Where is MAURA MURRAY

Sorry I meant Monday night at 8!

I also remember reading some where that her
Mother stated she called her every night.

It does not appear that she called her
Mother on Sunday night but we the public
haven't had access to her cell records.

McMom/Lady/Shack can you get on those for us!

Thanks!

Wowzer wrote:

<quoted text>
What is it you are insinuating Firecat? Are you saying that because WW is the author of the article that it is not true?
I honestly don't know how WW hangs in here offering whatever facts she knows as she gets raked over the coals and questioned just about every time she tries to help by offering whatever facts she knows.

Ha! Getting raked over the coals is not limited to White Wash, my dear. She's simply the one you choose to defend.

1. I am not insinuating anything. What you may choose to infer is up to you. I am simply stating a fact. It's natural that White Wash feels her article is accurate. She wouldn't have published it otherwise. She works for a newspaper, for chrissake, in a journalistic capacity (to avoid splitting hairs, she is usually a photographer. I don't know of any other article she's written, though of course she may have done so). However, MANY of the facts published in that article have been specifically and publicly contradicted by members of Maura's family, as well as other reputable news outlets for whom White Wash does not happen to work.

2. The article, and White Wash, continually get questioned PRECISELY BECAUSE the information she offers is at odds with so much of what we have been told. And when she is questioned why she knows that, or how she knows that, or suchlike, she becomes aggressive and combative and says things similar to "I saw it, I've got $100 that says my version is right."

Personally, I'd rather see the proof behind her version than ANY amount of money. So far she has not provided us with that proof, and so I will continue to be skeptical. Trust is earned.

By the way, does anyone know if the airbags were ever tested for DNA? That's come up again recently (Mason, was it you who was talking about the mtDNA etc? So many new names I can't keep up!) and to my recollection that question has not been answered, though it has been alluded to.

White Wash wrote:

This was taken from the Hanson Express Article!
So FireCat seems to be some confusion by
your statement just in my opinion.
Maura called a fellow nursing student at 1:13 p.m., though the purpose for her call is not clear. According to John Healey, a New Hampshire private investigator who is familiar with the case, Maura may have arranged to give her scrubs to a fellow nursing student. Family member Helena Murray maintains that Maura, always conscientious, was merely returning scrubs she borrowed from another student.
<quoted text>

Thanks, White Wash, for the HE excerpt. Yes, there certainly IS confusion about this.

Am I the only one who remembers hearing that they were simply street clothes, other than mcsmom? I'm not given to group hallucinations like that, but there's always a first time. ;)

WHITE WASH wrote:

Sorry my point was the photographs all
being viewed on line ect where taking
standing up looking down on Maura's car.
To show the actual damage one would need to sit or kneel at the damage height to get the actual view.
<quoted text>

Hmmm. That's certainly true of all the photos I've seen--they were taken from above.

Gotta chew on that for a while. Hmmmm. Thanks White Wash.

White Wash wrote:

If you read the court papers Fred did request photographs so how would he know there where
any to request is my question back to you?

Because Fred undoubtedly had an attorney draft that lawsuit for him, and lawyers are notorious believers in CYA. They ask for ANYTHING THAT MIGHT EXIST. Lawyers, as I'm sure Fred did, as I'm sure many of us do, assume that if there's a crime scene, there are photographs.

Please stop pulling that trick of answering a question with another question designed to make the asker look foolish. As usual when you do this, a logical reading of the question only serves to make you look aggressively defensive and only counteracts your purpose here, which I do sincerely be to find Maura.

White Wash wrote:

Interesting so you are in deed
assuming not knowing exactly what was gone over
with the family correct?
Am I understanding you correctly that someone who
has repeatly stated LE screwed up would assume
they took photos?
And request them via the court just by assuming
someone who did such a crappy job had photos!
Intersting thoughts.
This theory is called hummmmmmmm back peddling I do believe!
Good Day!
<quoted text>

No, that theory is called covering all one's bases. There you go getting defensive again.

