Where is MAURA MURRAY

Ben Franklin wrote:

As an aside - WTF brought up disk imaging - so I thought I'd pass on a few good things to know.....

Couldn't you simply take the hard drive out, connect it, set the jumpers to install it as a slave on any other computer running windows 98 or higher, and access the files that are on it to either view or copy on a CD or other media?

I do believe it is entirely possible that Maura ran up the road. I also think it was not for the alcohol she carried or drank but that she had a destination somewhere fairly close...I have often wondered if she knew someone in the area. Somewhere I read how long it would take her to jog where CW said he saw her. WTF, maybe you recall or have an estimate how long it would take her to run where he spotted her.

About CW. I thought it took 35 minutes to get from clocking out, to his home right across from SBD. He says he saw someone rushing along and states he could not tell the gender. It was about 8:00 pm. Police went to *him* after a shopkeeper listened to him say all that, in turn telling Fred....
But let's say he was 4-5 miles from home and going home...I mean he went right home, didn't he? He says so 12 or 14 days later when police get around to asking him. He was at home and didn't see a thing. The Saturn is almost across from him and he states he didn't know about all the commotion. I still don't know if Kathleen talked with him on the 12th, wish the timeline was still up.
Then later, a local comes on to say that CW says he thought the accident happened at 1:00am and he was sleeping and so that's why he didn't notice the commotion. If this sounds OK and reasonable to you, well, OK then. I have a hard time understanding so much confusion myself.
As far as running goes, I used to run the dogs at night. I stayed on the fresh new road when they leveled the farm and built houses. It's close, but not pitch black here either and I see pretty well at night, even in winter. But there are frost heaves where she was and when you go off the beaten path it can get rough. Especially in winter, and with ditches, etc. I know she was strong enough to handle that, especially if she was determined enough to press on. Maybe she did find a new life, new name, new everything. It doesn't make sense for her. She seemed to want to tell Billy something after the accident with Dad's car and eluded to not wanting to talk on Monday. But she did call Billy and said she *promised* to call him later.
Why would she run off on such a cruel note to all those she cared for? Maybe we'll never know, but maybe she didn't run off either. And you think she ran off with her Baileys and such that police wouldn't find out about until later? Some of the alcohol was missing? Before they started an investigation? They could say this, why?
And the Maura look alike idea bugs the snot out of me. If this was this case, they blew it. Wrong height, hair down and alot longer than Maura's hair. It was just plain rare to see her hair down.

but wasn't it also just plain rare for Maura to act the way she was acting prior to disappearing? two auto accidents, lying about a death in the family, not being straightforward with what was on her mind with Billy, etc.? Still think the beginning of the answer is in or around Amherst......

looking4amoose wrote:

but wasn't it also just plain rare for Maura to act the way she was acting prior to disappearing? two auto accidents, lying about a death in the family, not being straightforward with what was on her mind with Billy, etc.? Still think the beginning of the answer is in or around Amherst......

Yes, I agree something was really getting to her, like she was caught in over her head or something.

Let's suppose someone had something on her, someone she knew or not, but still. That person is around saying things and/////you better do what I say. Maura wants to tell but just can't. Protecting herself or someone close she tries to wing it? Could be on PC though, get that IMAGE copy!!!!!!!
They say go to xxx, bring xxx or xxx.
Maura thinks she can do this alone? She goes and is in for the suprise of her life.

Paris, if CW left from Franconia drive, it would take him 10 or 15 minutes to drive home. I cannot imagine how he missed the commotion just outside his home. To me that presents a thousand questions.

E-Investigates aired a segment on the Conn. River Valley Serial Killer this evening.

Exactly. And they said he clocked out at 7. Qiuja was saying that maybe he stopped for some beers and it could be one reason for not going up to the people who were out and about along with police, fire, rescue......tow truck, what did I miss? Wowzer and other parents searching in the vicinity of the area where he lives too. Remember, the car was closer to SBD and CW house than we previously thought?
I wonder again, why did CS and SBD go looking the same direction though? If it was looking like she was heading East as supposed in the 'accident' report, why didn't they go that way? Monahan seemed to be covering the bases that way too, so why? Did someone see something after all, like the unmarked vehicle.......whoever said they saw 'Maura' 1-2 minutes before police arrived could have been talking about the first time?

elsewherebriefly wrote:

E-Investigates aired a segment on the Conn. River Valley Serial Killer this evening.

I saw that, it was very interesting. Thank you Elsewhere.

To clarify, everyone seemed to be looking West.

looking4amoose wrote:

but wasn't it also just plain rare for Maura to act the way she was acting prior to disappearing? two auto accidents, lying about a death in the family, not being straightforward with what was on her mind with Billy, etc.? Still think the beginning of the answer is in or around Amherst......

Well, until she crashed in NH, if she did, there was one accident. Someone could have forced her off the road or maybe just jitters from driving so late, slippery roads made her fail.
Firecat pointed out that you pretty much have to use a dramatic excuse like that to get out of classes. As for Billy, she seemed to want to and it must have been a threat or something for her not to tell him. Or embarrassment somehow to herself or another. There too, knowing he's far away she maybe thought talking alone may not change the problem at hand. Maura was pretty new there too.

WTF wrote:

Even better. I was mistaken. Those were older blogs. They have started a new blog that is invitation only but also does not appear to be viewable by anyone except the gang of 5. No worries about it being public. Certain members will be able to b***h slap the crap out of the New England states till their hearts content....... Ahhhhhhhh Nirvana.:) And it’s the best of both worlds. They get to do it and the public can’t see it.

