Murray Cohen Murder Cover-Up

[Unregistered]

"Did you know that she wrote a letter to Chief Judge Haworth requesting a certain judge be appointed to her husbands probate? What civilian has that luxury to pick their own judge?"

Answer; A protected murderer.

State or Federal?
She was able to get cover from the FBI with a false audio report.

[Unregistered]

Keep in mind, an exotic lethal poison called Corazol was found at the death scene and inventoried by authorities. Corazol will cause a heart attack and death. Guess what I discovered??? Corazol is manufactured in Bolivia, the home country of Murray's killer. Here is a video excerpt from her sworn deposition during the probate. Who is Maria A. Amurrio of Bolivia? What is her background? Let Maria Amurrio tell you herself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ture=emb_title

[Unregistered]

All of Steven Esdale’s claims are formally rejected by the FBI, Medical Examiner’s Office, Florida Governor’s Office, State Attorney’s Office (12th Circuit), FDLE and, of course, the Sarasota Sheriff’s Office. Here is Steven Esdale’s timeline:

• 2003 – Murray Cohen, 71, died. His death was ruled natural. His physician said Cohen had a diseased heart, in addition to gaining an extra 60 pounds and his doctor said Cohen was lucky to live as long as he did.
  .
• 2003 to 2006 – At Steven Esdale’s request, the Sarasota Sheriff’s Office re-examined Murray Cohen’s death four times, and tapped experts (including the FBI) to review evidence. Each time, the conclusion is the same: Cohen died of natural causes.
  .
• 2007 – Steven Esdale disagreed with multiple investigators and their findings that Murray Cohen died of natural causes, so he sued the government. All of Esdale’s allegations were thrown out of court – with prejudice. In the legal world, a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. It is over and done with – once and for all – and it cannot be brought back to court – ever. You can read it here:
  https://casetext.com/case/esdale-v-s...heriffs-office
  .
• 2011 – The Steven Esdale / Murray Cohen thread was begun in 2011 at leoaffairs. The initial poster was banned for violating the website's terms of service and every link on the first page is now dead.
  .
• Today – The last place for Steven Esdale and his editor to advertise the sale of their book (without incurring advertising costs) is at leoaffairs.

The judge ruled against Steven Esdale "with prejudice," which is the strongest possible language that a court can use against Esdale.

The federal judge dismissed Esdale's case because Esdale's speculative allegations are not evidentiary. The unbiased federal judge made an informed and impartial decision that is based on facts.

[Unregistered]

The federal judge dismissed Esdale's case because Esdale's speculative allegations are not evidentiary. The unbiased federal judge made an informed and impartial decision that is based on facts.

Here is the Fox News coverage of this story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl6Q3YCjokA

[Unregistered]

All of Steven Esdale’s claims are formally rejected by the FBI, Medical Examiner’s Office, Florida Governor’s Office, State Attorney’s Office (12th Circuit), FDLE and, of course, the Sarasota Sheriff’s Office. Here is Steven Esdale’s timeline:

• 2003 – Murray Cohen, 71, died. His death was ruled natural. His physician said Cohen had a diseased heart, in addition to gaining an extra 60 pounds and his doctor said Cohen was lucky to live as long as he did.
  .
• 2003 to 2006 – At Steven Esdale’s request, the Sarasota Sheriff’s Office re-examined Murray Cohen’s death four times, and tapped experts (including the FBI) to review evidence. Each time, the conclusion is the same: Cohen died of natural causes.
  .
• 2007 – Steven Esdale disagreed with multiple investigators and their findings that Murray Cohen died of natural causes, so he sued the government. All of Esdale’s allegations were thrown out of court – with prejudice. In the legal world, a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. It is over and done with – once and for all – and it cannot be brought back to court – ever. You can read it here:
  https://casetext.com/case/esdale-v-s...heriffs-office
  .
• 2011 – The Steven Esdale / Murray Cohen thread was begun in 2011 at leoaffairs. The initial poster was banned for violating the website's terms of service and every link on the first page is now dead.
  .
• Today – The last place for Steven Esdale and his editor to advertise the sale of their book (without incurring advertising costs) is at leoaffairs.

The judge ruled against Steven Esdale "with prejudice," which is the strongest possible language that a court can use against Esdale.

The federal judge dismissed Esdale's case because Esdale's speculative allegations are not evidentiary. The unbiased federal judge made an informed and impartial decision that is based on facts.

That is true, but you forgot to mention that a State judge also ruled against Esdale. Thus, you have a State judge and a Federal judge, who both ruled against Esdale, in two completely separate venues.