White Wash wrote:

Since I don't have college aged children
How many here would not be worried and
start calling cell phones when a child
didn't call you at a planned time?
Maura was supposed to call Fred at 8 PM on
Sunday and never did.
This has always puzzled me.

I don't have any either, but I suspect it depends on the child.

Yes I should be raked over the coals for
going to LE?

How do you figure this?

We could spend days going over different things
printed!

The Bottom line is I went to a direct source of
information.

Fred has denied reports of this
and that seriously how do really know what Fred is
saying? It's all coming from a source!

How many have actually sat down with Fred and can
say I heard this from Fred's mouth?

For me I have not interviewed Fred so I take what
works leave what doesn't fit!

So are you saying your quotes posted are wrong?

Keep Chewing it does appear you have lot to chew today!

Good Day!

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha! Getting raked over the coals is not limited to White Wash, my dear. She's simply the one you choose to defend.
1. I am not insinuating anything. What you may choose to infer is up to you. I am simply stating a fact. It's natural that White Wash feels her article is accurate. She wouldn't have published it otherwise. She works for a newspaper, for chrissake, in a journalistic capacity (to avoid splitting hairs, she is usually a photographer. I don't know of any other article she's written, though of course she may have done so). However, MANY of the facts published in that article have been specifically and publicly contradicted by members of Maura's family, as well as other reputable news outlets for whom White Wash does not happen to work.
2. The article, and White Wash, continually get questioned PRECISELY BECAUSE the information she offers is at odds with so much of what we have been told. And when she is questioned why she knows that, or how she knows that, or suchlike, she becomes aggressive and combative and says things similar to "I saw it, I've got $100 that says my version is right."
Personally, I'd rather see the proof behind her version than ANY amount of money. So far she has not provided us with that proof, and so I will continue to be skeptical. Trust is earned.
By the way, does anyone know if the airbags were ever tested for DNA? That's come up again recently (Mason, was it you who was talking about the mtDNA etc? So many new names I can't keep up!) and to my recollection that question has not been answered, though it has been alluded to.

Funny how I only get defensive when you two
are wrong!
Whatever but I am done with the personal game
you play.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
No, that theory is called covering all one's bases. There you go getting defensive again.

Hearing is hear say but this is printed
material from the Hanson Express so are
you saying that the Hanson Express is wrong and
you are right on the clothing?

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, White Wash, for the HE excerpt. Yes, there certainly IS confusion about this.
Am I the only one who remembers hearing that they were simply street clothes, other than mcsmom? I'm not given to group hallucinations like that, but there's always a first time. ;)

Or the parent.
For me personally when my son doesn't call me
at an agreed time I give 30 mins then I start
calling.
I personally find this lapse of time to be odd
when the other details.

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't have any either, but I suspect it depends on the child.

LOL!
Judging says otherwise!
So since your main goal is to derail anything not
supported by the "group of ducks"!
Let's agree to disagree and SOB (scroll on by)each other so
the sake of Maura please!

Thanks and Good Day FireCat!

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Because Fred undoubtedly had an attorney draft that lawsuit for him, and lawyers are notorious believers in CYA. They ask for ANYTHING THAT MIGHT EXIST. Lawyers, as I'm sure Fred did, as I'm sure many of us do, assume that if there's a crime scene, there are photographs.
Please stop pulling that trick of answering a question with another question designed to make the asker look foolish. As usual when you do this, a logical reading of the question only serves to make you look aggressively defensive and only counteracts your purpose here, which I do sincerely be to find Maura.

White Wash wrote:

Hearing is hear say but this is printed
material from the Hanson Express so are
you saying that the Hanson Express is wrong and
you are right on the clothing?
<quoted text>

No, that is NOT what I'm saying. Obviously.

What are you saying FireCat?
If you are not wrong and the Hanson Express is
not wrong you both can't be right since you are
saying street clothes and the Paper is stating
from A FAMILY MEMBER scrubs!

