Where is MAURA MURRAY

There is such arrogance in proclaiming one knows what happened to Maura Murray without the hard evidence to back up such claims...not unlike tabloid journalism.

Speculation is a two-edged sword...while it opens up possibilities, it can become harmful when labels and actions are repeatedly attached to someone who, like Maura,is unable to defend herself.

Anne wrote:

welcome to the several new posters...
JMO thanks for pointing your post out and clearing that up..imagine that?...we resolved something!...lol..thanks again

Anne ~

There is more to this conversation, but it would not be beneficial to anyone for me to pursue it here...as it merely reflects personal opinions and disparate beliefs. I happen to favor the separation of the two events/Maura & Liko and thought it unwise when one began to influence the other.
Thanks for your understanding and perspective.

FireCat wrote:

Mastermind, you clarified several points yourself that I'd hoped you would, specifically about the scene by the car, and that you feel it was indeed an accident.
I do want to clear up a relatively minor detail to your scenario--it has been determined by private accident reconstructionists that the car did not hit either the trees or the snowbank. Don't know if you were aware of that. The damage to the car isn't consistent with either of those things.
I'm curious, have you read "Not Without Peril"? I own a copy, and in my readings, I have never been able to find in it any thread of hopelessness in it. To me it is clearly a book filled with stories of the struggles for survival of those lost in the White Mountains. It was one of Maura's favourite books because it was one of her favourite places, and it always seemed to me that such a book, and her retreating to such a place, would bring her comfort. I REALLY don't think it's a suicide's how-to.
You're of course welcome to draw your own conclusions. I'm just curious what your knowledge of the book and its contents are, because if you haven't actually read the book and your exposure to it is limited to media and forum discussion of it, it's very easy to draw the conclusion that it points to suicide. If anything, it points to Maura's desire to SURVIVE AND THRIVE in the mountains. Or anywhere.
Again, thanks for clarifying a lot of the points that you did. I'm constantly trying to remind people that words on a screen are quite easy to misinterpret, and that we all need to be as clear as we possibly can to avoid confusion wherever possible.

I wholeheartedly agree with your post.

By the very nature of communicating in this format, it is a constant struggle to keep misinformation from being repeated....especially when the effort has been sustained over a period of years.

Everyone seems to have their own idea about what happened to Maura. What will it take for there to be a consensus of opinion?

Welcome back, Peri..nice to "see" you again...

Mastermind at the bottom of your first posting you put love always. Do you know Maura?

What I don't understand is why should there be a consensus of opinion. It will never happen. Shouldn't this be a forum of constructive dialogue? In constructive dialogue it is not necessary for people to agree, but it is necessary for people to show some respect for one another. I just wanted to say what I thought happened, which I felt is the best possible explanation given the evidence available and with making the fewest possible assumptions. Why do people become angry when someone offers a POV different from his/her own? This is really sad. Besides, this is a public forum, not a court of law. Why must we be expected to write a dissertation backing up each detail, of each detail, of our theories in order to have a constructive dialogue? Thanks to those of you who care enough to communicate like open, and inquisitive human beings. The rest of you can go on believing whatever it is you believe, because you will never change your mind, even if Maura makes contact with us again and tells us where she has been (assuming she is still alive). I never, never, said that my theory was THE theory, or that what I said represents what actually happened, but people responded to me as if I had. I hope that if I decide to post here again that I am met with constructive dialogue. What I really want to know is, why are there so many people obsessed with the idea that this was a premeditated, complicated, kidnapping? There are so many assumptions that have to be made to make this scenario true. Is this a CSI effect, meaning, that there is this want to add as many complicated and twisted theories as possible to come up with the most outrageous explanation possible? These kinds of twists and turns do not represent real life, but a dramatic representation of real life. You can ask those who were inspired by CSI, etc., to go into these fields, and have them explain to you the difference between dramatic television and real life. Just like the kids who decided to be archaeologists because of Indiana Jones, and learned pretty quickly that archaeology is nothing like Indiana Jones, and that in fact, Indiana Jones would be shunned as a grave digger by most archaeologist standards. What I am referring to here are those who want to make an outrageous number of assumptions in coming up with their theories - like, the fact it wasn't Maura in the car, or that the items in her car were planted, or that all the locals of the area came together in a 5 minute window of time to take advantage of this poor girl, and that all of these locals had an involvement, and a lack of conscious in order to become and remain involved -sounds too much like fiction to me. I will apologize here and now for believing this to be a case of a runaway rather than the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but I feel that if we were to deconstruct all the assumptions that have been made that this is the most likely outcome. If she were abducted, I would suggest, it occurred after her car was left on Route 112, and probably not by a local on that particular stretch of road. I still wonder though, if she wasn't an alcoholic, like many of you believe (and that is fine), why she was carrying a box of Franzia, Vodka, Bailey's, and whatever the fourth item was (which I don't remember)? That's a lot of liquor.

