Where is MAURA MURRAY

Hello everyone, thanks for the words, I think I understand the system now. Things were going along fine until we say we think Maura is not missing on her own. Maybe she is and maybe she isn't, but if we say we think not, people run for the pistol. If my daughter went missing and they said all these false things, I'd be suspicious too and keep my sites on them as well. I think someone needs to sit down with Fred and tell him how things are going, what all has been done, without giving away specifics, like names, etc. Isn't an investigation supposed to be shared with concerned parties? Reminds me of my sister about to die a few months back. I slept on the floor in the waiting room, the Nurses and Doctors all knew to come tell me any last little thing. If I needed to talk, they needed to listen, it's part of the job. Obviously they did not go into Medicine 101, but they gave me a break down each step of the way.

I do understand how frustrating it must be to have had Maura disappear in that area. Police, news media, seach and rescue, any lack of privacy anyone had to endure. I'm greatful to anyone there who remains interested in helping even so. I drive by two makeshift headstones every day. One for a lost twin, always fresh flowers and same angel statues in the yard of the old Sherrif across the road. They must not mind, it's on their land. The other is along the highway and our horse ranch guy who mows the median goes to geat pains to cut nicely around it in his big tractor twice a week. There were two lives lost in that spot last year, so thank you to all who work around the heartheaches of others. It's a sacrifice of sorts, of yourself.

Hey Mr X, can you just post a little something to help me understand what you're thinking? Is it an X because you don't think people head for the pistol? Is it an X because you don't agree Fred doesn't get enough info? I think if he did, it might help him move on from that point of wondering for himself. Or is the X because I'm comparing the job of police to that of a Doctor?
I'm sincere, I really wish you'd just help me know how you feel. I can shift gears and just wish you'd help me, but the X is ok too.

White Wash wrote:

.
I also took ride on Swifterwater Circle with a camera and Annie that is a Deputy not a Super Trooper that house 2/10th of a mile from the site.
It is also surrounded by descend trees not to mention the 2 corners and a Large Barn on one of them! Now how you can imply that Deputy could have
seen anything is beyond my eye sight and len!
<quoted text>

Thanks White Wash for stating the Trooper is actually a Deputy named Anne. I think that puts a rest to some things along with the idea that you cannot see because of the trees.

paris wrote:

Hey Mr X, can you just post a little something to help me understand what you're thinking? Is it an X because you don't think people head for the pistol? Is it an X because you don't agree Fred doesn't get enough info? I think if he did, it might help him move on from that point of wondering for himself. Or is the X because I'm comparing the job of police to that of a Doctor?
I'm sincere, I really wish you'd just help me know how you feel. I can shift gears and just wish you'd help me, but the X is ok too.

I am sincere in wanting to get somewhere with whatever comes up and just wish you'd speak your mind because I know it would help. I'm not being mean, I just don't understand how I come across then. I won't remark anymore about judgements, I'll just believe there's a reason you don't want to go into it publically.

paris wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks White Wash for stating the Trooper is actually a Deputy named Anne. I think that puts a rest to some things along with the idea that you cannot see because of the trees.

Can't resist, how is this mean? It seems like you're just playing games and I hope you get your jollys out of mocking a sincere comment made to White Wash. I really appreciated her info and effort.

i think that someone's just trying to get you going paris, don't worry about it.

bacon wrote:

i think that someone's just trying to get you going paris, don't worry about it.

I agree. Don't react because this is exactly what is wanted. Don't give them what they want by reacting.

I'm sure you're wondering "but why?" Don't wonder, I think it's pretty obvious and you can be assured you are in a much better place than they are.

Thank you bacon and Lady Gray, I'll put on my breaks again.

Hello all,

It´s pretty obvious to me that some posters only want to create havoc on this forum in order to deflect from our efforts to find out whatever happened to Maura.
This is so dispiriting!

Let´s ignore these incendiary attacks and concentrate on what we´re really here for: Maura.

Thanks!

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
All I see is Lady Grey saying the FBI was not wanted nor welcomed. Which does seem to be true, from all appearances (which is all we have to go on here).
She does not say anywhere that I see that the FBI wasn't invited or involved. Just that local LE seemed to not be welcoming to their presence. What it seems to me is like this (totally fictional, thank you very much!) analogy:
I, not the world's best cook by any means, but nevertheless the only one in my household, am grilling in my backyard. My next door neighbour, a four-star chef, comes over because he smells the smoke of my charring dinner. Says, "Hey, can I give you a hand with that?" In response, I send him inside to set the table while I continue to turn my steak into a charcoal briquet.
See how much sense that makes?

Poor analogy. I believe a better analogy would be having a piece of evidence, like a car that someone ran away from. Searching around the car and finding only one set of prints leaving the area. The department then continues searching looking to find the person or evidence of foul play. They find nothing out of the ordinary. They continue to investigate and find out that the locals apparently saw nothing unusual except for what was reported. They set up checkpoints to see if they can flush out other leads, again, lead nowhere, as far as we know. Then someone wants to bring the FBI in to examine “all” the evidence. How much sense does that make?

