Where is MAURA MURRAY

do you think she dissapeared on her own

White Wash wrote:

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
<quoted text>

Firecat mentions 2:30 - because I mentioned 2:30 (stating that I was ignoring some evidence)

I ignored 3:30-4:30 because its a big time range. Either the witness that the information is sourced from didn't know the exact time and provided an estimate, the words "late afternoon" was interpreted as 3:30 - 4:30 or the actual time is purposely not being disclosed by authorities.

In any case - any information police are not releasing - its unfair to ask someone that knows the information to cross the wishes of Police - at least that's my opinion.

whiston wrote:
Mauras prior life is a mystery for a reason

Firecat wrote:
How can you be sure of that, philip? The fact is, you can't, unless you yourself know the reason for that mystery. Do you? If so, let's talk. If not, you have NO reason to make that statement, which is another of those insinuations of which I earlier spoke.

Oh dear, I really hate to jump into the fray; HOWEVER, I will say that, Philip, you have been so accusatory of the Murray family not answering your questions.

What's that ole saying, he who casts a stone or something about a house with glass walls, or maybe both? But, Philip, you also don't answer questions.

You are making insinuations, but when you are pressed to answer or elaborate, you don't.

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>

(Firecat, Euroserver and Quija - good to see you here.[I probably can't keep this up])

Just because your child is a dependent - does not mean you are required to report their Wages on your return. Its in fact the opposite - Wages are "Earned Income" and the dollar amounts you posted up there are requirement triggers for filing.

If a dependant is under those dollar amounts and had federal income tax withheld - they should still file to get their withholding back. But they are not required to file.

Lady Gray wrote:

whiston wrote:
Mauras prior life is a mystery for a reason
Firecat wrote:
How can you be sure of that, philip? The fact is, you can't, unless you yourself know the reason for that mystery. Do you? If so, let's talk. If not, you have NO reason to make that statement, which is another of those insinuations of which I earlier spoke.
Oh dear, I really hate to jump into the fray; HOWEVER, I will say that, Philip, you have been so accusatory of the Murray family not answering your questions.
What's that ole saying, he who casts a stone or something about a house with glass walls, or maybe both? But, Philip, you also don't answer questions.
You are making insinuations, but when you are pressed to answer or elaborate, you don't.

I'm going to side with Whiston to the extent that I can observe that the questions have not been answered. If you admit there is an insinuation there - then you admit you agree.

But since it has been said that the Police may have decided that this information not be disclosed - I don't know what to think.

White Wash wrote:

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!
<quoted text>

And it is just as often (I hope) pointed out by others, including you WW, that this is both impractical and dangerous. For starters. And thank you for bringing that up again and reminding people that WE don't have a right to anything. The FAMILY has certain rights, which must be balanced with the safety and legality of any investigation that might bring closure, find Maura, bring her home, and/or prosecute someone.

We the general public don't get to know everything. That's just the way it is.

Whiston answer questions?
Is WHISTON MISSING?
Is Whiston claiming to be the Murray spoke person?
What am I missing?

Keep asking Whiston!!

Only questions answered are those asked!

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm going to side with Whiston to the extent that I can observe that the questions have not been answered. If you admit there is an insinuation there - then you admit you agree.
But since it has been said that the Police may have decided that this information not be disclosed - I don't know what to think.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

<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.

I don't think that was directed at me specifically, Ben. I think White Wash was simply venting in frustration. And you're right, I have no idea why. But for whatever reason, he does. It WOULD be swell if we could know why. I'm totally with White Wash on that. But, cf: my above post, we'll just have to take what is on that count.

White Wash, I'm not sure what other information you think I have or should have; I'll have to go back and re-read both my post and your response more closely and see if I can suss that out. Back with you momently.....

Why I pay somoene like you to do this stuff!
Thanks!

So I am assuming Maura filed would you or no?

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

<quoted text>
(Firecat, Euroserver and Quija - good to see you here.[I probably can't keep this up])
Just because your child is a dependent - does not mean you are required to report their Wages on your return. Its in fact the opposite - Wages are "Earned Income" and the dollar amounts you posted up there are requirement triggers for filing.
If a dependant is under those dollar amounts and had federal income tax withheld - they should still file to get their withholding back. But they are not required to file.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:

<quoted text>
Firecat mentions 2:30 - because I mentioned 2:30 (stating that I was ignoring some evidence)
I ignored 3:30-4:30 because its a big time range. Either the witness that the information is sourced from didn't know the exact time and provided an estimate, the words "late afternoon" was interpreted as 3:30 - 4:30 or the actual time is purposely not being disclosed by authorities.
In any case - any information police are not releasing - its unfair to ask someone that knows the information to cross the wishes of Police - at least that's my opinion.

OH! Yes. That. I was using Ben's hyopthetical scenario as the basis for that. Saying it didn't hold water if the video of her "4:00 or earlier" could be nailed down to a more specific time.

Again, not home near files (am I ever?) so I can't verify that the ATM and liquor store time-stamps have ever been narrowed down further than that.

Hope that clears that up, White Wash.

