Where is MAURA MURRAY

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
By chance did you take any pictures ? Did you remove them?

No to both---that was in my beginning days of the MMM forum and didn't think to. I was actually there to remove what I considered an offensive poster that was placed on the ribbon tree (not of Maura).

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
Firecat may I ask who the person was on the MMM forum that had stated they saw underwear around and in the vicinity of the tree with the blue ribbon?

You may certainly ask, but I can't for the life of me remember at the moment. Might have been mcsmom.....might well have been someone else. I'll see if my archive goes back that far....stay tuned Wowzer....anyone else who can say for sure, feel free to chim on in.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>
that would be me.

Or, as indicated, it might not have been mcsmom and I need to finish reading before I respond!:-p

Thanks moose.

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text>
There's a trooper up the road too besides Eck? Right in that area?

White wash was being facetious and/or smartass, depending on your particular orientation. A Super Trooper is a FICTIONAL SUPERHERO, folks.:)

sophie bean wrote:

So does LE usually (ever) obtain a search warrant without some evidence that a crime has been committed?

I don't think LE *ever* obtains a search warrant without some kind of evidence. Now, if an officer looked into the car through a window and saw something that was clear evidence of a crime, such as a forbidden substance, blood (enough to be reasonably certain someone had been badly injured), then I think the car could be searched without a warrant. But without some kind of evidence being in clear view, a search warrant would be needed - and a lot of officers would just want to get one anyway. they could use the fact of the abandoned car and disappeared driver as evidence probably.

1Anne wrote:

... One poster on a former forum came to the area the next morning and saw freshly knocked over guardrails away from where the car was found. Should we dismiss this too? What if this is the earlier accident and we let it go because it isn't Fact yet?

I remember this information about the guardrails also, they were a bit further east than where the car was found. But I don't remember that the person who reported the guardrails said that he/she saw these the very next morning after Maura disappeared. My impression in my recall is that the guardrails were seen some time after Maura disappeared -- which wouldn't rule them out as playing a possible part in the damage to her Saturn, but we'd need someone who can say for sure those guardrails were fine before the night of February 9th, 2004 and were seen to be damaged the next day or within a very short span of time ... get beyond two or three days and the damaged guardrails can't be tied closely enough to Maura's disappearance to be worth discussion UNLESS they were checked to see if there were paint scrapes on them that matched the Saturn.

Advocator, Your last post concerning damaged guardrails makes sense in that the person who checked the guardrails and looked around them has since died. I guess this aspect will have to be termed another deadend.

OMG I just read my above post and I did not intend that 'deadend' phrase to be a pun! Let's just say unless someone else has more to add concerning the guardrails that information is useless.

Advocator wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think LE *ever* obtains a search warrant without some kind of evidence. Now, if an officer looked into the car through a window and saw something that was clear evidence of a crime, such as a forbidden substance, blood (enough to be reasonably certain someone had been badly injured), then I think the car could be searched without a warrant. But without some kind of evidence being in clear view, a search warrant would be needed - and a lot of officers would just want to get one anyway. they could use the fact of the abandoned car and disappeared driver as evidence probably.

True. It's not like a search warrant comes out of a dispenser. You have to explain to the judge why you need one.

The guard rails are interesting. A real long shot: Even after all this time it might not be too late to literally sift through several inches of dirt and dust around the guard rails (dunno - 100 sq. ft?) for... paint flecks, whatever, ANYthing???? I've done that tedious stuff and I'd volunteer in a second to do this inch by inch.

.... step aside for a moment. I don't know if you willingly spew your information here, of if they are using you, girlfriend....You are foaming at the mouth thinking you are sitting pretty on the inside. Ask yourself if what you say makes any sense, like the investigation itself.

Find another hydrant to lift your leg on.

mcsmom wrote:

.... step aside for a moment. I don't know if you willingly spew your information here, of if they are using you, girlfriend....You are foaming at the mouth thinking you are sitting pretty on the inside. Ask yourself if what you say makes any sense, like the investigation itself.
Find another hydrant to lift your leg on.

Mcsmom, what are you referring to? Is it a post that was removed?

mcsmom wrote:

.... step aside for a moment. I don't know if you willingly spew your information here, of if they are using you, girlfriend....You are foaming at the mouth thinking you are sitting pretty on the inside. Ask yourself if what you say makes any sense, like the investigation itself.
Find another hydrant to lift your leg on.

uh-oh - were you talking to me? I hope not because I've never had any information to spew! Just (so-called) ideas!