I understand that some people, not talking about you specifically, think in situations like that, that helicopters will or should be launched and search and rescue crews from around the nation will be gather on site and the national guard will be called in and even martial law should be declared so that searches could be done on properties without warrants and even consideration for due process.

What is it the FBI is going to do exactly? No one has sufficiently explained that. What is there that the FBI can look at that will allow them to find Maura? Is there a lead that HPD can’t figure out? Do they have some physical evidence that NHSP can’t analyze or are too stupid to understand? The FBI is brought in when either state jurisdictions are crossed, or federal law is broken or the agency in charge doesn’t have the resources, usually scientific, to bring an investigation to a conclusion and the investigating agency requests them to come in. There is apparently no justification to bring them in and from what I have read they are correct in my opinion.

Bill

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>
Poor analogy. I believe a better analogy would be having a piece of evidence, like a car that someone ran away from. Searching around the car and finding only one set of prints leaving the area. The department then continues searching looking to find the person or evidence of foul play. They find nothing out of the ordinary. They continue to investigate and find out that the locals apparently saw nothing unusual except for what was reported. They set up checkpoints to see if they can flush out other leads, again, lead nowhere, as far as we know. Then someone wants to bring the FBI in to examine “all” the evidence. How much sense does that make?

No offense, Bill, but I think perhaps you should look up "analogy" in the dictionary.

And how can you say they found "nothing out of the ordinary" ? A person who just seemingly disappears into thin air is ordinary? They obviously DID think something was out of the ordinary, if they set up road checks (which I've only heard mentioned briefly, and regarding red trucks--do we know specifically and for certain that this was related to Maura?) and knocked on people's doors, and a civilian went up French Pond Road, and they brought in a scent dog.

Also, there hasn't been any evidence, either, that this car is one that "someone ran away from." We don't know whether she ran away, walked away, drove or was driven away, or was dragged away, conscious or otherwise. So don't say there was "nothing out of the ordinary."

Because what you have written is a SCENARIO. It has not yet been established as FACT.

hi witewash and all.my understanding of the search warrant is ,sgtSmith asked for it the night before[feb 09 04 p.m.] and the officer coming in on the midnight shift completed the request as sgt Smith was getting off at midnight.he did not get off at midnight because there was a report of a susoicius person involving a white jeep in town.At that time this was just an abndoned car with maybe a suspected drunk driver.is it normal to have a search warrant for an abandoned car with suspected D.U.I. or was there something else that was seen in or near the saturn.maybe i am wrong but there must be hundreds of cars found in the winter in the same situation in new england.is a search done every time.as for the car being secured at Lavoies ,i assune whatever was found in the car would be kicked out by any defense attorney.i guess this would come back to how secure, legally was the car.i think something else was going on with the car.i still can't get past asking is this normal.if the F.B.I is looking into a missing persons case it does not make sense that they would tell family members as they would also be on the list of people to check out.as i have read here the F.B.I. did do some investigations in amherst.maybe they found out why Maura left amherst and her prior life and because she was not a minor at the time would be in trouble legally if they produced anything they had found to anybody.take care philip

whiston wrote:

is it normal to have a search warrant for an abandoned car with suspected D.U.I. or was there something else that was seen in or near the saturn.maybe i am wrong but there must be hundreds of cars found in the winter in the same situation in new england.is a search done every time.

EXACTLY, Philip. They said there was nothing suspicious, but their actions of the evening seem to strongly indicate otherwise.

Hello all,

In a sense it could of course be argued that Maura´s disappearance may well warrant the FBI to get involved.

She set out from Amherst, MA, crossed into VT and her abandoned car was found in Haverhill, NH.
In that sense Maura´s case did indeed cross several state lines, rather than being confined merely withing the state of NH.

Another thing:

Are we all in agreement here that it was really Maura that the SBD spoke with at the Saturn by the Weathered Barn curve in Swiftwater?
Although this would seem to be the most likely option, I´m still far from certain that this was actually the case.

The frontal damage to the Saturn bothers me. It really couldn´t have been caused by hitting the snow-bank at the incident site and most likely occurred somewhere else.
Let´s not forget this conclusion here.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
No offense, Bill, but I think perhaps you should look up "analogy" in the dictionary.
And how can you say they found "nothing out of the ordinary" ? A person who just seemingly disappears into thin air is ordinary? They obviously DID think something was out of the ordinary, if they set up road checks (which I've only heard mentioned briefly, and regarding red trucks--do we know specifically and for certain that this was related to Maura?) and knocked on people's doors, and a civilian went up French Pond Road, and they brought in a scent dog.