So what are you saying FireCat?

I also would like to hear from McsMom since
my post was directed to HER and NOT YOU but
I'm sure she appreciates you speaking for her!

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks, White Wash, for the HE excerpt. Yes, there certainly IS confusion about this.
Am I the only one who remembers hearing that they were simply street clothes, other than mcsmom? I'm not given to group hallucinations like that, but there's always a first time. ;)

White Wash wrote:

I beleive the first press conference held by
Mr. Murray was on Feb 11, 04 in the Littleton area.
I will try to find those articles on line to post them.
I think if you start at the beginning work your way forward you can see things shifting and changing in stories ect.
<quoted text>

Part 1
Witness bias is one of the biggest obstacles to finding out the truth. Intentional and malicious lying occurs from time to time but not as often as one might expect. Most fact witnesses want to help the police solve crimes and this bias makes them particularly susceptible to being influenced to provide the information that a police questioner wants to hear.
I'll use a lineup as an example. If witnesses are contacted by police and asked to come to the station to view a lineup, one of their first thoughts is, "Good, they got the perp." They expect the perp to be in the lineup and that expectation can produce a mistaken identification. For this reason, the United States Department of Justice recommends police should preface the invitation to the lineup by explaining that it's a routine procedure and the suspect, if there is one, may or may not be in the lineup. DOJ also recommends that a police official who is not familiar with the case and doesn't know the identity of the suspect should be appointed to run the lineup and interview the witnesses afterward.
Witnesses should be admonished not to talk to each other about the case and they should be separated from each other while viewing the lineup to avoid influencing each other. After the lineup, they should be interviewed separately in a private setting and not be congratulated for picking the perp or criticized for picking the wrong person. The goal is to treat the procedure as though it's done everyday and no police official present has any idea about the case and could care less if the witness picks anyone or no one.
Giving the SBD the benefit of the doubt, he likely wants to help the cops and with the passage of time he has acquired more information about the case. He knows the police believe Maura Murray was the female who drove the Saturn into the snow bank. He knows they believe she was intoxicated and she left the scene to avoid arrest for DUI. He's likely thinking that they know more about the case than he does and must have solid reasons to support their belief that she was the driver. After all, who else would be driving her car that far from home and she's the missing person, right? He also doesn't want to be criticized by his fellow citizens for mucking-up the police investigation and he most certainly does not want to be the star defense witness in a trial, if someone is arrested and charged with abducting and killing her.
However certain he may have been when he said the female driving the Saturn did not look like Maura Murray and he did not notice any signs of intoxication, now he appears to have changed his mind due to his after-acquired information. Having "realized" that he made a "mistake," his previous certainty has morphed into something like, "I wasn't absolutely sure and now that I think about it, I do remember that she leaned against the car, so she must have been unsteady on her feet. Yeah, and now I recall smelling some booze. I guess I was a little too quick jumping to conclusions back then." Now, that he has changed his recollection, he will defend his refreshed memory with vigor and certainty.
Is he lying? No. His memory has changed and he believes he's telling the truth.

Part 2
What conclusions can we draw? Although he may be as certain as certain can be that Maura Murray was driving while drunk, we can only conclude that his memory is so contaminated by after-acquired information and bias that we cannot give it much weight. Notice that I did not say his new memory is false.
What do we do with his first memory? I think we should assign more weight to it than his new memory but we should not assume that his earlier recollection was accurate. The final call will depend on all of the circumstantial evidence available and right now, we just don't know.

White Wash wrote:

What are you saying FireCat?
If you are not wrong and the Hanson Express is
not wrong you both can't be right since you are
saying street clothes and the Paper is stating
from A FAMILY MEMBER scrubs!
So what are you saying FireCat?
I also would like to hear from McsMom since
my post was directed to HER and NOT YOU but
I'm sure she appreciates you speaking for her!
<quoted text>

What I'm saying is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID BOTH TIMES I POSTED IT.

