Where is MAURA MURRAY

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Like the Uniform Crime Reports for the town of Haverhill in 2004 & 2005?

agreed but not on topic to what I was speaking of, you keep changing the subject. how come?

country wrote:

<quoted text>
not entirely true. it was suggested that the spidercrack was caused by the airbag. why are you trying to change the subject????

What subject is that. The red liquid in the soda bottle found underneath the vehicle, after it was towed, that smelled of alcohol?

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
What subject is that. The red liquid in the soda bottle found underneath the vehicle, after it was towed, that smelled of alcohol?

the whole subject of Maura's drinking that everyone wants to avoid. Red liquid was wine, from the box of wine in the car. why is that so hard to see?

bratgirl wrote:

We are getting no where trying to keep Maura's reputation untarnished. Not saying we have to trash her to solve the mystery, but we need to face some facts and not overlook things that might be offensive to some people.

None of us are perfect. Dear Lord, I know that. You say "face some facts." If you know some facts, say so. If you have facts, then where have you been all these years?

I think the bothersome thing is that people speculate and there is nothing to be gained by speculating except going round and round and round and round which is what has been happening for the last 4 1/2 years.

Do you have information involving Maura that might tarnish her memory and, at the same time, provide answers? What's more important? Answers.

If you have facts, then say so. Don't wait any longer. It's the speculation b.s. that's upsetting.

However, in my personal opinion, it's better to provide that information to law enforcement and if you're not comfortable with that, then the P.O. Box. I don't think info of that sort should be on a public forum.

I'm sure there are people salivating to hear information of that sort but that would not accomplish anything. The information needs to be provided in a proper manner and through the proper avenue.

You people spend more time trying to make excuses than you do getting down to the facts.

Lady Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
None of us are perfect. Dear Lord, I know that. You say "face some facts." If you know some facts, say so. If you have facts, then where have you been all these years?
I think the bothersome thing is that people speculate and there is nothing to be gained by speculating except going round and round and round and round which is what has been happening for the last 4 1/2 years.
Do you have information involving Maura that might tarnish her memory and, at the same time, provide answers? What's more important? Answers.
If you have facts, then say so. Don't wait any longer. It's the speculation b.s. that's upsetting.
However, in my personal opinion, it's better to provide that information to law enforcement and if you're not comfortable with that, then the P.O. Box. I don't think info of that sort should be on a public forum.
I'm sure there are people salivating to hear information of that sort but that would not accomplish anything. The information needs to be provided in a proper manner and through the proper avenue.

I'm speaking of the subject of avoidance. Nobody wants to speak of anything that might shed a "bad" light on Maura. Regardless of her being good or bad, there are things that need to be discussed freely without people piping in on it being offensive to family that " might" be reading. Things need to be discussed, good or bad, without people feeling like they are walking on eggshells. If the family wants help, they need to take the good & bad side of a discussion.

countrybrat wrote:

<quoted text>
the whole subject of Maura's drinking that everyone wants to avoid. Red liquid was wine, from the box of wine in the car. why is that so hard to see?

Where have you been?

The Manchester Union Leader certainly didn't avoid the subject of Maura's drinking in their latest article released in October of "07".

The majority of the article focused on Maura's drinking habits and little else.

There was one tiny blurb (I believe in the form of a statement) about Maura's disappearance being investigated as a potential homicide by the NHSP.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

<quoted text>
Where have you been?
The Manchester Union Leader certainly didn't avoid the subject of Maura's drinking in their latest article released in October of "07".
The majority of the article focused on Maura's drinking habits and little else.
There was one tiny blurb (I believe in the form of a statement) about Maura's disappearance being investigated as a potential homicide by the NHSP.

there are people on here that want to avoid the whole drinking discussion.

I have never cared about the fact that she was
drinking. In a way, even if she had been totally
wasted, then perhaps they would have found her
by now.

AND, I KNOW one fact, that a girl that weight
can be easily scooped into a car..(at the end of her scent in the road)...it only takes a few
minutes...without a sign of any struggle.
Any amount of alcohol could deminish her ability to put up any fight or struggle.

beaglebrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Possibility fine, all I have read in the past 4 years is that the booze was purchased the day she left. As far as the video, how has it been disapproved? Why was it said there was a video, but no family saw it?

there is a video from the Atm.

countrybeagle wrote:

<quoted text>
there are people on here that want to avoid the whole drinking discussion.

It has never been denied that it is probable Maura was consuming alcohol. Never.

But why concentrate discussions on drinking? Does the fact that she possibly could have been consuming alcohol make her culpable in her own disappearance? It's like the woman who's wearing a tight skirt/top and she gets raped. Was she asking for it?

