Where is MAURA MURRAY

White Wash wrote:

Now supporting theories support the fact she
took enough booze with her in her back bag for a
good drunk.
Just wonder what would one do if the sobbered up to find the State searching for them?

White Wash,

Please enlighten me, what supporting evidence is there that Maura had "enough booze with her in her back bag for a good drunk.?"

One would think that in order to ascertain that
notion one would have to have seen in her back bag. Has her back bag been found?

My personal opinion leads more toward there never having been any film/video from any liquor store ... perhaps a receipt which would give no indication that she actually took enough "liquor in her back bag for a good drunk."

Supporting fact or assumption?

Thank you.

Just would like to point out that there is no record of such a call on the Grafton County Dispatch log!
I haven't seen other area dispatch logs which
did come across scanners at that time.
But since we have not facts supporting such a call
I think mixing it in is miss leading.

Elsewherebriefly I would also like to point out that Weeper opinion on SBD lying is that an opinion he himself has stated to not having "official" paperwork so for him to form
an "official" opinion without reviewing actual
facts I find it to be his personal opinion.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

Thanks Lady Gray,
I gave the responding officer the benefit of the doubt about not knowing it was a female that night. Also picked up on 7:00 - 7:30 accident call. Re: first accident 7:00 pm woman left in a private vehicle.
I also agree that the SBD is a witness and by no means am I implying he is a suspect.

While I was writing the above long post, some of those things were being discussed here. So are posters saying that everything can be discussed without bashing, unless virtually everyone says it's not relevant? That would be an improvement.

There is a receipt for a large amount of booze
made on the same date and time as Maura was ID
at the liquor store.
They happen to be missing from the car along with
Ms. Murray and her backpack.
Correct since we do not have comfirmed
ID of the backpack at the accident maybe
we should investigate the liquor store area yes?
Or should be go with the witness who's official
police statement was the driver was impaired?
You are entitled to your opinions and I am mine!

Idea and thoughts need not be debates!

Clearly we have a time to agree to disagree!

Allow those to take what is of use leave what is not!

Captain Jack wrote:

<quoted text>
White Wash,
Please enlighten me, what supporting evidence is there that Maura had "enough booze with her in her back bag for a good drunk.?"
One would think that in order to ascertain that
notion one would have to have seen in her back bag. Has her back bag been found?
My personal opinion leads more toward there never having been any film/video from any liquor store ... perhaps a receipt which would give no indication that she actually took enough "liquor in her back bag for a good drunk."
Supporting fact or assumption?
Thank you.

I am more than willing to state my thoughts and opinions and take what works for me and leave what doesn't I don't think it has to be any
harder than that!

Quija wrote:

While I was writing the above long post, some of those things were being discussed here. So are posters saying that everything can be discussed without bashing, unless virtually everyone says it's not relevant? That would be an improvement.

Quija wrote:

At this point I believe Butch saw Maura herself. I too don't believe CS lied to cover up anything criminal on his part. I believe that to this day the Westmans differ on what they believe they witnessed, and I think that is common and on par for the course.
I initially thought Maura left in despair, great upset, fear, embarrassment, confusion, desperation and an inner feeling of dishonor, most of this exaggerated from stress and depression. I thought she wasn't thinking clearly and was going to take her own life, although I didn't believe she was 100% decided, but was drinking a lot and sort of letting the decision just happen. Several of us believed on visits to Woodsville that we could almost pinpoint where we strongly thought Maura would have ended up after leaving the Saturn at the snowbank, perhaps using plowed driveways and icy or bare patches to obscure footprints.
Now, with whiston's excellent questions regarding Amherst and his and other posters' detailing what they believe about Maura's (dormitory) life at UMass, I am thinking that she was traveling in tandem with a friend, probably a guy, and was running away from something she was either frightened of or moving on from in her life. Maybe she was with the guy in the red truck. Maybe a guy who bought replacement bulbs of some unidentified type for the Saturn whose wrapper was apparently found in the Saturn. Maybe a guy who had a place for Maura to stay in Amherst that was more tolerable than her packed-up, not livable dorm room. Maybe this was why a girl on her floor never knew she lived there. I know that on a dorm floor with 40 girls by the end of the first week I'd seen every one at one time or another in the bathroom, hallway, stairs, elevator, etc. Maybe this was part of Maura being so secretive, not letting her security supervisor escort her up to her room -- because she was going somewhere else? Same with after the Saturday night party and before she drove Fred's Toyota towards his motel? None of this is new. All this has been said or asked about in this forum. Now that I think of it, I pretty much paraphrased another person's post here from the other day....
What I don't understand is why this is considered to be irrelevant. It's completely relevant! Maura and Billy were young. It was obvious that for a period of time they had a beautiful, loving relationship. It was also obvious how much Maura and Sharon loved each other. But Maura was JUST 21! IMHO that is very young for a maturing girl to commit to marriage, particularly with the "difficult, long-distance relationship". So what is so horrible about Maura having ambivalence about this relationship? Does it make her a bad person? Of course not. Does it ruin her character? Of course not. But can we discuss this freely? Of course not.

