Where is MAURA MURRAY

OK - so before I shared my thoughts and it brought me to believe he had no reason to lie.

Now with it being dark - who's to say he lied - he could have just misidentified. Now - as far as the conversation he is reported to have with the person - in general - most people have a voice by which they can be identified as either a man or a woman.

I can give this much leeway - if the person didn't actually speak - "Do you need help" (shakes head no and holds up a AAA card and phone without saying anything - well there is a path to misidentification.

But I think the point is moot - I don't need to qualify thinking of why he would lie - to explore how a man could have ended up in that car. Because Weeper did ask to consider that a man was in the car - so - I figure I should take a shot anyway and I encourage others to correct me and take a stab at it too.

First thought I have is - if that were a man in the car - how could he have got there?

Under this assumption - critical parameters include Maura not being in her own car when it was found and Maura not being seen since, perhaps not in the car. Anywhere I say there is an assumption that can be modified later. For now - I'm going to assume that the car was in Amhurst up until the day Maura went missing, that Maura got in the car and drove it, leaving at 2:30.

I ignore the report of her dormmate saying she left between 3:30 PM - 4:30 PM. I ignore Mr. Atwood's statement that the Woman in the car had a passing resemblance to Maura. I ignore the possibilities of 1.(her running off by herself or with "secret" boyfriend) 2.(Her agreeing to be wisked away by a group for unknown reasons) 3.(Her having an unusual psycholigical experience with medical basis - dying far away from the site after being on foot) 4.(Her being shopped for by criminals in Amhurst - a "reverse look alike" to fool the ATM machine and liquor store cameras - dump the car where book found in her dorm is subject of)
Obviously - if anything I ignore is true - you'll have to work out its effects of the remaining. I ignore that Mr. Atwood did not notice blood on the car driver - even though I allow more time for a murder and cover up - I lack the knowledge to judge if a cover up could be accomplished in two hours, a cover up that hasn't been uncovered in 4.5 years - but I have serious doubts. No reports of blood found in the car.

Part 1

I assume that after her call with her fiance - that she immediately emailed her bosses and professors and went to get money and some drinks. I also assume that this was a simple vacation for her - a time to get away.

I don't assume she left at 4:37 PM - when she checked her cell phone messages (I had assumed that the phone had lost its charge and her plugging it into the car gave it power - allowing her to check messages at that point.)

I'll now assume that she was already on her way and that her decision to check her voice messages was triggered by the call from Londonberry - she didn't want to answer the phone - but decided to see who it was.(My phone displays the number of the caller - but I won't assume that here.)

It would have been beneficial to know what tower she was in contact with when she checked her messages.

I'm not going to discriminate her destination. She has directions in her car to Burlington, Vermont - but she called Bartlett, New Hampshire.

OK - so looking at Google maps - it says that a drive from Amherst, Massachusetts to Burlington, Vermont takes 3 hours 12 mins. If she left at 2:30 - she'd be in Bennington, Vermont at 5:42.

Just to check - the drive from Bennington, Vermont to Woodsville, New Hampshire takes 1 hour 29 mins - according to Google maps. If she went that way - she'd be at Woodville at 7:11.

Alternatively - looking at Google Maps - it says it would take 3 hours 37 mins to get to Bartlett, New Hampshire, she'd be there at 6:07 PM.

Part 2

If something went wrong at White River Junction - the most direct route is the same for both choices - she would be in White River Junction at 1 hour 47 mins, be there at 4:17 PM.

I can't conclusively say Maura woke up at around noon - but the evidence seems to suggest this. Around 4:00 or so would be past the right time to eat lunch for someone who gets up at 1:00PM and goes to sleep at 5:00AM.

5:00 AM + 8 hours sleep = wake up at about 1:00 PM, wikipedia says (12:55 PM - Maura calls for information about a condominium)- I'm assuming she started her day doing that. Search continues until 2:18 PM (- Maura calls her boyfriend for approximately 1 minute.)

I'm not familiar with the availability of places to eat on Interestates 91 and 89 - but they at least have to have truck stops and gas stations - I take for granted an Interstate would. Truckers eat - but its more out of necessity then enjoyment - and if this was a trip to get away / relax then White River Junction might be a preferred choice to sit down at a table and eat.