hi all ,some great posts lately ,great to be back on track.just a thought .At what point, and have the P,I.s stopped looking at possible sightings of Maura .If so did they learn something that proved Maura could not have been seen anywhere.It sucks to think about.take care philip

hi all .welcome new brains to this site.MrMurrays car was found in N.H..there is no proof that maura ever left Amherst.There is some information about Mauras past life that we have been told.Nothing comes to mind right now.Oh yeh. she used to run, 2 years before she vanished ,on a team and years before that she held some state records for track and field.Years before she vanished she left Wespoint military academy and attended umass Amherst.We are not allowed to know which gallery she worked at,where she had her clinicals on and off campus and what her class schedule was. Did she have any free days during the week .Also we are not allowed to know where and when she used an Atm and bought liquor before she vanished FROM AMHERST.It seems odd to me to post fliers and pictures of any missing person and not ask ,were you at this gallery,liquor store, bank parking lot around a certain time on a certain dates.Have you seen seems so vague.why not ask were you there at the mystery location at the time.Where are the people that shared Mauras schedule and prior lfe.

Mastermind,

I certainly very much hope that you will continue posting here in the future.
We definitely need new brains and new ideas on this board!

One of the many difficulties with Maura´s case is that there are so many different possible theories as for what might have happened and to some extent also why.

As far as I know there has been no positive sighting of Maura since before she presumably left Amherst, MA, on 9th February 2004.
As for possible sightings there have been a few and my personal belief is that the mysterious Maura-lookalike "Raykel" in the Barton, VT, church on Father´s Day 2005 might well have been the real Maura.

Mastermind wrote:

What I don't understand is why should there be a consensus of opinion. It will never happen.

By way of observation and perspective, it is reasonable to expect that after nearly 5 years some conclusions be drawn in the absence of new information...and that a consensus be reached by ruling in and ruling out ACTUAL possibilities.

The puzzle pieces do not fit. They are scattered all over the table.

To state there "never" will be a consensus informs of your intent to embrace the drama and stay stuck.

whiston wrote:

hi all .welcome new brains to this site.MrMurrays car was found in N.H..there is no proof that maura ever left Amherst.There is some information about Mauras past life that we have been told.Nothing comes to mind right now.Oh yeh. she used to run, 2 years before she vanished ,on a team and years before that she held some state records for track and field.Years before she vanished she left Wespoint military academy and attended umass Amherst.We are not allowed to know which gallery she worked at,where she had her clinicals on and off campus and what her class schedule was. Did she have any free days during the week .Also we are not allowed to know where and when she used an Atm and bought liquor before she vanished FROM AMHERST.It seems odd to me to post fliers and pictures of any missing person and not ask ,were you at this gallery,liquor store, bank parking lot around a certain time on a certain dates.Have you seen seems so vague.why not ask were you there at the mystery location at the time.Where are the people that shared Mauras schedule and prior lfe.

Gosh, whiston, you keep gnawing on the same old bone. Has it occurred to you that you don't have the right to know the personal information you are seeking about someone else's daughter and relative unless it is offered?
Have some decency!

Human beings are human beings. They say what they want, don't they? They used to say it across the fence while they were hanging wash. Now they just say it on the Internet.~ Dennis Miller

Hello all,

I can see that the self-appointed moderator of this board is once again delighting in mocking and making fun of the views and ideas of other contributors here.

What a wonderful way to bring the discussion and debate forward!

How inspiring for all of us, particularly so for those brave new people here who may actually think that this forum is open for a free discussion as long as certain basic rules of decency are adhered to...

How sadly mistaken such an opinion would prove to be in practice.
I´m appalled!

whiston wrote:

hi all .welcome new brains to this site.MrMurrays car was found in N.H..there is no proof that maura ever left Amherst.There is some information about Mauras past life that we have been told.Nothing comes to mind right now.Oh yeh. she used to run, 2 years before she vanished ,on a team and years before that she held some state records for track and field.Years before she vanished she left Wespoint military academy and attended umass Amherst.We are not allowed to know which gallery she worked at,where she had her clinicals on and off campus and what her class schedule was. Did she have any free days during the week .Also we are not allowed to know where and when she used an Atm and bought liquor before she vanished FROM AMHERST.It seems odd to me to post fliers and pictures of any missing person and not ask ,were you at this gallery,liquor store, bank parking lot around a certain time on a certain dates.Have you seen seems so vague.why not ask were you there at the mystery location at the time.Where are the people that shared Mauras schedule and prior lfe.

Whiston, we have been TOLD where Maura's clinicals were. I can't tell you because I don't remember. But it was discussed AT LENGTH on the old MMM forum. I don't know why you continue to insist we are "not allowed" to know.

Eurobserver,
ITA that the "Raykel" girl may have been the real Maura in the VT church. Maybe even the "help me" girl from the store in southern NH, but I just have a feeling that the first of these two sightings is much more probable than the second. I don't know why, just a gut feeling.

JMO,
Please do not put words or thoughts into my mouth/head. I did not say that I wanted to be stuck. I was merely pointing to a fact, that consensus on this will never be reached unless Maura suddenly arrives and tells us for herself....and I am guessing, if that were to happen, that many posters here wouldn't believe her because it didn't jive with their own theories. Just a question, if you believe that a consensus could be reached, would that consensus have to be under the umbrella of your own theories, or would you be willing to change your mind for the acquisition of such consesus? Just wondering.

