Author Topic: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 - Age 16 - Missing - Goderich  (Read 43906 times)

Shwa

  • Member
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #30 on: November 05, 2008, 03:37:25 PM »
Hey Syeina, "...the court declared..."

Yes, but this does not mean the public has declared or is held to the same standards as the courts.  There is a pretty healthy discussion about the Truscott case elsewhere on this site and I must concede that even though the courts declared his original conviction a miscariage of justice, they did not (could not) declare him innocent.

Syiena

  • Guest
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #31 on: November 05, 2008, 03:56:57 PM »
Hi Shwa,

my last posting, I made reference  to how the public may not agree, have their own opinions to what happened, I agree with that.  That's me!   To be honest, I have made little postings about Steve Murray as well, for crying out loud, I lived near the community, I had family and friends who knew the Murray family, but I still had my suspicions.

however, what I was trying to say earlier was that we need to remember that Steve Murray was tried and acquitted.  We have to keep that in mind.

Put ourselves in their shoes.  It could happen to anyone, be accused and tried of a crime we didn't commit.   

Again, I'm not saying that Mr. Murray's innocent.  I'm just saying what the court has determined.  And that we should take extra precaution when we're making a comment towards Mr. Murray, or Mr. Truscott.

As well, for Mr. Truscott - It wasn't necessarily that they couldn't declare him innocent - "As he was not declared factually innocent, a new trial could have been ordered, but this was a practical impossibility given the passage of time. Accordingly, the court acquitted Truscott of the murder"


DigDig

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #32 on: November 05, 2008, 10:12:18 PM »
Hey Dig Dig,

 So, while I agree that he ought to be left alone, searching for new evidence might touch him even if in a very tertiary way.

 But to what degree Mistie's alleged disorders come into play in her disappearance is anyone's guess especially IF the sightings of her afterward are to be believe where she appeared to be rational enough.

Very complex circumstances for sure, but in that complexity something just doesn't seem right and it is frustrating to be unable to articulate what it is.  The intuitive response to these circumstances, to me, is 'accident.'

On the other note, there should be a lengthy discussion on the Truscott case on this site that would frame my meaning of 'alleged.'   8)

An investigation into Mistie's disappearance  should not even have to touch Murray, even tertiary. That is because Mistie's movements from the  time she last spoke to her parents, to the time she disappeared had very little, if anything, to do with Steven Murray. So we do not in fact 'need' Murray at all. No reference has to be made. Mistie disappears by other means and hers and other people's movements are the  things that need to be  investigated.

The disorders that Mistie was said to have had, were of such a nature that  she couldn't have been deemed 'rational enough' in one instance  and irrational in another. Like I tried to explain, Mistie evidently could get irrational in a whim ie her sitting on laps of strange males, walking up to strangers and striking up a conversation. It is therefor very natural to include these traits in an investigation, they are  points to hold on to and  useful until proven to be of no value.

Yes, we can agree that this is one complicated case. However, one always needs some holding points to  even attempt to get further. To that end, Mistie's disorders work for me until I see strong proof to the contrary.

The sightings are also strong points to hold on to and  exploit to their fullest. You might disagree, since you stated earlier that a witness might have thought she was correct about the day of the sighting, but in fact wasn't.
Shwa, we must be allowed to assume the following: When a girl who is friends with Mistie sees her at a location on a certain day, her memory is a ok , she is young and she has stated  this sighting scores of times, then that person must be relied upon.
The same with the 2 cops in TO: Here we have 2 men who have been trained to be observant; who had no axes to grind with either side of the  fence; they only saw this kid begging on the street, then upon arrival at police HQ, they immediately  connected their sighting of the girl to the poster with Mistie's picture. Sightings like these can not be brushed off as unreliable like the cops wanted them to be.

As to your usage of the word 'alleged' we can just drop that one. It has so very little to do with finding Mistie really. I just want to  say that the Truscott thread you are referring to, is a rather disgusting discussion  to be reading now that we know that Truscott has been found not guilty. Still  the discussion kept carrying on with its "is he guilty or not'?
When will we ever be satisfied? What do we know how much we might traumatize his family and him by carrying on useless banter like that way after he has been found not guilty? As I read through the postings I was appalled at all the theories, hunches, 'feelings', and plain ill - or non-researched assertions.  Sure, I would welcome a thread entitled 'Who Killed Lynne Harper?' I mean, that would really have some teeth to it. But this unabashed Truscott battering has no place in a caring, justice-seeking discussion group. Just my opinion and I got my flame suit on  :)

DigDig

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2008, 10:25:54 PM »
Hey Syeina, "...the court declared..."