What is to gained in debating whether she was consuming alcohol while driving? Other than to say that she fled the scene to avoid LE. And this very well could be the case. Who knows?
But, as said, it has never been denied it was a probability.

God forbid the fact when I was her age and I would party and drive home. If I had disappeared during one of those occasions, I would hope that the focus of the investigation and conversations would not be my alcohol consumption. What is to be gained and how does that assist the investigation?

"We're really looking for a body, at this point. To say anything else would be to pull the wool over people's eyes," said Don Nason, a private investigator from Webster who is a member of the New Hampshire League of Investigators."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...

The main problem with taking any so-called facts or information to LE is that it's impossible to tell good LE from bad LE.

If you provide info to bad LE, or if bad LE simply learns that you've provided info to good LE, you could end up really regretting your decision.

If you have info you want to share with LE, see a good lawyer first.

Here's an example of a little different dilemma, more of an immediate situation, but somewhat similar.

It's after dark and you're driving home from a night class at the local community college. You notice a woman sort of walking or wandering strangely across a front yard. She seems to be having an argument with a man in a car parked on the side of the road, engine running, lights on.

You pull over and sort of watch from a short distance to make sure everything's okay. Then you see that the woman starts to run away from the car. The car doesn't move at first, but later drives off down the street. You drive down the side street the woman started to walk down. She crosses in front of you and you see she is in rough shape emotionally and physically.

You don't want to intrude on her private life, but you believe that you should at least ask her if you can help. She says no. You ask again, politely and respectfully, just to make sure. She says yes and gets in your vehicle.

She appears a little drunk, confused, and somewhat beaten on the face. She said her boyfriend in the car was beating her. You drive her about a half mile away from the man in the car to a place that's well lighted with a pay phone and some people around. You recommend she call the police or the local women's shelter. She refuses and walks off, but not before saying, "You're going to call the police, aren't you?"

You tell her that it would be better if she called the police herself, but if she's not going to call them, then, yes, you are going to call them. You drive to the next pay phone right up the street and call the police.

The police take your information over the phone and tell you to stay put. You see a couple of patrol cars combing the area, apparently looking for the woman. Then another officer drives up to you and starts talking to you like you were the one who beat the woman in the first place, even though he knows you are the one who called them to report the whole situation.

That's when you wish you had never called the police or maybe never got involved at all, just kept on driving home.

Not an easy decision to make if it happened again, but LE rarely makes it any easier.

Contacting LE might be the right thing to do or the stupid thing to do. You just never know.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Why is it for 4 years we have been led to think there was video of her in the liquor when there isn't. I mentioned saturday as a possibility.

Hear me out on this - I find this interesting - and I'll attempt to say why and please correct me if I am wrong in having the impression that you are Maura's sister.(I don't doubt you are who you say you are)[and by the way if you are - I am very sympathetic -and in that, I'm serious - I have joked before - but even people that suffer tragedy deserve to enjoy their life and yes - laugh - just like everyone else.]

I'm not trying to be a blowhard - I think I need to do some explaining about stuff I take for granted - that is head slapping obvious in hindsight - its going to seem nerdy and long and windy - but I think it important.

As an auditor - our end goal is determine that a set of stated assertions are free of material misstatement, based upon two things, one of which is important here - the second, just to give context, There are other factors - but they are not inside my point.

1. Our understanding of the procedures used when the assertions are recorded

and

2. The examination of supporting documentation that either proves or disproves an assertion we are looking at is accurate or not.

Take category 1 there - and the first thing I note is that we, as a group in general, don't know a great many things about the series of events that took place that allowed you to examine the evidence you have, allowing you to your conclusion.

Part 1

Part 2

I'm not saying that based on the evidence you have - that I would draw a different conclusion. Maura is your flesh and blood kindred - no reason to doubt your conclusion.

So I'll just think and write at the same time here try to get at my point.

The first step in documentation is observation - but when that gets translated into writing - something gets lost. The trail from the actual observers to the computer monitor in front of me has several opportunities to become distorted.