Quija wrote:

<quoted text>
uh-oh - were you talking to me? I hope not because I've never had any information to spew! Just (so-called) ideas!

I don't believe she's responding to you......whatever was said apparently goes much more to the core and I think I have a pretty good idea who it was..........and it obviously was so extreme that the post was removed.

Guesses who? I'll leave it at that.

1Anne wrote:

paris, I think white wash was simply addressing me concerning the grafton sheriff on the corner...
.

oh, I get it now, no comma. No wonder people thought I was being mean, I just read it wrong, thanked her for the info and wasn't corrected. I thought she was naming the Deputy as Annie and that they were not a super trooper. Oops.

I think - don't have my Gazeteer here at the moment - that it is true that most of 112 up to the WB corner is in Bath. I believe that the place where Maura's car was found is in Haverhill. The main point I'm trying to make is that, where most of the road is in one jurisdiction, her car was very specifically in another jurisdiction. I may be wrong about this - if so, someone please correct me - but it seems to me that that was one of the things that I noticed most when I travelled 112 a couple of years ago.

Advocator - thanks, that was the point I was trying to make. There was something that caused LE to obtain a search warrant - arguably, the same thing that caused them to keep fire and EMS away from the car, although we hear varying reports about that.

I was in the area last week - I did look at guardrails west of Swiftwater (towards 302) and there's no remarkable damage to them. I don't know if they've been replaced recently. A few other things - it was recently asked whether Maura went down the bank behind Atwoods and crossed (or attempted to cross) the river to get away or because she was disoriented. Very, very doubtful. That is a precipitously steep, high bank - it would be difficult to navigate in dry summer weather - in winter, when snow-covered and icy? Nearly impossible, I'd say. I'm still really interested in Old Peters Road, because it's RIGHT there. I hope that it's been searched thoroughly - and no, don't answer that here!

Delighted that I missed the spewing.

Sophie Bean, There were several areas of guardrails replaced in the past few years. I suppose the state highway department would know the details.

Thanks, Anne! Impact with a guardrail looks like it might have caused the damage to the Saturn's front end. I'm still curious about Advocator's idea that it might have been caused in a towing incident.

Do you have any idea why there has been the discrepancy in the reported time of the accident? I absolutely believe that you heard the scanner call when and as you have said, and that that earlier accident (or the only "accident") happened elsewhere in a very different manner than the "hitting a snowbank and/or trees."

Sophie Bean, I really do not to this day have an answer other than a possibly open mike, it does happen. I would have dismissed it long ago except my hubby (unfortunately always right!) was right beside me as we listened. I thought it was earlier than 7 but he seemed sure it was 7, that's how it went down. I believe the initial reports came from another jurisdiction, which seems the only plausible explanation.

I had printed out the 32 pages of Grafton County Sheriff's Dept. Dispatch Log,
covering the Towns of Alexandria, Bath, Bethlehem, Bridgewater, Franconia, Grafton,
Groton, Haverhill, Hebron, Lisbon and Littleton. Others here have also printed it out. I have searched for any entry in the 6:30P - 7ish times for any auto accident....(left in private vehicle) as Anne heard. Just because I couldn't find it doesn't mean it is not there..somewhere.....I dunno.

What is unsettling/confusing is that page 18, 1/3rd of the way down the page, it ends
at 4:57P with "Note taker: H......S...." (a persons name)"B...S for T...A given" (more names"

Then there is a blank space of 2 approx. inches.
Then there are the words "Cleared by A....T....."(names)
Narrative: "h2 off with 2 snowmachines" Narrative "h2 clear, warning for lights out, summons for passenger w/o helmets"

Then next, is the Maura incident call at 7:27P and the first half of the incident Log entry

The next page 19 STARTS with the beginning 6:08 of the snowmachines/helmet incident,
and then ends with the above "Cleared by A..T...etc" (CS cleared 6:25P)
Then follows the Maura incident call repeated again (as on page 18) continuing on to the
rest of the last half of log entry....

There is a space between 2/9/04 6:25P and 7:27P (not only of time...but, of paper space
in the Log) page 18, that would/could/might fit the scanner call (left in PV) that Anne heard.
What would be the rationale of not putting it the Log?.....again..I dunno...

The pages state at the top "Printed 11/04/2004" (about the same time as the beginning
of the first Maura Murray Forum) It appears to be edited...omissions ..? Page 18 & 19
for Haverhill....

Looking4...question.... is your "neighbor" employed by HPD, NHSP or Grafton County
Sheriff's Dept. as a "Deputy"...?

PS Wouldn't damage from guard rail be on the passenger front...?