Yes, but this does not mean the public has declared or is held to the same standards as the courts.  There is a pretty healthy discussion about the Truscott case elsewhere on this site and I must concede that even though the courts declared his original conviction a miscariage of justice, they did not (could not) declare him innocent.

Maybe this belongs in another thread but here I go again...
... you know, shwa, why they 'only' declared him not guilty? That is because there is no clause in our criminal law to declare a person innocent once he has been convicted. It just won't work until they change the wording.
The times that they  have just had to buckle down and say that so and so is innocent is when they find DNA evidence or  the real killer  confesses. Still, even then, they have a hard time saying the word 'innocent'.

 Read up on David Milgaard who was acquitted on DNA evidence AND catching the killer; there are cops that to this day believe that Milgaard had a hand in it, that he could have killed Gail Miller even if Larry Fisher's DNA was found on her. Those are the obstacles we are up against in proving  Truscott innocent. Through on fault of his own, all physical evidence was destroyed, burned,  around 1964, as soon as the courts could legally do so , they took it all to the incinerator. Once a possible review in the Supreme Court was on the horizon, the evidence  in r.v.Truscott was destroyed. What does that tell us?

DigDig

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #34 on: November 05, 2008, 10:36:02 PM »


Again, I'm not saying that Mr. Murray's innocent.  I'm just saying what the court has determined.  And that we should take extra precaution when we're making a comment towards Mr. Murray, or Mr. Truscott.

As well, for Mr. Truscott - It wasn't necessarily that they couldn't declare him innocent - "As he was not declared factually innocent, a new trial could have been ordered, but this was a practical impossibility given the passage of time. Accordingly, the court acquitted Truscott of the murder"


Also, Sy,  We have to ask ourselves: what are we actually wanting to achieve, discussing these cases?We are trying to find out what happened to Mistie, and  who killed Lynne. In both instances there is  little to nothing we can  continue to get from either Steves that will help us in that quest. Sure, the names will come up in relation to, say, "what were Mistie's  last known steps?" or "what did Lynne talk about on the bike ride with Steve?"
the way I see it anyway...

Shwa

  • Member
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2008, 06:38:30 AM »
Dig Dig,

"An investigation into Mistie's disappearance should not even have to touch Murray, even tertiary."

Any cold case investigation will necessarily touch Steven Murray, that is unavoidable.  If it touches him briefly, it will still touch.  If there is another fine comb investigation into him that will happen too.  Until there are answers, Steven Murray will still be connected in one way of another - there is no statute of limitations on murder in Canada, nor is there a real double jeopardy law.  Do I think he is a suspect?  No.  But if something came to light to implicate him I wouldn't slough it off because the courts already acquitted him.

Mistie was "said to have had" certain disorders.  Yet all indications from the scant evidence that we know from the posters and articles show that she was fairly rational.  At one time she was well adjusted.  I think that IF she had some of those disorders, it MIGHT have had some impact on her disappearance.  But to what degree is a mystery and she didn't seem to be incapacitated by those alleged disorders.

The sightings are very interesting, but to how much they are reliable is another mystery (complication).  Just like all the sightings of Brandon Crisp in Barrie - how many of them were wishful or hopeful thinking?  We are about to find out.  However, I do know from experience that teenagers can make some wildly innocent mistakes when it comes to dates and times.  Her friend, likely did not make a mistake.  I also believe the person who saw her with her boyfriend was also likely correct.  However... should solid information come to light that would without-a-doubt disprove those sightings, I would be willing to look at that too.

As for Steven Truscott - also implicated by "eye witness" testimony, the thread I think is something that this site can develop.  I don't find rational discussion about guilt to be disgusting because there are strong opinions as to guilt and innocence out there in the wide world.  People ought to be allowed their opinion and calm, mature discourse ought to be allowed on such controversial subjects such as this or Truscott.

The point is that open-mindedness is an essential tool to examine any sort of criminal case.  Prejudice has caused more injustice in the world that any other human concern in all of human history.

DigDig

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2008, 01:42:04 PM »
Shwa,
 Reading your post, one saying came to mind: may cooler heads prevail. Your retort spoke of cool so I will leave my rant where it's at. I had my say, you had yours and certainly we can agree to disagree on a point that really isn't that productive to the task at hand: Finding out about Mistie.