Where she might have stopped I couldn't say in this scenario. But the car has to stop somewhere for her to get out, and someone to get in - presumably time for a crime to take place - this is also why I say 2:30 above.

Another reason to consider White River Junction is - and I could be wrong - that choices of where she could eat dinner *might* be limited further North in less populated areas - presuming dinner is 10:00 PM. White River Junction would be a good place to shop for things to eat later.

Hanging on strings here.

Part 3

So - in general - i.e. for it not to be suicide - someone else had to harm her. this scenario (based on the assumed outcome - a man, not Maura, was in the car) requires her to stop somewhere, possibly including -

1. Gas station
2. Places to eat
3. Supermarket
4. Meet someone - if lured---> (Requires Maura be promiced something to get her to go there)

or

Take someone with her

or

Have someone follow her

or

Have someone join her

and

after a certain time - the intruder or companion would then commit a criminal act.

I think at that point (Or just picking up a hitchhiker) are all possible - if all the above factors I've ignored, are ignored.

But this scenario provides enough time for a crime to happen, problem is that it ignores too many critical factors, especially critical is blood, the appearance of someone that could at least pass for being Maura and most likely Mr. Atwood hearing Maura's voice.

I also note that if any of the above happened - that ended in harm to Maura - the criminal not only escaped - but left no evidence that anyone recognized as such (at least as far as we know) and to me that is more indicative that it was not a Man, but Maura.

What I find unexplainable - is - if the person in the car were smoking cigarettes - we would know about that. Butts would be found. The car would smell like smoke. The ashtray would have cigarette ends in them, ready for DNA testing.

Anyway - that's the time I have for now - any more detail beyond possible places to look - the manner by which a criminal could have attacked Maura is as diverse as crimes that take place everywhere.

I prepare income tax returns for a living amongst other things.
Before I get into details - I do want to say this:
I like Firecat, and from what I've seen - she's been reasonable (Even when I have been less then reasonable then her) and I don't think she's been unreasonable. We don't always agree - nor do we always disagee - but I respect her opinion.
Just from everything I've seen of what she has written - I just hate to see so many comments coming to her from all sides, all at once. Even though I'll admit that at times I don't agree with her.
I'm just talking about the circumstance only - I have no intention here of making any characterization of anybody - so please don't feel as if I think I'm telling anybody that I feel that they are of negative character.
One thing I want to point out is this. If you aren't satisfied with what I have provided - do your own research . All I can say is that Income Tax preparation is a part of my professional skills that I am certified for.
Parents cannot report a child's _wages_ on his / her / their tax return. A parent can report a child's dividend and interest income only, and only if they are young enough. In 2004 you could only do that much if the child was _under 14_. Its called "Kiddie Tax." As of 2007, the rules changed and the cut off age was 18. Form 8814 was designed for this purpose.
Here are the instructions From: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8814.pdf
"Use this form if you elect to report your child’s income on your return. If you do, your child will not have to file a return. You can make this election if your child
meets all of the following conditions.
* There was no federal income tax withheld from the child’s income.
* The child was under age 18 at the end of 2007.(A child born on January 1, 1990, is considered to be age 18 at the
end of 2007. You cannot make this election for such a child.)
Privacy.
The IRS will not share any information with anyone unless they are the taxpayer OR if the taxpayer has signed a Power of Attorney, here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2848.pdf
If anyone wants to look at this information this form applies: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8821.pdf
Note that the form contains the following instructions near the signature line:
"Signature of taxpayer(s). If a tax matter applies to a joint return, either husband or wife must sign. If signed by a corporate officer, partner, guardian, executor, receiver, administrator, trustee, or party other than the taxpayer, I certify that I have the authority to execute this form with respect to the tax matters/periods on line 3 above."
Part 1

Part 2

If the taxpayer is deceased - the following rules apply:
From: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc356.html
"Also, please add the date of death across the top of the final return. If the decedent is due a refund, it may be necessary to file Form 1310 (PDF), Statement of Person Claiming Refund Due a Deceased Taxpayer, with the return. If you are a surviving spouse filing a joint return, or a court appointed or certified personal representative filing an original return for the decedent, you do not have to file Form 1310. Personal representatives must attach to the return a copy of the court certificate showing the appointment."
So unless some court judges Maura as dead - her own parents won't have access to the information from the IRS. However - I discuss other possibilities below intermixed with my opinions.
Now - am I going to go as far and say that it would be impossible for the folks to find out where she worked if they wanted to (if they didn't know)? No.
Do I think having a clear picture of her schedule might help? Yes - in the same way the other facts about when and where she was has helped get a picture of what was going on - and helps us formulate timelines.
Do I understand that they may want to protect Maura's privacy? Yes
Do I understand Whiston's frustration too? Yes.
Could finding the information Whiston asks for be just a matter of looking at Maura's old mail? Certainly and very likely.