B

Bill, I think that's my blog. No conspiracies, no secret b**ch slapping clubs.

I shut it down because I'm seriously trying to take some time away and I also posted photos of myself that I need to remove, that's all.

WTF wrote:

Even better. I was mistaken. Those were older blogs. They have started a new blog that is invitation only but also does not appear to be viewable by anyone except the gang of 5. No worries about it being public. Certain members will be able to b***h slap the crap out of the New England states till their hearts content....... Ahhhhhhhh Nirvana.:) And it’s the best of both worlds. They get to do it and the public can’t see it.
B

What in heck are you referring to, Bill? I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm just really confused. This post came out of nowhere....I'm just trying to figure out what prompted you to write it. I'm reading along, and then there's this. If it's any consolation to you, I guess I'm not one of the cool kids either, because I know of no such "private, invited" blog. ;-)

mcsmom wrote:

Would it be possible for someone to link us to another vehicle accident report by C.Smith from the same Weathered Barn corner previous to 2/9/04?
Apparently the corner was the site of many previous accidents so it shouldn't be too hard to dig one up......?

Hey, now THERE'S an idea. Maybe his reports were always dopey looking like this. Not that it makes it excusable, but it would at least put a perspective on what in heck we're looking at.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill, I think that's my blog. No conspiracies, no secret b**ch slapping clubs.
I shut it down because I'm seriously trying to take some time away and I also posted photos of myself that I need to remove, that's all.

Ahhso. FireCat experiences another moment of belated clarity.

Frankly, I'm glad there are those of you out there who know what others are talking about (paris, Moose, others) when they talk about copying the computer hard drives. WTF, were you also involved in that discussion? Anyway, I read it and all I get is "blah blah blah, you were a wimpy liberal arts major, this is stuff for intelligent people"

!

But yes, I wonder what is on that computer. And I wonder if the family perhaps DID have it looked at, and that simply falls under the category of "cannot discuss." Though, admittedly, it may not have been top in their minds. We can certainly hope that it's being looked at....by SOMEONE.

Paris, I suck--I still haven't sent that 20/20 DVD out to you. I PROMISE I'll do it this week. Anyone else need a copy while I'm at it?

Another way this whole thing can be looked at - is to systematically and unbiasedly consider that only 1 person is lying about what happened and see if things make sense from there.

Example - persons a, b, c, & d

First: accept everything said by persons a, b & c as true, d as false.

Second: accept everything said by persons b, c & d as true, a as false.

Third: accept everything said by persons c, d & a as true, b as false.

Fourth: accept everything said by persons d, a and b as true, c as false.

Which scenario makes the most sense?

looking4amoose wrote:

<quoted text> Couldn't you simply take the hard drive out, connect it, set the jumpers to install it as a slave on any other computer running windows 98 or higher, and access the files that are on it to either view or copy on a CD or other media?

Yes - you could.:) Problem is its the only disk you have and even though unlikely - there is a risk to damaging hardware (I've done it before - long time ago - disk was smoking). A CD might not have enough space to salvage a drive's contents. Maybe a DVD - I don't recall.

If you don't have a thumb drive - Knoppix can also establish a network connection - you could FTP if you only have an internet connection or you could connect to a Samba or windows share on a server that won't take a PC hard disk.

I wasn't clear earlier in that most people would have satisfactory results with a thumb drive & Knoppix to copy and paste the data they want to save to the thumb drive.

They don't need DD at all. Loopback function - any of that. The DD procedure exceeds most people's needs for data recovery.

I wanted to do two things with that post: 1. Share information as to how a likely certifiable disk image could be acquired by investigators very cheaply and easily - no consultants required - probably less then 20 bucks, plus the media to store the image that would cost in both cases. Don't need to buy a $300 package for Windows to get something the court would accept. That the investigator is independent - they have to know that much.

The second is a simple way to recover data if you don't have another computer available - or you aren't comfortable opening it up - changing hardware might be something you don't want to risk - if so, all you need is a thumb drive and Knoppix.

Turn the computer on with the cd and thumb drive in - after the gui comes up, click on your hard drive edit/select all - click on thumb drive and paste - your data is saved.

However - this won't save evidence from deleted files - but DD would.

I don't know what the courts want for sure - but my guess is a disk image that is mathematically checked to determine it is a mirror image of the hard disk and that it is certified and examined as such by an independent party.

I'm getting frustrated myself - what sucks is that we can discuss all sorts of details - but people been looking at this for a long time.

I really doubt I'm going to think of anything new.

We can talk and talk - but that doesn't mean anybody is going to act upon what we say.

I mean especially if the only possible conclusion that the current discussion could lead to is - that a Policeman is guilty (not that I believe this _or_ rule it out)- I just don't know where that discussion will go - i.e. who polices the Police?

But I also start to think its unlikely that a Policeman is guilty. And then I think we're scraping the bottle of the barrell here - better look elsewhere.

Blogger pages, facebook, myspace and others all can be made private, big deal. The only people who can read are the ones you've taken in on your page. Nothing wrong with that. You should be able to read though if you register or are registered.
As for thinking of anything new, we do and at times it's a really good thing. Like looking at other accident reports from that corner..........maybe the majority of accidents occur predictably. But I still think that report is a deliberate account of what the officer *wants* it to be. I think so because of all the other things that we have learned since then about the spin out.