THAT THERE IS SOME CONFUSION AS TO WHAT THE FACT IS.

Which, of course, you would know if you weren't so busy being antagonistic.

"I think if you start at the beginning work your way forward you can see things shifting and changing in stories ect." (sic).

Mason, I think it's also worth noting that often as facts emerge or become clearer, sometimes accounts change over time. Take this week's horrific events in Mumbai. The death toll rose and fell as conflicting accounts came in. Also, if something in an earlier story or version is an error--so long as the document in question is not a legal document (as in an affadavit, a police log, a sworn statement, etc)--I'm talking merely about public stories disseminated by people not bound by oath--it of course gets corrected.

So the fact that a story shifts and changes over time does not necessarily mean one thing or another. It doesn't mean that the most current version is necessarily right or wrong. Sometimes it takes a while to get to the bottom of things, and if there are conflicting sources, there are definitely going to be conflicting versions of things until all parties come to a consensus.

Yelling and Name calling is what FireCat?
Grow up!
Either you are wrong the Hanson Express is
it is not confusion it's called one is fact
and is WRONG!
Go back do some research and decide who is what!
Suck it up and step to plate like you make the rest of us!

FireCat wrote:

<quoted text>
What I'm saying is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID BOTH TIMES I POSTED IT.
THAT THERE IS SOME CONFUSION AS TO WHAT THE FACT IS.
Which, of course, you would know if you weren't so busy being antagonistic.

White Wash wrote:

Just for the record Lavoie's used a flat bed to
tow the car not a wrecker!
Just my personal experience with that level of
cars is the bummer would have ripped off.
In the other photos you can see the cracks in the
bottom bumper that would to me indict some snow
bank action.
Since Fred did not see the car that weekend
we really do not know for fact there was no damage to the car prior to the trip.
<quoted text>

Good point, but I actually was referring to a theory advanced in an earlier discussion on this board that Maura's Saturn was the subject of an earlier call regarding a vehicle off the road alongside the 112 not far from the 302. Sgt Smith responded to that call. Apparently it was a wild goose chase, which is an appropriate description since he drove a long way on Goose Lane to get there.

Then he's dispatched to the magic place on 112 where people have been known to disappear into thin air. According to the theory, someone may have towed the Saturn from the first site to the second using a tow rope and deposited it there to draw attention away from the first site at which various and sundry unpleasantries occurred.

This theory posits someone towing and someone in the Saturn playing that long popular winter game, "Let's Keep it on the Road."

The journey proceeded according to plan until the sharp curve at the Weathered Barn. There the game changed to an ice rink personal favorite of mine called, "Crack the Whip," a game best played without cars.

Voila! the Saturn makes a valiant effort to dance with the stars, but fails to escape gravity and returns to Earth several hundred feet down the road nestled butt first in a snow bank.

The dazed and confused driver, who is not Maura, slowly gathers her wits together and, after chatting with the SBD, is picked up by her confederate and whisked away before Sgt Smith arrives to investigate.

Yesterday, I proposed a theory regarding the circumstances of the first event back near the 302-112 intersection.

What's the point in speculating about a first crash? Well, there's some splainin to do involving some facts that willfully refuse shut-up and be quiet.

1. What's up with the rag in the exhaust pipe of the Saturn?
2. SBD took a look at a photograph of Maura and said, "Nope, that ain't her," referring to the near cosmonaut piloting the Saturn with whom he conferred.
3. The second accident appears to be staged because the damage to the front left corner of the Saturn appears to have been caused by an object higher than the Saturn's bumper and shaped like the corner of a bumper affixed to a 4x4 pickup.

As tempting as it may be to characterize these facts as nothing more than curious anomalies that require no explanation, I worry about them.

Our goal should be to develop at least one theory that accounts for all of the known facts and almost 5 years after Maura disappeared we're still trying to separate the known from the unknown, which is dispiriting.