A fictitious example:

1. Investigator handwrites his observations
2. Investigator gives notes to typist
3. Typist looks at paper - observes that the investigator wrote down something about a liquor purchase (messy writing on the right) and then near it [in the middle] something about Maura being seen by a camera and then to the left something about an ATM machine. Typist has 20 more pages to type up in the next hour - chief wants the draft report by 4:30 for a 6:00 press release, its 3:30 and the investigator is off on another call.
4. Typist delivers first draft memo to Chief -
5. Chief gives memo to Community Liason Officer for press release - it gets reworded a bit
6. Liason Officer faxes press release to the Boston Globe - this document will differ on some level with the summarized typed police notes.
7. Investigator reads the Boston Globe and tells the Chief about the error.
8. Chief decides not to make a retraction because he doesn't feel it is significant - he thinks Maura disappeared in New Hampshire.
9. Investigator concurs with chief.
10. Its standard procedure for the Investigator to not discuss a case - so investigator doesn't make a public statement - and he feels justified.
11. Investigator only proceed to investigate what he knows to be correct - doesn't ask for warrant for Liquor Store video.
12. Investigator is not involved with exchange of information with other police departments from other jurisdictions involved - 13. The Interjurisdictional officer does his routine job of photocopying the typed up notes of the original investigator for a meeting with the other investigating parties.
14. The county decided it would be cool to go paperless so they shred all the original documents
15. The original investigator is diagnosed with Alzheimers.

Or it could be as simple as -

Officer asks the liquor store owner's video recordings from the previous day and he says yes - and I'll save you the trouble of a warrant and simply gives the Investigator the tape. No warrant will ever be filed.

Or it could be that:

The Amherst Police wrote up the warrant for the Liquor store while the New Hampshire Police wrote up the warrant for the ATM - the warrant for the Liquor store observation is not amongst your papers because you have the documents in the New Hampshire Attorney general's possession, not the Massachusetts Attorney General's possession.

Or it could be that:

When Fred made photocopies of the documents he gave you - the photocopy machine's auto document feeder slid both the ATM and liquor store pages together only copying the ATM page.

Or it could be a sloppy reporter at the Globe, interviewing the Investigator - confused about what the Investigator said.

All of these real life examples - in my mind - are more likely then any conspiracy.

citigirl wrote:

<quoted text>Why is it for 4 years we have been led to think there was video of her in the liquor when there isn't. I mentioned saturday as a possibility.

Hear me out on this - I find this interesting - and I'll attempt to say why and please correct me if I am wrong in having the impression that you are Maura's sister.(I don't doubt you are who you say you are)[and by the way if you are - I am very sympathetic -and in that, I'm serious - I have joked before - but even people that suffer tragedy deserve to enjoy their life and yes - laugh - just like everyone else.]

I'm not trying to be a blowhard - I think I need to do some explaining about stuff I take for granted - that is head slapping obvious in hindsight - its going to seem nerdy and long and windy - but I think it important.

As an auditor - our end goal is determine that a set of stated assertions are free of material misstatement, based upon two things, one of which is important here - the second, just to give context, There are other factors - but they are not inside my point.

1. Our understanding of the procedures used when the assertions are recorded

and

2. The examination of supporting documentation that either proves or disproves an assertion we are looking at is accurate or not.

Take category 1 there - and the first thing I note is that we, as a group in general, don't know a great many things about the series of events that took place that allowed you to examine the evidence you have, allowing you to your conclusion.

This is part 1 - Thank got for KDE's clipper - it saves more then 1 set of text you copy.

elsewherebriefly wrote:

"Scarinza said police believe Murray got a ride from the accident scene.
"From that point on, it’s destination unknown," he said.
Family members believe she would contact them if she could, so they believe she either is being held against her will or has been harmed.
But Scarinza said searchers found no sign of a struggle at the scene or any other evidence that she has been harmed."
**********
What about the spider crack on the interior of the windshield? An expert accident recontstuctionist concluded that the spider crack was caused by something metal from above.
Possible signs of a struggle?

Please add to this list of possible things - expand upon what situations could have taken place to allow these to be possible:

1. A metal bat (Would be with Maura outside of car - swung at her)
2. A metal pipe (Would be with Maura outside of car - swung at her)
3. A metal crowbar (Would be with Maura outside of car - swung at her)
4. Metal hook on tow truck (Would be likely with Maura outside of car - but possible with her in car)

**********

The above is worth perusing - but - I'm really sold on the idea that the foul play took place in Massachusetts - and then the Saturn was a kidnapper's or murderer's escape vehicle racing up the 10 at a dangerous speed - to avoid police - causing police to be called in various jurisdictions. If the driver kept going despite the small accidents - you mentioned some and that really raised my eyebrows - the other jurisdictions could have not made the connection between an isolated call about a reckless driver in their area (this happening in 3 - 4 jurisdictions)

Also - without the Liquor store surveillance on Sunday - the only time she was "seen" was at the ATM and by the other student. Only about an hour for a crime there. Probably would require two people - especially if kidnapping - seems so - no blood.(Unless it wasn't checked at Amherst - under assumption Maura was driving.)