Yes, ok, maybe it would touch him. It will have to wait to be seen, if ever. Again, this is a smaller deal than the task at hand so I consider that one a dead issue also.
                           **********************************
Yes, reports and articles might have portrayed Mistie as rational.  But I got this info about her not from news articles, but through personal research; talking with people in the know and using their  info as cross reference. Having this information, it is easy to discover that this must be used. Caution must still be exercised of course. But the 'alleged' FAS and attachment disorder and also the spontaneity have definitely left their marks on this case already: Mistie telling  her gf  "I have found a new bf but I cant tell you who he is yet"; her hooking up with a boy,  spontaneously, who was many years her senior - taking into account her young age - 16 and his age around 23 -  her sitting on strange laps and striking up conv. with strangers; leaving the cash behind; maybe running away on a whim.

The sightings. Again,  I will just remind us of the ones I wrote about; The two trained cops' sighting in TO; the confirmed one at the Bargain store, the one at the Clinton Fair by two who know her, all qualify for a stronger opinion than
"but to how much they are reliable".
The sightings did bring her from her home/school to **** place and the Bargain store, then to the Clinton Fair, then to London and around London and then to Toronto. All these sighting locations are away from and in opposite direction of the Snug Harbour Marina, where the cops set their sights and ultimately failed miserably.

Where you write: However... should solid information come to light that would without-a-doubt disprove those sightings, I would be willing to look at that too.

Sure, I agree fully. We have to keep an open mind and let the evidence lead us. But let's say for now that all the sightings surely  be used as an investigative aid. One would be foolish not to.

I might as well throw in another sighting...from London. A bus driver on the Stoneybrook route picks up a  rider that he  identifies as Mistie. If anybody cares to  look up the LTC route for the Adelaide st bus, they will see that this bus goes out Adelaide north to Fanshawe Park Rd.  and north, beyond Fanshawe.  However , if you get off the bus at Fanshawe, it is a short walk to Masonville Mall. There, a woman who worked with troubled young people, was shopping and she came upon this young girl who sat on a bench crying. The lady identified the girl as Mistie by the coat she was wearing; the color was the same, so was the crest on the coat. Here we have two sightings that tend to tie in with the other (however  somewhat weakly) Also, the bus stop where the girl got on(Dundas and Adelaide) was  very close to Dundas and Glebe sts, the  seedy hangout where Mistie's parents were told that Mistie had been seen.

I agree with what you say at the end of your post that open-mindedness is essential and there is no room for prejudice.
Truscott is one who was  judged(convicted) , is it not wrong then to pre-judge him after he has been deemed innocent?
(without getting hung up in the fine line between not guilty and innocent for now ) Is this not, in fact prejudice?

« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 10:04:08 AM by debbiec »

lostlinganer

  • Member
  • Posts: 3867
  • Silence, in the face of injustice is complicity wi
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2008, 06:40:14 PM »
well first of all I have to say that it means nothing to me if Mr. Murray was acquitted, found guilty, or not even suspect.  I have no faith in the courts, for the most part, nor police procedure.  When they choose to convict, they convict; when they choose to cover-up, they cover-up.  And most of all, and especially when it comes to unsolved cases and missing people, that's largely why it's unsolved - because there's too much cover-up, not enough due diligence, and far too much apathy.

Two things that bothers me are:
-was there a proper autopsy? -No!  therefore, is it possible Mistie was pregnant?... that would explain a lot of her sudden urge to move in with her birth mother?  get out of town?  be seen crying alone?  (she was possibly being used for some time by an older guy - and who knows, maybe even another man before this guy - and maybe that other man was jealous enough to explode? maybe the same guy (or) the older boyfriend was afraid for getting her pregnant??? 
-did anyone ever stop to think that maybe she was terrified to go back and get her suitcase and money? or maybe she did, but got thrown out of the house? or worse?  did anyone ever stop to think that maybe the Murray's split up for reasons other than all the publicity and trouble?

There's so much can come to mind regarding all this - especially when we have very limited information - all second hand.  If we didn't speculate, we'd never offer any scenarios.
I personally think that's what we come here for, to throw in ideas and possible scenarios;  if we were here just going on documented facts, there would be no scenarios... because documented facts have already been ridden to death.
My point here is, how can you discuss this case, or say what crosses your mind in the way of unanswered questions, without bringing up Mr. Murray.
If he is totally innocent, he must have formed a hard skin by now regarding all this.  After all, that poor little girl appears to have been murdered and gotten rid of.  What's any worse than that.  I'm sorry!  I have no idea who might have wronged this young girl .... but someone sure did.  And even if the family "closed the book" on her, that doesn't mean that the public doesn't care. 
With no disrespect intended, I say if Mr. Murray is not to be brought up, the topic shouldn't even be here.