If I had information (and I was legally allowed to share it, of course) I would. What I gots is what I gots. Wish I had more.

White Wash wrote:

Why I pay somoene like you to do this stuff!
Thanks!
So I am assuming Maura filed would you or no?
<quoted text>

LOL me too, White Wash.

Personally, there were years in college I didn't file, mostly because it wasn't required and I wouldn't have gotten any refund. As for Maura, which is specifically what you asked of course, I don't know.

whiston wrote:

hi citigirl.is this the part where i feel bad for asking .it wont' happen.Mauras prior life is a mystery for a reason whether you are one that knows it or not.take care philip

Mauras prior life is not a mystery.

White Wash wrote:

Why I pay somoene like you to do this stuff!
Thanks!
So I am assuming Maura filed would you or no?
<quoted text>

Maura is supposed to file - if she made over the filing threashold.

Now even if I had Maura's W-2's in my hands, and I prepared the returns, Maura would not be able to sign the returns or give authorization to e-file.

Only if someone went to court and the court ruled her as deceased - and if an Administrator of her estate was appointed - could someone else sign the returns for her.

A related subject is a program I didn't even know about until today, in the link I provide here:
http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=1...

and here:

http://www.bernco.gov/upload/images/probate/2...

But this was written for folks with pension plans that the administrator cannot find to pay the benefit to.

IRS Privacy Manual

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part11/ch03s11.html

The tax rules have relief for combat zone missing persons here: Page 19 & 22: http://www.irs.treas.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p3.pdf

Scroll down to the bottom of this page - it allows someone to take a missing dependant as an exemption.

http://www.taxalmanac.org/index.php/Sec._152

I do not know the date of purchase of the Saturn in CT (the title date) I don't know the date
of inspection/registration) The Saturn was registered/insured in the name of Fred Murray.
The title mileage would indicate how many miles from purchase to end...the end would be on 112 in area of Woodsville, NH. From what I remember, Maura wasn't confident in driving the Saturn. Perhaps new driver/car jitters..?(How many miles had Maura driven the car?)
Perhaps LE and/or PI have considered these sources. ie original Title reading ...
vs. plus reading of odometer reading at Route 112 . We do know that from Amherst, MA to
Haverhill, NH is approximately 150 miles.(think Sharon wrote 146..?)
I wonder about Maura's last week before the Saturn was found on 112. Thinking back, only hour by hour, day by day, back from 7PM 2/9/2004.
Whiston's inquiries about Maura's life BEFORE ..does appear invasive....however the
way I see it is...I only want to know who Maura was seen by, who she talked to,any meeting of any sort to give ANY clue to what she was intending to do. OR any clue to what could have happened to her.
What I mean is, that when there is any suspicious or criminal activity, that would seem to be the only sensible way to do...is to go backwards in time on an investigation.

Hopefully MA and NH Law Enforcement are really "workin' on it..backwards" from the time of 7pm ish 2/09/04 to..."where or whenever"
Hoping even more than that,...A Massachusetts citizen drives through VT and ends up NH ...and disappears in NH.....that the FBI is "on it".

I guess, for me, a "yes" or "no" answer would be enough to the question .."Did MASP/NHSP and U MA collaborate in determining Maura's contacts in her last hours/days prior to that night"..

mcsmom wrote:

half moon....I've wondered for a long time about a Lexus SUV. Can you tell me what town?

What are you saying? In relation to Maura?
Sure if you are looking for a description, of the vehicle and where it was, in relation to this case, I will tell you exactly year make model color, town and road. I can not tell if you are being sarcastic, or sincere.

If it has to do with Maura, just repost and I will post it all here. I just referred to it because a few posts back , when 1Anne was leaving, she had said she saw a license plate that said "search", so that is what she was going to do. Then the other day, I saw one too. Only differents spelling. That was it. But let me know.

I was not aware but the Governor passed a bill in July that is going to allow the photographs, names, and adresses of ALL level II & III sex offenders be made public on the NH Sex Offender Registry.

One woman who pushed for the bill was quoted as saying that the identities of serial rapists against adult women need to be made public.

Prior offenses of level II & III sex offenders are also going to be made public as well as their probation/parole status.

The Bill itself is named HB 1640 and the new registry will be available to the public the first of the year.

half moon....In the photo of Maura's car from the NCN there is a reflection in the window of another car....and in that reflection there appears to be a Lexus key in the door of that vehicle.

Interesting..........Well the posters here think I am nuts, and spamming and clueless, but if you think it is important, I will give out the info, because you are working on a resolution.

It was a pearl white, Lexus, suv, I need to check on the model. BUT it is newer, 06,07, I will check that, too. As I said, NH tags "SIRCH" .

It was southbound on 125 Epping, at the intersection of Rte 27. Female driver, brown hair. Rear window tinted (within the legal limits).

I havent seen it before or since, it was next to the store that I saw the man with the Barton,VT sweatshirt, that everyone ignored.

I stand corrected, it was 03 to 05, LX470. Hope that helps...........

thanks half moon....I don't think you are nuts or clueless and I fully understand the sweatshirt...