I don't think that a Kidnapper in Massachusetts could - from 2:30 plus 4 hour drive recklessly -(1 hour) kidnap and hide Maura forever then be able to run up the 10 recklessly. Murder even less likely - but Firecat had a point about no blood - so murder maybe not less likely..

Because there are so many minds working here for Maura, I miss the ones from the old Forum people who did not live there in Woodsville, or nearby, eliminating the biased.
I hesitate at times to write my thoughts because it might be seen as "off the wall" However, after reading about "harvesting eggs", perhaps my thoughts are within the bounds.
ie John Monaghan, SP was there, at the scene....BEFORE the call.
Thinking out-loud..perhaps he was there for the 7PM scanner call.."left in private vehicle"
This in itself is not strange because he was highway patrol, and lived(s)within 15 minutes. We have all read the dialogue submitted by RO in October 2006. Why not noted, in Log..? AND,WHY was this information only written after more than 2 1/2 years later..(ya know the "red truck" info.
He, Monaghan and his wife,(under the age of 40) are fitness folks. He a runner. bicyclist (sp?). "Cool Runnings" will find his stats.
I am in no way suggesting anything. I just find it interesting.

There has to be..has to be, a written report, by Monaghan for that night (even though there was
a lateral move after, within NHSP) in
the many files of this, the Maura Murray Missing Criminal Investigation.

BF..I live in MA...trust me... there isn't..couldn't be any "racing" up route 5 VT or
route 10 NH.....to make the timing....

It is either Rte 91 from Western MA or
Rte 93 from Eastern MA.(for 65 - 70 mph)

I am not saying that Maura was not....(that word)
in Amherst...I am saying her car had an approximate timing of 3 1/2 hours-4 hours to
arrive Rte 112 Woodsville,NH.

Lady Gray wrote:

<quoted text>
It has never been denied that it is probable Maura was consuming alcohol. Never.
But why concentrate discussions on drinking? Does the fact that she possibly could have been consuming alcohol make her culpable in her own disappearance? It's like the woman who's wearing a tight skirt/top and she gets raped. Was she asking for it?
What is to gained in debating whether she was consuming alcohol while driving? Other than to say that she fled the scene to avoid LE. And this very well could be the case. Who knows?
But, as said, it has never been denied it was a probability.
God forbid the fact when I was her age and I would party and drive home. If I had disappeared during one of those occasions, I would hope that the focus of the investigation and conversations would not be my alcohol consumption. What is to be gained and how does that assist the investigation?
"We're really looking for a body, at this point. To say anything else would be to pull the wool over people's eyes," said Don Nason, a private investigator from Webster who is a member of the New Hampshire League of Investigators."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...

You are absolutely correct, the concentration shouldn't be around the point of alcohol. But, the alchohol combined with the other signs of personal anguish Maura exhibitted while in Amherst, leave many believing that something occurred in Amherst and that the Saturn being discovered on 112 is nothing more than a place where it was dumped. In this case, there's no evidence of a crime in Haverhill--there is a person who went missing while at Amherst.

As insane as I think aLdEn pretends to be, he makes an occasional valid point as displayed in post #7790:

HarryBeagle wrote:

<quoted text>The main problem with taking any so-called facts or information to LE is that it's impossible to tell good LE from bad LE.

If you provide info to bad LE, or if bad LE simply learns that you've provided info to good LE, you could end up really regretting your decision.

If you have info you want to share with LE, see a good lawyer first.

(Harry's great example of an incriminating circumstance removed for brevity)

That's when you wish you had never called the police or maybe never got involved at all, just kept on driving home.

Not an easy decision to make if it happened again, but LE rarely makes it any easier.

Contacting LE might be the right thing to do or the stupid thing to do. You just never know.

Harry's right in this sense. If you have any information regarding a criminal investigation you have to really think it through before you contact LE. As I've learned first hand, there certainly is a possibility
that the LEOs that you contact could be purposefully ignorant to protect the case from being compromised or they're just plain incompetent. In the worst case they could be corrupt and indirectly involved in the crime itself. Instead of being interviewed by them for your information as you might expect, you could become a person of interest. And you still have first hand information but no one to give it to. This is when you might want to retain a lawyer to send your info to LE and the AG and hope for the best. Or you can send it anonymously to the P.O. Box, at least there'll be a paper trail. I'm not trying to disuade anyone..just be careful of who, when and how you make contact. And don't make a nuisance of yourself where you might cause an obstruction of justice.
There have been a few times in the past four years that I've regretted becoming morally and emotionally vested in Maura's case, but there will NEVER be enough to drive me away or make me give up on her forever.