Hello Quija & all,

Just wished to say that I fully agree with practically everything in your excellent post here.
I´ve slowly come to an almost identical conclusion as as the most likely scenario, IMHO.
A lot of other things could certainly have happened and I´m definitely keeping an open mind here.

If we, as a theory, accept your scenario (which I´m inclined to do), we still have to find a possible reason for Maura´s actions.

I still think it quite possible that someone very close to her might have hit Petrit Vasi in Amherst while driving Maura´s Saturn, and that such a thing may well have precipitated a "flight" north in order to do away with the car.
Remember that Mr Vasi´s life was in danger for quite some time after the hit-and-run. In fact, but for the Grace of God he might easily have died.

Quija wrote:

Ben Franklyne said something a while ago that raised a question. If it's a good question, credit him. If I garbled his question and it's a bad one, I'll take the blame.
You all remember how we were wondering how Cecil Smith said something about the liquor missing in the Saturn. And we wondered how he'd know unless he had seen the Saturn earlier, or seen the receipt (which was in the locked car, car not searched until around 11AM Tuesday. Well, is there any chance when he pulled up he used a flashlight to see inside the car (no driver but various "stuff" in the car), yet after talking to the Westmans and Butch, he took another look in the Saturn and the bottles of liquor were gone? Had the driver returned from a hiding place and retrieved them during the interviews Monday night? And then disappeared? Makes my head hurt to work out a timetable or the logistics of this. Could use help.

Hello again Quija,

When I read you interesting post above, I immediately thought of the previous mention on this forum of footprints in the snow leading up from Rte 112 to somewhere behind the M-tte house between where the Saturn came to a stop and Bradley Hill Rd.
What if the driver of the Saturn (presumably Maura) actually hid somewhere by the M-tte house and then quickly returned to the car while Sgt CS was away from the Saturn.
It would make some kind of sense....

Just another thought:

Mr & Mrs W-n mentioned the sound of an acceleration, followed by a thud.

Could that have been the sound of the Saturn being driven FROM the direction of Lincoln towards Haverhill, stopping somewhere on Rte 112 between Bradley Hill Rd and the W-n house, reversing/accelerating into the snowbank, all in order to fake an accident.
That kind of manoeuvre would have been a lot more difficult to do if the Saturn had been coming from the direction of Haverhill and travelling east, considering how the Saturn ended up with the front facing west in the eastbound lane...

I thinks this fits in with Mr. W stating it wasn't like other accidents there!

Very interesting thought thanks!

Eurobserver wrote:

Just another thought:
Mr & Mrs W-n mentioned the sound of an acceleration, followed by a thud.
Could that have been the sound of the Saturn being driven FROM the direction of Lincoln towards Haverhill, stopping somewhere on Rte 112 between Bradley Hill Rd and the W-n house, reversing/accelerating into the snowbank, all in order to fake an accident.
That kind of manoeuvre would have been a lot more difficult to do if the Saturn had been coming from the direction of Haverhill and travelling east, considering how the Saturn ended up with the front facing west in the eastbound lane...