I prepare income tax returns for a living amongst other things.

Before I get into details - I do want to say this:

I like Firecat, and from what I've seen - she's been reasonable (Even when I have been less then reasonable then her) and I don't think she's been unreasonable. We don't always agree - nor do we always disagee - but I respect her opinion.

Just from everything I've seen of what she has written - I just hate to see so many comments coming to her from all sides, all at once. Even though I'll admit that at times I don't agree with her.

I'm just talking about the circumstance only - I have no intention here of making any characterization of anybody - so please don't feel as if I think I'm telling anybody that I feel that they are of negative character.

One thing I want to point out is this. If you aren't satisfied with what I have provided - do your own research . All I can say is that Income Tax preparation is a part of my professional skills that I am certified for.

Parents cannot report a child's _wages_ on his / her / their tax return. A parent can report a child's dividend and interest income only, and only if they are young enough. In 2004 you could only do that much if the child was _under 14_. Its called "Kiddie Tax." As of 2007, the rules changed and the cut off age was 18. Form 8814 was designed for this purpose.

Here are the instructions From: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8814.pdf

"Use this form if you elect to report your child’s income on your return. If you do, your child will not have to file a return. You can make this election if your child
meets all of the following conditions.

* There was no federal income tax withheld from the child’s income.

* The child was under age 18 at the end of 2007.(A child born on January 1, 1990, is considered to be age 18 at the
end of 2007. You cannot make this election for such a child.)

Privacy.

The IRS will not share any information with anyone unless they are the taxpayer OR if the taxpayer has signed a Power of Attorney, here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2848.pdf

If anyone wants to look at this information this form applies: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8821.pdf

Note that the form contains the following instructions near the signature line:

"Signature of taxpayer(s). If a tax matter applies to a joint return, either husband or wife must sign. If signed by a corporate officer, partner, guardian, executor, receiver, administrator, trustee, or party other than the taxpayer, I certify that I have the authority to execute this form with respect to the tax matters/periods on line 3 above."

**This is supposed to be part 1 - I posted it - it showed up, then I posted part two - now 1 is gone.**

Oddly it is often DEMANDED that the locals
and LE share all information regardless of
damage it may cause to finding Maura!

Seems Fair enough!

elsewherebriefly wrote:

The majority of us with "emotional involvement and history" have always been respectful of Maura's family, have not prodded for information, and have appreciated what they've shared with us.
With all due respect to Whiston, he is not representative of the majority.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
Meant to say your reply is just plain rude and insulting to Whiston who has been with the MMM for a long time.

I agree. This forum has deteriorated into a swamp of ugly and angry attacks against some of the strongest, kindest, and most relentless searchers for facts and the truth.

Instead of posting here I like the idea of meeting periodically in a group to talk, as another poster suggested, somewhere "equidistant" (well, you know what I mean) from those who want to attend.

Sadly anything forced always breaks!!

For those wanting a Memorial I think they should
start that WEBSITE! Respect their rights!
This is a PUBLIC FORUM which nobody has the right
to FORCE or MONITOR!

All investigators I have met remove their emotions from a case. As you can see what
happens when emotions are involved.

There are some amazing ideas and thoughts here
that should be allowed to be explored!

Sadly there are those who believe proving their
own creditablity or opinion is more important
than finding Maura but sadly it is the way of the
world! ME ME ME all about ME ME!

Quija wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. This forum has deteriorated into a swamp of ugly and angry attacks against some of the strongest, kindest, and most relentless searchers for facts and the truth.
Instead of posting here I like the idea of meeting periodically in a group to talk, as another poster suggested, somewhere "equidistant" (well, you know what I mean) from those who want to attend.

I thought if the child also made under 3000 you
could claim them if they where under 18 or a full time college student as well?