DigDig

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #38 on: November 06, 2008, 06:47:44 PM »
Lost,
There was never an autopsy because no body has been found. 

Syiena

  • Guest
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #39 on: November 06, 2008, 07:08:37 PM »
Lost,

I understand Mr. Murray's name is obviously going to be mentioned in the postings, all I'm saying is that we have to remember that he was once tried and acquitted. 

Look at it this way:

Let's say I had a family member who was accused of a horrible crime such as murder, but this family member insisted on being innocent.  Let's say this family member is brought to court, and was acquitted.  Chances are this person and or family's lives are pretty much ruined.

So, say there was evidence that proves that this family member could be possibly be innocent.  How is it fair that this family member's name is dragged through mud still, STILL, even after the court acquitted him.

I'm not saying the court made the right decision about Mr. Murray, I don't know.  I don't know the facts.  This is all speculation, but I'm giving out a politeful request that we watch what we say about him being guilty when the court says otherwise.

And no I don't have a family member that's been accused of any crimes.  I'm just trying to put ourselves their shoes, because honestly it could happen to anyone, people have been dragged through the mud, only to have proof found that proved this person was in fact innocent.   

Syiena

  • Guest
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #40 on: November 06, 2008, 07:40:50 PM »
Oh, and just to be clear.   :D

I'm not trying to say you guys are wrong, for example Shwa and Lost, I respect your opinions, and your postings are interesting.

I'm just giving you guys my two cents :)

I don't want to get into tiffs, I want all of us to work together, we're all out for the same goal.

Thanks to everyone for their interest and opinions so far.

Shwa

  • Member
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2008, 03:32:28 PM »
Gosh, no tiffs happening at all.  I respect a well thought out opinion because they often lead to a conclusion of one thing or another.   Once I get a few moments together, I would like to revisit this case...

Syiena

  • Guest
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2008, 03:38:32 PM »
me too.

I have been quite sick for the last couple of weeks (damn flu!) and only have been able to make a few postings the last few days.

I told Dig Dig the other day, that I'm staying away from the computer, and more focusing on getting better lol. 

I hope to be back on a computer ALL the TIME, in the next day or so.

In the meantime, I'm anxious to hear some more postings!

lostlinganer

  • Member
  • Posts: 3867
  • Silence, in the face of injustice is complicity wi
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2008, 05:29:21 PM »
author=DigDig link=topic=222.msg18940#msg18940 date=1226018864]
Lost,
There was never an autopsy because no body has been found. 
[quote [/quote]
Dig; that's what I meant when I said there was "no autopsy".

donnamarie

  • Member
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Mistie Murray - May 31, 1995 ? Age 16 ? Missing ? Goderich
« Reply #44 on: December 23, 2008, 03:46:19 AM »
well, my friend emailed the police (she got the email address from the Mistie's missing poster?), and she didn't receive any response for about a week or two.  Then she got a response saying that this tip was being forwarded to the investigator in charge, and that they would go and check it out.  She hasn't heard anything back from them since.  She didn't figure she would, but she's curious and I am too, to find out if they ended up contacting this person.

This person that's on facebook, was under the London, Ontario network.  I'm actually going to look right now, and see if she's changed her picture etc.

I'm sorry, she actually found someone by the name of ****. She's changed her picture, the picture she had last time, was a close up, and it really looked like her!  unfortunately, the picture was too small to be able to determine if this person had a mole on her right cheek, as well as the gap in her teeth.

I will email my friend and see if she's heard anything from the Police. 





Hi,

My name is **** and I live in London UK (rather eerily I do have a mole on my right cheek). I'm the only person who ever shows up in Google searches with my name... so when I was just doing a Google search to quickly link to an article I had written, your thread came up as a search result and, having read it, wondered if it was me you'd mentioned... especially as I am  the only **** who comes up in Facebook searches too and I did change my picture at that exact same time you mention. I just wanted to log in here to let you know if so I'm not your friend (I've lived in England my whole life) so you were not wondering. I'd also like to send you my love and best wishes in finding Mistie. With love, Donna x
« Last Edit: April 08, 2016, 10:09:43 AM by debbiec »