Eurobserver wrote:

Hello all,
I can see that the self-appointed moderator of this board is once again delighting in mocking and making fun of the views and ideas of other contributors here.
What a wonderful way to bring the discussion and debate forward!
How inspiring for all of us, particularly so for those brave new people here who may actually think that this forum is open for a free discussion as long as certain basic rules of decency are adhered to...
How sadly mistaken such an opinion would prove to be in practice.
I´m appalled!

Euro, your sarcasm aside, it's a PUBLIC forum...not your exclusive club to "welcome" or mine to "moderate"...White Wash made that emphatically clear...and I agree.

The day Fred Murray or his bona fide representative shows up here to state that he believes the fantasy theories about his daughter have any merit is the day I will graciously back away.

Blaming the victim for creating the circumstances leading to her own disappearance violates my "basic rule of decency".

Suggesting that Maura must have been an alcoholic/drunk, unfaithful to her intended fiance, planning an abortion, or was too intelligent to have commonsense is, IMHO, speculation bordering on gossip, given such information has not been or cannot be factually established.

If Maura were to be found or reappeared tomorrow, one might want to consider how one would justify the accusations made by perfect strangers about her conduct.

JMO, it seems your "basic rule of decency" has granted you a case of tunnel vision. Especially when you want to excuse Maura for having any involvement in her own disappearence, which is likely what happened....and as far as fantasy theories go, aren't those theories that make the most assumptions more categorically "fantasy" than those that don't? Also, I don't think suggesting that she has a drinking problem, or a want to get away, or being unfaithful to her fiance are meant as gossip. People, including very intelligent people with drive and ambition, are often caught up in these kind of things. I would suggest that people like Maura, who are smart and beautiful, with a great life ahead of them are often very likely to have these type of existential crises because of the amount of pressure put on them to succeed. People with a lot of potential often come to despise the expectations they feel have been put upon them. Why is this so far-fetched? Just because Maura may have made a few mistakes does not mean that she wasn't a great person, albeit, a tortured soul. It also doesn't mean that we are engaging in gossip. Again, I'll call it constructive dialogue, and I apologize if the theory I suggest, which has the fewest possible assumptions (as I see it) violates your rule of decency. However, cases such as this are rarely, if ever, decent. Furthermore, to place the blame on someone else is also degrading to those individuals involved, and would also, I assume, violate your own code of decency. In that case, based on your "rules" we should each cease and desist from having any type of constructive dialogue, since it violates your rules. Or perhaps, you should cease and desist and the rest of us should continue, since you are the one who is so overwhelmingly offended by the discussion here. I would urge you not to let your personal feelings get in the way of a dialogue that may very well be constructive - try to be objective and polite to the other posters here, or perhaps enroll in some anger management courses.

JMO, another question, you said that Maura was a victim. Is there any proof of this beyond her being a victim of her own actions?

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Whiston, we have been TOLD where Maura's clinicals were. I can't tell you because I don't remember. But it was discussed AT LENGTH on the old MMM forum. I don't know why you continue to insist we are "not allowed" to know.

Actually, we were not told where they were----the cities of the clinical sites were divulged, but not the actual clinical site names; one of the cities was much too far for it to be a clinical for UMass Amherst...

Mastermind wrote:

JMO,
Please do not put words or thoughts into my mouth/head. I did not say that I wanted to be stuck. I was merely pointing to a fact, that consensus on this will never be reached unless Maura suddenly arrives and tells us for herself....and I am guessing, if that were to happen, that many posters here wouldn't believe her because it didn't jive with their own theories. Just a question, if you believe that a consensus could be reached, would that consensus have to be under the umbrella of your own theories, or would you be willing to change your mind for the acquisition of such consesus? Just wondering.

Mastermind ~

Thank you for catching some of what I intended to communicate.

To answer your question...I do not have a pet theory, and so my view would not be limited by personal beliefs.
I am frustrated by the current approach...the endless rotation of theories.

Many interesting possibilities have been proposed to explain Maura's disappearance, but none emerges as a useful, working theory, seemingly because of personal allegiances and factions that limit unity of purpose.

Ideally, this entire effort could mirror the function of a jury...not to judge...but to bring together what is absolutely known from established facts, admitting to what is unknown (the consensus), and only then offering possibile theories and conclusions based upon this information.

In fact, all theories could be retained and listed, ordering them according to the standard of what is known, established and accepted (the consensus).

Question is, are there enough facts to move in such an organized direction?

If so, this differs from the current approach which begins with speculation first, and filling in the facts afterward.

ben franklyn comes to mind, when he has developed theories from facts and proceeds to conclusions...at which point it seems everyone takes a position to agree or disagree, the theory is dropped, and the cycle of speculation begins again.

If an "abortion" or "suicide" theory is advanced, at least it would be supported by facts...and ranked accordingly. Everyone could be fairly represented, not feeling attacked.

Am I oversimplifying?