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

I prepare income tax returns for a living amongst other things.
Before I get into details - I do want to say this:
I like Firecat, and from what I've seen - she's been reasonable (Even when I have been less then reasonable then her) and I don't think she's been unreasonable. We don't always agree - nor do we always disagee - but I respect her opinion.
Just from everything I've seen of what she has written - I just hate to see so many comments coming to her from all sides, all at once. Even though I'll admit that at times I don't agree with her.
I'm just talking about the circumstance only - I have no intention here of making any characterization of anybody - so please don't feel as if I think I'm telling anybody that I feel that they are of negative character.
One thing I want to point out is this. If you aren't satisfied with what I have provided - do your own research . All I can say is that Income Tax preparation is a part of my professional skills that I am certified for.
Parents cannot report a child's _wages_ on his / her / their tax return. A parent can report a child's dividend and interest income only, and only if they are young enough. In 2004 you could only do that much if the child was _under 14_. Its called "Kiddie Tax." As of 2007, the rules changed and the cut off age was 18. Form 8814 was designed for this purpose.
Here are the instructions From: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8814.pdf
"Use this form if you elect to report your child’s income on your return. If you do, your child will not have to file a return. You can make this election if your child
meets all of the following conditions.
* There was no federal income tax withheld from the child’s income.
* The child was under age 18 at the end of 2007.(A child born on January 1, 1990, is considered to be age 18 at the
end of 2007. You cannot make this election for such a child.)
Privacy.
The IRS will not share any information with anyone unless they are the taxpayer OR if the taxpayer has signed a Power of Attorney, here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f2848.pdf
If anyone wants to look at this information this form applies: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8821.pdf
Note that the form contains the following instructions near the signature line:
"Signature of taxpayer(s). If a tax matter applies to a joint return, either husband or wife must sign. If signed by a corporate officer, partner, guardian, executor, receiver, administrator, trustee, or party other than the taxpayer, I certify that I have the authority to execute this form with respect to the tax matters/periods on line 3 above."
Part 1

Sorry MY BAD Information was wrong from the IRS website!

Unearned Income Only
A dependent must file a return if all his or her income is unearned income, and the total is more than the amount listed in the following table.

Marital Status Amount
Single
Under 65 and not blind $ 850
Either 65 or older or blind $2,150
65 or older and blind $3,450
Married*
Under 65 and not blind $ 850
Either 65 or older or blind $1,900
65 or older and blind $2,950

White Wash wrote:

I thought if the child also made under 3000 you
could claim them if they where under 18 or a full time college student as well?
<quoted text>

Ben Frankklin, I see many of your points....and the one I'm having the most problem with is......the fact that it asks us to ignore so many things.

Most specifically in that, the dorm-mate's eyewitness, which we have no reason to question, SBD's eyewitness, which we might, and her leaving at 2:30 when I'm pretty sure there's video surveillance that places her in the area after 2:30.

Which is to say, I'm agreeing with your thought-process there.

And that makes the cell tower ping....still a random mystery.

It's also strange, and someone correct me if they have facts contrariwise. as usual--didn't we just recently have confirmed that Maura's family hasn't actually seen that video footage? That's just weird. Even if it was confirmed by UMass police.

From Wilkpedia
1:00 PM - Maura sends her boyfriend an e-mail, briefly stating she hasn't felt like talking to anyone, but that she will call him later in the day.
1:13 PM - Maura calls another student and leaves a voicemail. No significant information.
2:05 PM - Maura calls 800-GOSTOWE for approximately 5 minutes. Later research shows this number was out of order on this day and that only recordings were available for listening.
2:18 PM - Maura calls her boyfriend for approximately 1 minute.
4:00 PM or earlier - Maura e-mails one of her bosses and some of her teachers to inform them that there has been a death in her family and that she would be out of town for several days. There is no death in her family.
3:30 PM - 4:30 PM - A dorm mate reportedly sees Maura leave the UMass Amherst campus.
4:00 PM or earlier - Maura goes to an ATM and withdraws $280 from her account. Video surveillance footage shows her to be alone. Her bank account is left nearly empty. She is due to receive paychecks from her job in the coming days.
4:00 PM or earlier - Maura purchases $35-$40 in alcohol while still in Amherst, Massachusetts. Video surveillance footage shows her to be alone.
4:00 PM or later - Maura apparently leaves Amherst, Massachusetts and likely heads up Interstate 91 north.
4:37 PM - Maura checks her cellphone voice messages.