Eurobserver wrote:

Just another thought:
Mr & Mrs W-n mentioned the sound of an acceleration, followed by a thud.
Could that have been the sound of the Saturn being driven FROM the direction of Lincoln towards Haverhill, stopping somewhere on Rte 112 between Bradley Hill Rd and the W-n house, reversing/accelerating into the snowbank, all in order to fake an accident.
That kind of manoeuvre would have been a lot more difficult to do if the Saturn had been coming from the direction of Haverhill and travelling east, considering how the Saturn ended up with the front facing west in the eastbound lane...

With the miles of wilderness and few houses between Lincoln and Bradley Hill RD I would wonder why someone would choose an area in front of houses with lights on if they were going to fake an accident. Would'nt they have wanted no witnesses so they could'nt be ID'd?

But maybe they needed to be ID.

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
With the miles of wilderness and few houses between Lincoln and Bradley Hill RD I would wonder why someone would choose an area in front of houses with lights on if they were going to fake an accident. Would'nt they have wanted no witnesses so they could'nt be ID'd?

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
With the miles of wilderness and few houses between Lincoln and Bradley Hill RD I would wonder why someone would choose an area in front of houses with lights on if they were going to fake an accident. Would'nt they have wanted no witnesses so they could'nt be ID'd?

Hello Wowzer,

Very relevant question! I´ve thought a lot about that seemingly strange location for a faked accident with som much wilderness nearby.
Perhaps they needed to be ID as White Wash suggests and/or the choice of the location may have to do with different LE jurisdictions.
I´ve read on this forum and the ex-MMM forum that most of Rte 112 west of the Weathered Barn comes under Bath PD, while the National Forest land further east should come under Federal jurisdiction.
Only a very short section of the 112 near the Weathered Barn apparently comes under the jurisdiction of Haverhill PD, as far as I recall.

Eurobserver wrote:

<quoted text>while the National Forest land further east should come under Federal jurisdiction.

Which as a practical matter means nothing as I have mentioned before.

I have always thought that the "attempt" to throw people off the track by "moving" the car to such a difficult place to find as Haverhill made no sense at all. Cops where there very soon after the repot which happened when the car arrived or shortly thereafter. An accident out farther east would have made things much more difficult. There are places you could actually hide a car that no one might find for days if not weeks or months. The moving the car to make the investigation more difficult just doesn’t' seem to make any sense to me.

Bill

So what if someone lived there was being framed?

Most people know that when someone is missing it a 2 mile circle LE focus on then moves out as
clues roll in.

WTF wrote:

<quoted text>
Which as a practical matter means nothing as I have mentioned before.
I have always thought that the "attempt" to throw people off the track by "moving" the car to such a difficult place to find as Haverhill made no sense at all. Cops where there very soon after the repot which happened when the car arrived or shortly thereafter. An accident out farther east would have made things much more difficult. There are places you could actually hide a car that no one might find for days if not weeks or months. The moving the car to make the investigation more difficult just doesn’t' seem to make any sense to me.
Bill

White Wash wrote:

There is a receipt for a large amount of booze
made on the same date and time as Maura was ID
at the liquor store.
They happen to be missing from the car along with
Ms. Murray and her backpack.
Correct since we do not have comfirmed
ID of the backpack at the accident maybe
we should investigate the liquor store area yes?
Or should be go with the witness who's official
police statement was the driver was impaired?
You are entitled to your opinions and I am mine!
Idea and thoughts need not be debates!
Clearly we have a time to agree to disagree!
Allow those to take what is of use leave what is not!
<quoted text>

This statement:
"There is a receipt for a large amount of booze
made on the same date and time as Maura was ID
at the liquor store.
They happen to be missing from the car along with
Ms. Murray and her backpack."

Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but, how does one know there's a receipt in the car if it is missing?

Why would LE completely ignore the Salamone call but yet get a search warrant for a ping.?

Cross reference her friends, etc numbers for the exact time of the ping and it seems like that wasn't the case. No match.
So, if the ping was a never before called number to Maura's phone, it had to be more than telling to LE.
What kind of call would that be?

Or should we question this validity of a document that lacks signature and seal?