[Stephanie Gibson]

Maybe I missed it.. but what reasons would SSO have to cover it up?

[Unregistered]

Maybe I missed it.. but what reasons would SSO have to cover it up?

SSO began the cover up after Murray Cohen's son discovered he was murdered and did not die a natural death as he was told. SSO did not want to admit the son was right and they were wrong. After the son began to get media coverage, the wagons were circled and the more evidence of murder the son uncovered, the more layers of Government were brought in to shut him down culminating with a false FBI audio report. Kurt Hoffman, was directly responsible for having the hard drive containing evidence of murder destroyed and allowing a cold blooded killer to escape justice.

SSO also wanted to make sure that the public never found out about the alleged affair Detective Jeffrey Bell had with Amurrio while he was suppose to be investigating her for murder. Many employees at SSO know about the alleged affair and his late night rendezvous with the suspect.

Here are the documents you would want to see before interviewing Hoffman. Ask him if he destroyed a hard drive with an ex parte order while a public records request was pending from a major newspaper in Florida who was trying to help a Florida family obtain justice and closure. I do not believe the people of Sarasota would vote for a person running for sheriff if they knew they covered up a murder or obstructed justice.

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/545...=1573704471209

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/545...=1573704471254

https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/545...6dc-492b-8a26-
08cff8a00c31/downloads/CMRE%2082%20Lord%20letter%20to%20owens.pdf?ver=157 3704471288

[Unregistered]

Maybe I missed it.. but what reasons would SSO have to cover it up?

The SSO has no reason(s) to cover-up the natural death of Murray Cohen, which is why both State and Federal judges ruled against Steven Esdale.

[Unregistered]

Wow!!! If it got out that Hoffman covered up a murder then it could greatly impact his run for Sheriff. I bet Hoffman wants to keep all this under wraps.

[Unregistered]

Maybe I missed it.. but what reasons would SSO have to cover it up?

ESDALE


Ms. Gibson,

I am not overly familiar with this case or the events identified by Mr. Esdale. I have zero personal knowledge of anything alleged against the Sheriff’s Office or the official investigation.

However, what I will say is, after a cursory search of Mr. Esdale’s posts and allegations, I have to admit it is eerily reminiscent of my experiences with Kurt Hoffman. Unlike Mr. Esdale, I have years of first hand knowledge of how this administration operates and I find most of Mr. Esdale’s allegations to be very believable. I have had had similar experiences over the past two years when dealing with Kurt Hoffman.

His intention to run for Sheriff is nothing new. This strategy had been in the works for a very long time, my personal opinion is from day 1. If memory serves correctly, I believe he ran for Sheriff in Charlotte County many years back, but failed to gain enough public trust or support. Major Kevin Kenney who had spent his entire career at the Sarasota County Sherrif’s Office was promised and supposed to be next in line for Sheriff, when Knight retired. Major Kenney had the experience, integrity and would have made a great Sheriff. However, promises were broken, he retired early and Kurt Hoffman slid into that #2 spot.

You have to seriously question why so many of the “cops, cops”, men with the intestinal fortitude to stand-up for their people when they were so often thrown under the bus for unjust reasons, who had spent their entire careers working and sacrificing for the citizens of Sarasota County, all retired early. Lt. JK, Lt. MP, Maj. KK, and thats just off the top of my head. This question is rhetorical...


Here again is something that may give some insight, if the allegations are true, as to why Hoffman would “cover-it-up”

The Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office Training Manual (created under this administration) contains all the motive you need to prove why someone planing an election campaign would want to bury any possibility of a scandal. Notice how it doesn’t discuss protecting victims or doing the right thing, it only talks about protecting careers and avoiding media scrutiny.

In chapter 2 *“Ethical Decision Making”, page 6 reveals the following:*
According to the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office “Stripes" Manual the Training Manual for new Sergeants devoted an entire chapter to Ethical Decision Making. *The manual criticizes that lack of ethics training outside of the police academy and then quotes the following; "However, headlines in the news about scandals and misconduct can be devastating to an entire agency, not just the people involved in the misconduct (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1997)."
*
It further states; "discrimination, sexual harassment or morally questionable behavior by law enforcement personnel makes great headlines in the media that can have devastating effects on an agency. In some instances, a single incident of unethical behavior can take you from one of the most admired agencies to one of the least respected, literally overnight (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1997)."*
*
In some instances, simply being in the “chain-of-command” when substantial misconduct is discovered, can literally destroy a career. In some instances, supervisors may lose their job, be demoted or never to be promoted from the remainder of their career *(International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1997).