Wow. Apparently my sledgehammer wit is lost on you. OK, for the moment let’s stay focused on the questions and not worry about my lack of understanding of the definition of “analogy”. In those first 12 hours after the accident what would make anyone believe that this car scene was anything more than someone who had been drinking, possibly drunk, had an accident and either walked, ran, skipped, or otherwise got a ride from the scene. Something that is repeated literally hundreds of time a day all over the country and seen repeatedly by police and emergency crew over and over? What evidence shows otherwise, again in those first 12 hours? Still the police and a civilian did due diligence and searched the area, checked hospitals and talked to witnesses and stayed on scene a reasonable amount of time.
Now, if there is nothing to show anything other than a possible drunk driving and/or leaving the scene of an accident does that raise to the level of a federal crime? What evidence is there of a crime after 36 or 48 hours? Still none except the families feeling that this isn’t normal behavior for Maura. Still no real evidence of anything else but the police did check out specifics at that point, i.e. bringing in a search dog, interviewing witnesses and putting out a BOLO. We are now over 4 years later and what is the new evidence? Nothing that I have seen. Just a rehashing, sometimes badly done of all the old evidence. Not even the family gets involved with it.
Now, let us run through a few of the pitched scenarios.
1. A mastermind serial killer staged this scene to make it look like Maura was a drunk driver and walked away into oblivion without anyone seeing a thing and leaving no physical evidence. Not even scrap marks or any footprints except a single set leading away from the vehicle. And the serial killer had the foresight to plant a dark haired girl at the car for SBD to see. SBD’s report is unreliable though because he isn’t to be trusted. He can be trusted with children but seeing a young woman he is unreliable and doesn’t know what he is talking about. Another witness a hundred feet or so away saw what she thinks was a man and a cigarette.

END part I

Continued from part I

2. A dark haired girl abducted and did something with Maura and proceeded to drive her car to Swiftwater to “plant” it there to throw everyone off of the crime that was perpetrated in Massachusetts. Not sure how she was going to get back unless it was the help from the red truck. A very inconspicuous vehicle well suited for stealthy illegal activities. One of the first choices of the criminal mastermind.
3. Maura was distraught over some unknown set of events and decided to get away for a while. She may have had something to drink and crashed her car at the corner where a SBD saw and talked to a dark haired girl from about 10 feet who later ran, walked, or got a ride from the car to disappear voluntarily or involuntarily at a later time.
Which one is the simplest? Which one sounds most likely? Which ones need the FBI to get involved?
Could Maura be the victim of a serial killer or just a plain first time killer? Of course. Did she get 30 minutes away or several hours away before something happened to her? The family and Billy swear that is her sobbing on the phone many hours after the car accident. So if we believe the family and it is her then there is little reason to believe that whatever happened happened near the car. Whether anyone likes it or not, we are now in a waiting game until something, anything shows up to give direction to this mystery.

Bill

Don't know why the first part disappeared.

Part I

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
No offense, Bill, but I think perhaps you should look up "analogy" in the dictionary.
And how can you say they found "nothing out of the ordinary" ? A person who just seemingly disappears into thin air is ordinary? They obviously DID think something was out of the ordinary, if they set up road checks (which I've only heard mentioned briefly, and regarding red trucks--do we know specifically and for certain that this was related to Maura?) and knocked on people's doors, and a civilian went up French Pond Road, and they brought in a scent dog.

Wow. Apparently my sledgehammer wit is lost on you. OK, for the moment let’s stay focused on the questions and not worry about my lack of understanding of the definition of “analogy”. In those first 12 hours after the accident what would make anyone believe that this car scene was anything more than someone who had been drinking, possibly drunk, had an accident and either walked, ran, skipped, or otherwise got a ride from the scene. Something that is repeated literally hundreds of time a day all over the country and seen repeatedly by police and emergency crew over and over? What evidence shows otherwise, again in those first 12 hours? Still the police and a civilian did due diligence and searched the area, checked hospitals and talked to witnesses and stayed on scene a reasonable amount of time.

Now, if there is nothing to show anything other than a possible drunk driving and/or leaving the scene of an accident does that raise to the level of a federal crime? What evidence is there of a crime after 36 or 48 hours? Still none except the families feeling that this isn’t normal behavior for Maura. Still no real evidence of anything else but the police did check out specifics at that point, i.e. bringing in a search dog, interviewing witnesses and putting out a BOLO. We are now over 4 years later and what is the new evidence? Nothing that I have seen. Just a rehashing, sometimes badly done of all the old evidence. Not even the family gets involved with it.

Now, let us run through a few of the pitched scenarios.

1. A mastermind serial killer staged this scene to make it look like Maura was a drunk driver and walked away into oblivion without anyone seeing a thing and leaving no physical evidence. Not even scrap marks or any footprints except a single set leading away from the vehicle. And the serial killer had the foresight to plant a dark haired girl at the car for SBD to see. SBD’s report is unreliable though because he isn’t to be trusted. He can be trusted with children but seeing a young woman he is unreliable and doesn’t know what he is talking about. Another witness a hundred feet or so away saw what she thinks was a man and a cigarette.

End part I

sorry for the double post.

It disappeared on me but apparently was in the system.

Bill