Supporting Affidavit for Issuance of Search Warrant I, mcsmom, do hereby depose and say;

1. That I am currently employed by the State Police and have been for the past ten years. Currently, I am assigned as a Detective at Trooop- F in Twin Mountain, NH. I have received extensive training in the investigation of criminal matters.

Hi all, I wasn't there that night, but I don't believe that was a "faked" or "staged" accident, as much as I respect the PI Weeper who has been kind enough to post here. I agree that's a strange place to stage the dumping of a car due to the residences there, as well as the obvious curve in Rt. 112 right there. Maybe the driver didn't quite make it to the proper "dumping spot" due to unforeseen winter-driving problems. But, my gosh, thinking basically, it WAS probably Maura in her car; she probably DID have one or two spin-outs or was clipped by a larger vehicle or hit one or a guardrail while pulling in for gas or food Maura was a college student! She wasn't a spy; I doubt she was involved in meth labs!! I believe Butch Atwood's first statement was that she appeared intoxicated, later changed to her not seeming intoxicated. I believe another witness in a passing car said the same. With --- as Fred said --- "a skinny little thing" like Maura, it wouldn't have taken too much Franzia wine on her probably-empty stomach to be impaired. I am NOT blaming Maura for whatever happened if she was a victim of foul play. We've all been impaired or at risk in some way. We have all done things that weren't smart, especially under stress or pressure. But I don't see why we need to create these elaborate scenes and schemes about what happened to her, with look-alikes, groups of 3, and pre-planned abductions, etc., when it's likely that Maura was driving the car. Maura may have been upset and drinking. Maura didn't want to be arrested (who would?). And Maura had the physical stamina to get away from the car. I don't know the details of why the later sightings of Maura were dismissed. But if it was Maura at the church in Barton on father's day I can see why she'd be upset because of those loved ones she left for reasons we don't know.

The main reason that Butch Atwood gradually edged away from saying Maura seemed intoxicated seemed to be to keep himself from looking like he didn't care about an impaired girl and not being more pro-active" in helping her --- and he actually did say something along the lines of wishing he had done more and it kept him from sleeping well. OR, since he identified with law enforcement, maybe he adjusted his statements for the same reason to keep LE from looking like they didn't care enough. Who knows?

Maura was in college. She was taking courses, doing well, apparently going to clinicals, and working part-time. I don't think there was anything really mysterious about what she was doing. I think the most critical thing for finding her is to find out if she had a boyfriend in Amherst and who the heck he was and where the heck he is NOW. I'm sure LE has investigated this. Who knows how much they could've found out with a girl who was so private about her life?

I think I'm dropping the possibility of Maura "overhearing something about an art theft". I think that's pushing it.

I also believe there's a decent chance it was Maura herself who took a break from her security job for a coffee run and, being a new driver and maybe distracted, did accidentally hit Petrit Vasi and then panicked. Coffee runs are a non-official errand in many jobs.(I was told a lot about this by a friend.) I doubt that an employer or supervisor would discuss this due to liability. This is JMO. Maybe it's not as complex a mystery????

Lady Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe I'm not reading this correctly, but, how does one know there's a receipt in the car if it is missing?

Don’t they have her on the liquor store video? It should be a very simple matter to establish what time she paid for her items and what it was that she bought even if the purchases couldn’t be seen in the video. The store would have a copy of the receipt or a list of what changed in the inventory if it is a computer system. Figuring out what she purchased should be trivial.

Bill

White Wash wrote:

So what if someone lived there was being framed?<quoted text>

If it was an attempt to frame someone in the area they did a remarkably bad job at the frame-up. 4 years later and no one is close to being charged from what we can tell regardless of the percentage of prosecution that is likely according to the authorities. What was that at, 75%? Talk about a thoroughly meaningless statistic. If its not 100% it could be 0% or 99% or anything in between and the result will be exactly the same. No prosecution.

Bill

mcsmom wrote:

Why would LE completely ignore the Salamone call but yet get a search warrant for a ping.?

I don't know that they ignored the Salamone’s call. I do know that the "ping" isn't going to lie. A person can say anything they want. Physical/electronic evidence only speaks one way.

Bill