FireCat wrote:

Ben Frankklin, I see many of your points....and the one I'm having the most problem with is......the fact that it asks us to ignore so many things.
Most specifically in that, the dorm-mate's eyewitness, which we have no reason to question, SBD's eyewitness, which we might, and her leaving at 2:30 when I'm pretty sure there's video surveillance that places her in the area after 2:30.
Which is to say, I'm agreeing with your thought-process there.
And that makes the cell tower ping....still a random mystery.
It's also strange, and someone correct me if they have facts contrariwise. as usual--didn't we just recently have confirmed that Maura's family hasn't actually seen that video footage? That's just weird. Even if it was confirmed by UMass police.

Sadly we do not have access to Maura's cell phone records so we really don't know if the time
are correct.

You posting is stating other wise on times anymore you would like to share FireCat? I'm confused.
Thanks

FireCat wrote:

Ben Frankklin, I see many of your points....and the one I'm having the most problem with is......the fact that it asks us to ignore so many things.
Most specifically in that, the dorm-mate's eyewitness, which we have no reason to question, SBD's eyewitness, which we might, and her leaving at 2:30 when I'm pretty sure there's video surveillance that places her in the area after 2:30.
Which is to say, I'm agreeing with your thought-process there.
And that makes the cell tower ping....still a random mystery.
It's also strange, and someone correct me if they have facts contrariwise. as usual--didn't we just recently have confirmed that Maura's family hasn't actually seen that video footage? That's just weird. Even if it was confirmed by UMass police.

Sorry FireCat there seems to be a lot of weird
for many of us who have lots of questions! Like
Fred seems ok with that investigation why? Why
are we entitled to that investigation he seems
to have all the information he felt he needed from them?
Why???

FireCat wrote:

It's also strange, and someone correct me if they have facts contrariwise. as usual--didn't we just recently have confirmed that Maura's family hasn't actually seen that video footage? That's just weird. Even if it was confirmed by UMass police.

FireCat wrote:

Ben Frankklin, I see many of your points....and the one I'm having the most problem with is......the fact that it asks us to ignore so many things.
Most specifically in that, the dorm-mate's eyewitness, which we have no reason to question, SBD's eyewitness, which we might, and her leaving at 2:30 when I'm pretty sure there's video surveillance that places her in the area after 2:30.
Which is to say, I'm agreeing with your thought-process there.
And that makes the cell tower ping....still a random mystery.
It's also strange, and someone correct me if they have facts contrariwise. as usual--didn't we just recently have confirmed that Maura's family hasn't actually seen that video footage? That's just weird. Even if it was confirmed by UMass police.

Hello FireCat & all,
Yes, I most certainly recall that we were told on this board that Maura´s family apparently had not seen the video footage from Amherst.
If that is indeed correct, I would have to strongly agree with you. For the Murray family not to have seen that video footage would be very strange indeed, IMHO.
What on earth could the reason be?

FireCat wrote:

It's also strange, and someone correct me if they have facts contrariwise. as usual--didn't we just recently have confirmed that Maura's family hasn't actually seen that video footage? That's just weird. Even if it was confirmed by UMass police.

For a second there I didn't know what video footage. Then I took a sip of coffee - and realized you probably mean ATM and Video store footage.

As for myself - I think I should have said - that I don't believe that I heard from the Murrays themselves that they haven't seen the video.

White Wash wrote:

Sorry MY BAD Information was wrong from the IRS website!
Unearned Income Only
A dependent must file a return if all his or her income is unearned income, and the total is more than the amount listed in the following table.
Marital Status Amount
Single
Under 65 and not blind $ 850
Either 65 or older or blind $2,150
65 or older and blind $3,450
Married*
Under 65 and not blind $ 850
Either 65 or older or blind $1,900
65 or older and blind $2,950
<quoted text>

Hi Whitewash - good to see you here.

White Wash wrote:

Sorry FireCat there seems to be a lot of weird
for many of us who have lots of questions! Like
Fred seems ok with that investigation why? Why
are we entitled to that investigation he seems
to have all the information he felt he needed from them?
Why???
<quoted text>

The only thing I should say is that I'm not sure Firecat should feel that she would be able to answer this question.