also thought he knew about that rumor. We were both even surprised at [Fred’s] reaction.

43:29:

MF: I thought [Fred] was ready for that question. Turns out he had never actually heard that before. And it was pretty difficult because I was very caught off guard. I just thought [Fred] was going to go, “absolutely not, that never happened, you know, that scumbag James Renner...” and I was caught off guard by [Fred’s] reaction.

43:52

AR: But his reaction was completely genuine. I mean, there was no doubt. I mean, he had never heard that before.

44:28

AR: And [Fred] was completely taken aback. That was probably by far the toughest question. And his reaction, I thought, was completely genuine. And he was really upset about it.

44:58

MF: This is a question that needed to be addressed because people would not stop talking about it, and it was out there. And he had never been asked that.

  

46:25

TCG: While we’re on the subject of talking to Fred Murray... Art, one thing I noticed throughout the documentary was that when you are asking questions, you are very busy with pen and paper, jotting down notes, taking notes, and when you spoke with Fred, there was a much different approach. You put the pen and paper aside and you were really focusing in on his face and his eyes. We all know that Fred’s an animated character and that he talks with his hands. What was your strategy there?

47:18

AR: We probably sat down with [Fred]... three or four times for different interviews and this was going to be the toughest one. And I just wanted to look at his reaction to all this. And I kinda knew what he was going to say anyway.

47:39

AR: In this particular case, we kinda knew the answers he was going to give us to these questions, and, you know, if something different had came out, then of course I would have written something down. But, you know, I kinda knew [how] he was going to come across and I just wanted to, to look him in the eye, and, and, you know, get his, his true reaction and I think that’s exactly what we got.

***********

On 15 March 2016, at least several months before the interview with Fred Murray, John Smith posted on his blog a statement apparently written by Fred, a short excerpt of which appears here:

I’ve recently been shown two very early comments by the author of a blog about my daughter, Maura, that represent the most insidious and reprehensible tactic that I can possibly imagine. This is from November 3, 2011, “she came to his single bed motel at 2:30 in the morning,” and was reinforced on March 19, 2012, with “sleeps in the bed.” Again, the bed reference is singular, indicating two people in one bed. The insinuation here is one hundred percent clear and could be interpreted as an obvious ploy by the blogger to create a scenario in which the reader can be influenced and encouraged to envision something unspeakably horrible. To contrive an allusion to the worst thing that a person could possibly be accused of in the history of mankind is beyond despicable. Is the blogger trying to create a sinister character to embellish the “narrative” he hopes to peddle? Is he attempting to shape his “story” toward the direction he wants it to go for promotional purpose?

***********

The above statement of 15 March 2016 was followed on 13 October 2017, also on John Smith’s blog, by “Fred Murray’s Updated Statement.”  The updated statement, published by Smith six days after the "tough question" interview aired, omits any reference to the “something unspeakably horrible” that was mentioned in the original statement.

(It should be noted that the actual text of the "Updated Statement" contains the date-header "June 30, 2016," but the WordPress date stamp reads "October 13, 2017.")

Did Freleng, Roderick, and Texas Crew Productions do all their homework? Did Art Roderick “put the pen and paper aside” because he was scouting for law enforcement? Was Art watching for Fred’s “true reaction?” What, exactly, did Art mean when he used the words, "true reaction?" Was Art expecting Fred to express a false reaction beneath which Art could determine a true reaction?

Fred said he turned down James Renner's request(s) for an interview because of his, Fred's, opinion of a previous book by Renner (presumably, Amy: My Search for Her Killer or The Serial Killer's Apprentice).  It appears Fred may not have spent as much time reading Renner's more recent book, True Crime Addict, a book about Fred's own daughter - at least not the part Fred seemed so upset about and, apparently, unacquainted with.

My Sister

Chi O's mascot is the owl.

Same Eckstein, Missing Maura Murray podcast, episode 11:

So, whom (haha) could blame them for being pro-active? But how do they identify a "would-be perpetrator?" And how, exactly, do they prevent him from offending?

How, precisely, is he "contained in advance?" By a little pre-crime? A little Minority Report? A little thought police? Which is now called "threat assessment?" By stalking his every move and letting him know they’re never far off, always watching him?

Isn't that how freaks are created? By attaching Chi O's "would-be perpetrators" label so that we can better leer at them, rant about them, belittle them, threaten them, and despise them on social media?

Isn't that exactly what "To Catch a Predator" was really all about? A chance for the insecure to feel better about themselves by watching Hansen's freaks? A peep-show of "would-be perpetrators?" A vigilante crowd emboldened and enabled by police? 

Northwestern District Attorney David E Sullivan & Qanon

All screen shots below of death threats and the like are directed at me. They are JPEG images of a few of the roughly 3400 comments that were posted under the same YouTube video. I am the only person who appeared in that video. The comments cover a period of about five years. The YouTube channel owner has often been in contact with police in Hadley, Amherst, the University of Massachusetts, and Chatham MA. None of those departments will communicate with me either at all or in any useful way.

While consistent in sentiment, these vigilante-style comments are not representative of the entire body of comments submitted. Most of the other comments were just plain nasty.

The comments I've selected appeared more or less regularly over the time during which comments were enabled. On or near 10 January 2017, comments were disabled. The exact web address, now private, can be seen in the screen shots.

David E. Sullivan's Northwestern District Attorney's Office (NWDAO) - the jurisdiction of which consists of Hampshire County, Franklin County, and Athol - has known about these comments for years and, in fact, has, practically speaking, defended them.

From NWDAO: "...reports of online misconduct are too numerous to investigate each and every instance in which someone feels harassed or threatened by anonymous posters. In situations such as these, we generally advise people to consider refraining from posting material that others may find objectionable...”

Refrain from posting material that others may find objectionable? Seriously? Like what?

Does Sullivan find objectionable my asking why the Petrit Vasi investigation stopped when, almost to the minute, Maura Murray left town? The same Maura Murray who somehow appears to have avoided arrest by Hadley police for OUI? While she was with a UMass Police cadet who later became a cop? Is that what Sullivan is talking about here?

According to the logic used by Sullivan's NWDAO, they would likewise advise a woman who has been sexually assaulted to stop wearing short skirts. 

A lawyer like David E. Sullivan must surely regard logical consistency very highly. I can therefore conclude only that his obvious double-talk is an exception because he is actually defending, without admitting it, the fact that the source of a huge amount of online harassment, including more than one hundred threats to harm or kill me, comes from QAnon / Truther cops within his jurisdiction. Not to mention a unit within his own office.

Almost all the comments are very carefully worded, deliberately so, and hence do not quite constitute, individually, violations of any law. But collectively, their intent is to instill fear. Sullivan knows this is true.

It is an ugly sign of the times that Maura Murray’s disappearance has, with avid help from QAnon-inclined police and private investigators, morphed into a crusade filled mostly with true crime vigilantes.

Yet the hit-and-run of Petrit Vasi, an immigrant from the Balkans, remains almost entirely forgotten despite the fact that Vasi was the obvious victim of a real crime, a true crime. He was very nearly killed. He is crippled for life.

There is, by contrast, no indication that a crime against Maura Murray ever even happened; Maura Murray, a woman whose utterly unknown fate commands cult-like worship while best exemplifying an instance of Missing White Woman Syndrome. This is exactly what energizes people like David E. Sullivan, who, like Burlington MA police chief Michael Kent, tacitly approves of QAnon, an outgrowth of the Truther movement.

Presumably, many in law enforcement throughout western Massachusetts have also known about these comments and the reason behind them. For five whole years.

Please click on any image in order to see a larger version of it.

UPDATE: The YouTube video under which the below comments appeared is, as far as I know, no longer accessible to the public. Perhaps it has been deleted altogether by the channel's owner. However, it has, in effect, been replaced by this video, among many others, complete with a similar, though often less violent, run of comments. But it all reflects the undercurrent of QAnon.